Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global warming poll

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Global warming poll

    that's just a bunch of random goose honking mr. santos. i will ask you one question and i am at the same time under the impression you are not an employee for exxon mobile. even if it is not real like you say and all the ice is melting because ice just likes to melt for no reason now days, what the heck can it hurt being proactive verse not. it would seem to me it is the best way to combat this little problem we have going on right now called blood for oil. smoke screen it all you want but the reality is big oil biz is at the center of all this "crap" as you say. any better way to stop this monster then mother nature? i think not.

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Global warming poll

      What are you trying to say Daniel? First of all you quote a site with a strong anti-globalwarming stance;

      "This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition.
      The Cooler Heads Coalition formed May 6, 1997 to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations."

      Then you proceed to correctly point out why the "evidence" there is garbage. You seem to misunderstand what the source you are quoting is all about - they are ANTI global warming - it suits them to pretend it isn't happening. You seem to have assumed the opposite about them.

      Then you present incomplete data and try to rubbish it?

      I hear the sound of random goose honking too.

      The statement I copied above in blue states that in 1997 the decided to "dispel the myths of global warming", in other words, that's when they decided what they want to be true and put the blinkers on.

      In the last 9 years much evidence has come to light to show that not only is global warming happening, the indication (and I say this in the very cautious scientific useage of the word) is that increasing CO2 levels due to fossil fuel burning is the cause. However the anti-globalwarming crowd already made their minds up as an act of faith and need no evidence.

      I think it's a plot to flood the 2nd hand auto market with gas guzzling SUV's so you can buy them cheaply.

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Global warming poll

        My apologies for the lack of clarity here, I was off my meds (sadly, not a joke). My first paragraph was sarcasm, not obvious I suppose. There doesn't seem to be an option to edit posts in this forum.

        You seem to misunderstand what the source you are quoting is all about - they are ANTI global warming - it suits them to pretend it isn't happening. You seem to have assumed the opposite about them.
        Actually, I do not misunderstand, although I may not have made this very clear. Note also the domain name they have, globalwarming.org. There is obviously reason to all of this rhyme. The strategy is to label a negative agenda with a positive-sounding name. Other examples:
        Then you present incomplete data and try to rubbish it?
        Actually, the data on the Antarctic temperature is not incomplete except for the past 2 or 3 years. Again, this data is on the average temperature of the Antarctic region. I believe I read that the temperature at the peninsula has increased by about 2.5 degrees Celsius lately.

        What I was attempting to do is to demonstrate how valid data can be construed to present an invalid conclusion. Additionally, this is done in a manner that millions of Americans are willing to believe. My intent was, further, to analyze the techniques used to perform this manipulation. While around 100% of the articles published on global warming, in peer-reviewed science journals over the last several years have absolutely no controversy on rather or not the phenomena of global warming is both damaging our environment and caused by human activities, over 50% of the articles in commercial media have attempted to give equal weight to the arguments that global warming is and isn't such a problem. This clearly shows that these manipulations are effective on public opinion.

        While the actual global temperature changes are not yet *that* drastic (in my opinion), I'm most alarmed by the CO2 levels. This is perhaps the fact that big oil attempts to dispel the most. Irrefutable scientific evidence exists that links global temperature to CO2 levels in a symbiotic relationship (i.e., they both effect each other). Thus (as I understand it), if all human CO2 emissions were to stop today, the temperature would continue to rise for some time. Last year, scientists were able to ascertain CO2 levels going back 650,000 years (quite amazing I think). This evidence shows that over the last 650,000 years, CO2 levels have never been over 300 parts per million. I believe we are at around 372 or so now.

        But back to all of this data and charting, if you actually examine the chart in Mr. Milloy's article, you may see what I am explaining. If you study statistical analysis at all (I have to do some of this for my job, I'm an engineer), you know that a trend line is a mathematical mechanism to represent the overall trend of a data set. You cannot derive more than one trend line from a single data set. This is fallacy. If you want to divide your data set up, that's one thing, but to display your entire data set on a single chart and then insert more than one trend line is wholly incorrect, and in this case, misleading (i.e., the blue line extending accross the entire chart indicating a slow decrease in temperature when it only represents 30% of the data).

        The chart I inserted inline is from NASA and reflects global temperature changes instead of changes isolated to the Antarctica. I don't know what the last year of data that was used is (I presume 2004-ish). I believe that NASA derived this data from some other organizations.

