Based on my living in the Chicagoland area, I have always been skeptical of Al Gore's global warming schtick. Turns out that Chicago's summers have steadily and obviously gotten cooler since the 1930's, and a North Illinois University researcher theorizes that midwest farmers might "be at fault" for the dramatic cooling trend (because of modern farming practices).
From the decades of the 1930's to the 2000's, the number of days each decade, where the Chicago temperature reached 90 F (31 C), was HALVED from 344 days in the 1930's to just 172 days in the 2000's. It is a pity that this link does not show the graph I saw in the Chicago Tribune newspaper yesterday, because the obvious cooling trend in Chicago is quite striking.
Far from beiing a scientist I simply do not believe that such regional factors have an impact on regional wetaher but all these climate models are just models, nobody can actually prove this cause-and -result theory. I am very suspicious about unproven scientific theories because you never know who is behind them. However, the global warming is not a conspiracy theory - the glaciers of the Alps, for example, are undoubtedly melting away at a dramatic speed which will have serious effects on the people who live in the area. Huge areas of the Alps region will be inhabitable in a few decades. We can watch the the melting of the glaciers as we can watch the melting of the poles although the predictions about what will happen is not so obvious as in the Alps.
Considering that nobody can really prove and tell us if the global warming will have all the predicted effects (rising of the ocean levels etc) I think we should act like these predictions are true rather than totally dismiss them and do nothing. If the global warming is man-made we have the duty to change our ways in order to preserve the planet for future generations. Since preserving the planet means saving resources and energy and reduce the emission of carbon dioxide, we should do this even if we do not know for sure if the theories are true. Saving energy and reducing any kind of industrial emission can only be good and is certainly the responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, the world will not be able to agree on any limit values for selfish reasons.
Micrówave · Member since
Funny you mention farming
That whole global warming stuff started with the invention of the Cotton Gin. In fact, it's all been pretty downhill since that.
But don't worry, the eruption in Iceland did far more damage than man will ever do.
JoxerTheDeityPirate · Member since
i blame the cows
The Real Wizard · Member since
Nobody's debating that temperatures fluctuate. But only a fool can deny the greenhouse effect after doing adequate research into the topic. In fact, even high school science students can conduct simple experiments proving that carbon dioxide heats up the air greater than oxygen.
To compare this to a volcano is pointless, as these are completely separate issues. The melting polar ice caps will have Florida under water in 150 years, as the sea level is rising a few inches every year. This is undebatable. Some people like to use the growing antarctic ice caps as proof to negate global warming, but the fact is there's so much ice down there to begin with that the water cycle creates more rain and thus more ice. However, this is not the situation in the arctic.
Some conservatives like to deny global warming is because it doesn't work in accordance to their worldview that their god controls all things unseen. Others simply aren't scientists, so they just don't understand how much the industrial world has effected the environment. A few conservative scientists already have pre-conceived notions leading them to create a whole lot of bad science. They are a small but loud voice, as minorities out in right field tend to be.
But the greatest source of climate change denial is the energy lobby in Washington. No need to elaborate on that, is there?
The Real Wizard · Member since
YourValentine - honest question here. What's the general consensus of global warming belief in Germany that you've observed? I'd say it's about 50/50 in Canada. I get a sense that people in Germany are in tune with environmental concerns, hence all the bike riding and pollution laws (not to mention your green party was in power in the 70s). How's this compared to the rest of Europe?
YourValentine · Member since
Bob, I think that doubts about the global warming theories are quite recent, most people here believe that industrial emissions are responsible for the climate change. It does not make a lot of difference because in published opinion most Germans believe that the protection of the environment is essential for our future. For example, there were plans to build a "modern" coal power station in my city last year - 60 000 people joined forces in a civil initiative and prevented the project. The parties who voted for the project were voted out of power in the local elections. We have a tradition in environmental issues since the 1970s when the rising oil price stopped the economy cold and the nation realised that the economy was depending very much on Middle East oil.
However, do not forget that Germany is quite a small country, not even twice as large as New Jersey but with 80 million people, we have a much bigger necessity to protect the environment than for example the US or Canada. When the first oil crisis in the 1970s hit the economy we did not have the option of off-shore drilling or a war in the Middle East, so we had to save energy and to invest in renewable energy. If we had a whole continent to exploit, maybe we would not be so conscious of the environment. Certainly the Germans are in no way better than other people - it's all a matter of perspective. For example, public transportation is much more in use here but it's much easier to run trains in a smaller country than in the USA, for example, where you simply need a car to survive.The Green party is quite strong here, just last week they won over 20% in a state election after the Federal government considered to prolong the run time of the German nuclear power plants - much against the public opinion.