        One more note: I also meant to emphasize the role of this Steven Milloy character. I would liken him to the Magic Johnson of the oil industry. He is essentially an all-star, professional liar and he is highly paid for it. (check out the above wikipedia article on him). It is public knowledge that he is on the bankrolls of Philip Morris and Exxon-Mobile, so his agenda should be clear. There is a fine science to analyzing the statements one makes to isolate logical fallacies. Every university offers courses on this. Nonetheless, if you listen to one US congressional hearing, it would seem to be a forgotten science.

        that's just a bunch of random goose honking mr. santos
        I actually enjoy the sound of geese honking. I'm fortunate enough to live next to a duck pond where we get Canada geese during the winter (I live in Texas)

        My Conclusions:
        • I may have bipolar, and may tend to be verbose, but I do know what I'm talking about, although I'm not so deluded to think that I'm infallible.
        • Doubt is a powerful tool.
        • If I were writing a real article about this, you wouldn't find a single statement that wasn't backed by solid references or a single logical fallacy. But I'm not. Manipulation and misrepresentation of the facts depend upon logical fallacies and data that is not scientifically based.
        • I define the word ?scientific? as information and conclusions obtained or derived using the Scientific Method in an objective and un-manipulated fashion.
        • Propaganda is a fine art that I have studied for many years to understand it's mechanisms. This posting was intended to expose some of the mechanisms that are being used to protect environmental perpetrators.
        any better way to stop this monster then mother nature? i think not.
        "And nature has a funny way of breaking what does not bend."
        -- Jewel
        Daniel

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Global warming poll

          Ah Ok, thanks for coming back and clarifying Daniel. There is an option to edit posts, but it's time limited - a common bulletin board device to stop people being able to change totally what they said.

          If you'd like to edit it, send me the new version and I can replace - if it's important to you. We do get the odd (in every sense of the word!) "propogandist" coming by here and posting, I'm afraid I put you as a possible in that category.

          A belated welcome to the board

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Global warming poll

            Please can any of you give me som e sort of idea of the damage that has been done in the last 200 years?
            Thankes

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Global warming poll

              Now don't go misunderstanding me here folks. I'm new here so be gentle yeah?

              "I agree global warming is happening." Thats got that out of the way!

              What I disagree with is the explanations coming from the scientific bodies. There are so many lies, some of them quite huge, coming from the western governments that I find it impossible to believe anything until I have researched and found arguments from the pro's and anti's, then come to my own rational conclusions.
              I do hope my questions will be answered sensibly and not just shot down as dribble coming from an idiot....we aint all rocket scientists!!

              Let me start by asking about a very confusing issue, to me anyway.
              There's a reporter from an American news crew on tv recently telling us about the ice shelf behind him which is breaking off. The guy has ice on his eyelashes and around his mouth and is wearing a jacket 6 inches thick. I asked a scientist how the ice shelf could possibly be melting and breaking off when the temperatures in that region are minus 30 for 8 months of the year. He replied that melted water seeps down through the ice causing cracks over a very long time period.
              Now what I can't understand is: 1/ Where does the melt water come from? If its on the surface then how does it manage to seep anywhere as it would instantly freeze as soon as it left the surface, so how can it retain its heat for long enough or until its seeped to a level where it can continue to form a crack? This same argument does not appear to apply to the glaciers around Mt Everest where daytime temperatures far exceed anything recorded in the Arctic\Antarctic but where the ice remains frozen.

              Pack ice is pack ice because its impenetrable due to the lack of air bubbles. It takes a lot of melting, thats why icebergs can float around in the warmer ocean currents for months if not years before melting.
              I can understand how the cracks could appear over time if there were volcanic activity underneath the ice but the scientists would spot this from satellite and seismology data wouldn't they? Fault lines? Someone would spot this!
              I have a theory that stray microwaves are being caught up in the earths magnetic field and pulled down onto the poles where they are acting like a huge microwave oven and internally melting the ice sheets. Sound ridiculous? Why not? The fastest warming has been in the last 25 years, since mobile phones and microwave ovens etc., have been in use?? It would explain how the ice could melt internally to cause cracks in such a short space of time without the need for an external melt-water source! Lets face it stray microwaves are not in short supply as any radio astronomer will tell you!

              2/ Very rarely do I see water vapour mentioned in arguments about global warming. Considering it accounts for 95% of all greanhouse gasses surely it should be included in analysis?? Don't forget that if it were not for the water vapour in the atmos' the earth would be a far cooler place to live due to its heat trapping capabilities which can be witnessed on cloudy and clear nights in winter when the difference in temperature can be significant.

              There now. That was painless. Its the little details I need explaining before I commit myself to one camp or the other. At the moment I'm securely nailed to the fence! Too many contradictions!

              Its pointless handing out equations and talking trillions of cubic metres blah di blah when the simple science going on outside your kitchen window seems to contradict what we are being told.

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Global warming poll

                You have some very valid point Funky, let me try to help with a few of them:

                Let me start by asking about a very confusing issue, to me anyway..... Now what I can't understand is: 1/ Where does the melt water come from? If its on the surface then how does it manage to seep anywhere as it would instantly freeze as soon as it left the surface, so how can it retain its heat for long enough or until its seeped to a level where it can continue to form a crack? This same argument does not appear to apply to the glaciers around Mt Everest where daytime temperatures far exceed anything recorded in the Arctic\Antarctic but where the ice remains frozen.
                Melt water can seep a long way before becoming frozen again, it does form on the surface and does drip down into crevasses. If the ice is at nearly freezing, it requires little extra energy to melt it. In the summer in Antarctica, many glacier crevasses have a pool of near-freezing water at the bottom - it used to scare me to death thinking about it when walking across a glacier. A n icy lake at the bottom of a crevasse seems a lot worse to me than a dry crevasse. The same applies whereever the glacier is.

                How crevassed an ice-berg is depends on where it came from and how it was formed. Some glaciers meet the sea at an angle that causes much crevassing, it is this and the terrain they flowed over that determines how many cracks they have and how deep they go.

                Many Antarctic icebergs however come from iceshelves. Here the ice from the land meets the sea at a shallow angle, the land-sea boundary can come 10's even 100's of miles from the edge of the ice-shelf. Again depending on circumstances, the ice of the iceshelf will become compressed and consolidated again, so ice-shelf berg may not be so crevassed and readily broken up.

                You have to appreciate that it's not always the average temperature that is the key factor to melting ice, but how many days the temperature is above freezing. An annual average of 5 below freezing with no days ever above freezing will mean no melt. An annual average of 10 below freezing with 10 days per year above freezing means a lot of melt.

                "Back-yard science" - imagine you build a snow-man, it stays at 2 degrees below freezing for a month - snow-man lasts a month, but just one day with temperatures 5-10 above freezing which is perfectly possible before temps go back to -2, means at least a partly melted snow-man, if not a puddle.

                The incident you refer to of water seeping into cracks in the Larsen B iceshelf is an example of a "tilting point". For thousands of years, there wasn't enough summer melt to cause the ice-shelf disintigration, but just like a tilting see-saw, eventually it tipped to the other position. While the underlying cause is a very small change, the effect is enormous because of exactly where it happened.

                What you say about water vapour is true, it is rarely mentioned as its influence is very complicated. The fact is though that global temperatures are rising despite the effect of water vapour. The main difficulty I think is in understanding this is how a small overall planetry temperature of a degree or so can have such a large effect when we see daily and yearly temperatures fluctuate by far more than this.

                The changes are seen at the "edges" first, like the nearly melted snow-man. If it's always -30 and goes to -28, that glacier overhanging your house is irrelevant. If it's always -1 and goes to +1, that glacier changes its character.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Global warming poll

                  Thanks for the prompt reply Paul. Yep, I think I missed one critical point in my analysis. The fact that pack ice is around 1.8?C due to the salinity of the water and, as you say, doesn't take much to melt it. Hmmm! Back to the drawing board!
                  I do hope some scientist type can comment on my idea that some melting could be caused by stray microwaves. I think the idea has some credance due to the fact that the radar hotspots in the Arctic seem to be inline with North America and Northern Europe longitudinally directly under the magnetic field lines. Maybe this localisation is only due to trade winds blowing warm air northwards or something but I'll tell you what, ice melts pretty damn quick in a microwave oven!!

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Global warming poll

                    http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2...7-04-02-10.asp

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Global warming poll

                      Sorry for "reviving" this discussion, I just wanted to have a say in this. I think that global warming in Antarctica has not been discussed, only in a documentary named "Europe's next Ice Age" which I unfortuantly missed. The United Nations have to stand up and start talking about Antarctica. If they can, all animals and the ice itself will be saved. They managed to help tsunami survivors etc. so whatever is the reason they save Antarctica?

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X