I think that the Germans are pushing the EU towards carbon dioxide emission restrictions, other nations are not so worried, but basically there is a bigger concern in Europe than in North America which is considered as "unteachable" by many people here.
The Real Wizard · Member since
YourValentine wrote:
"If we had a whole continent to exploit, maybe we would not be so conscious of the environment. Certainly the Germans are in no way better than other people - it's all a matter of perspective."
You're right, just about everything does begin with self-interest. But is it too optimistic to say that decades after the initial oil crisis, the people of Germany are genuinely more environmentally conscious, and not just because they *have* to be?
Micrówave · Member since
[QUOTE]The melting polar ice caps will have Florida under water in 150 years, as the sea level is rising a few inches every year. This is undebatable.[/QUOTE]
Really? Millions of people still living in Florida (without an established escape plan) would be able to debate you on this. I seriously hope you're not drinking the environmental Kool Aid and believing that. If it is "undebatable", then why not tell us about some other tropical nation that has been engulfed by the melting ice caps?
Louisiana (the entire state) is closer to sea level than Flordia. So will it be underwater also? Billions of dollars have been spent fixing a community that has a little more than 100 years of life left? Apparently it is VERY debatable, as the environmentalist wackos have failed to earn any support from anybody within the US government. I mean, wouldn't it have been wiser to just post a "CLOSED" sign on the state line and move everyone to Kansas after Hurricane Katrina?
Oh wait, Kansas will be underwater in 178 years.
Bottom line, I guess we all need to become better swimmers.
The Real Wizard · Member since
Micrówave wrote:
"why not tell us about some other tropical nation that has been engulfed by the melting ice caps?"
Tropical nations are all well south of Florida, thus it will be much longer than 150 years before they are under water. The melting ice caps are in the north. 85% of Greenland was covered in ice year-round 20 years ago, and today it's about half. The islands in northern Canada are starting to see the effects:
Do the math - sea level is rising roughly 2 inches (about 6cm) per year, and much of Florida is 10m above sea level. 1000 cm / 6cm per year = 167 years.
Ultra-right wing Fox news even published a story on this a few years back. This scientist's numbers are relatively conservative, but the issue is addressed in great detail:
And if this conservative estimate is correct, then New Orleans and Miami will be under water in 200 years. This is a fascinating link to get a visual representation of it:
Yes, climate change in the grand scheme of our history is a cyclical thing, but right now it's happening faster than at any other time in history. So is it a coincidence that it's happening while we're releasing ridiculously high amounts of heat-trapping gas into the atmosphere?
The majority of anti-global warming propaganda comes from the energy lobby. Clearly they're doing a great job. Short term monetary and political gain always come first, so the oil companies and politicians aren't going to make this an issue for people to be aware of. And let's face it, a large portion of the American population is blissfully ignorant of science and the wider world around them (over half of them believe in angels and deny evolution), so they're not going to be aware of this issue any time soon. This is why few people in Florida and Louisiana are worried.
Saint Jiub · Member since
GH: Tropical nations are all well south of Florida, thus it will be much longer than 150 years before they are under water.
Gravity works differently In different parts of the world or is water the consistency of molasses?
The Real Wizard · Member since
Panchgani wrote:
"Gravity works differently In different parts of the world or is water the consistency of molasses?"
Absolutely it does! Objects at the equator have a weaker gravitational pull than objects at the poles. This includes water, hence why the effects of polar ice caps melting are currently seen in the north and are gradually working their way south instead of being seen evenly worldwide.
YourValentine · Member since
Bob, environmental consciousness is a virtue in itself here - children are taught that you cannot waste energy and resources, it's regarded as rude and anti-social. Germans have a tradition in saving, so it was not so hard to educate people to be aware of the environmental consequences of their behaviour. When I was a child and people spoke about their new car it was all about the speed and the size of the engine but today it's about how little fuel the car needs and which alternative fuel the car uses. Values have generally changed over the years - after the first oil crisis in the 1970s. That does not mean that all people are equally aware of environmetal issues, it's only a tendency. We have many laws to proetct the environment which are generally accepted as useful.
It is true that people can separate garbage and save oil until they are blue in the face - it won't help as long as the rules are made by corporate industry and the profit is so big. Look at the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - why is off-shore drilling even allowed? Obama had already given up his resistance against more offshore drilling - it needed the catastrophe to change his mind and to realise that profit is the only motive of the petrol industry, not safety and not environmental issues. Of course the price will be paid by the fishermen and the people whose shores are ruined and poisoned just like the natives in Canada pay the price for the oil sand industry - it's unbelievable how they can totally ruin the landscape and poison the water with no responsibility shown towards nature. It's frustrating to see how "global players" destroy the planet and there is no way to get an international agreement on stopping the CO2 emissions in favour of all our future.
There are a couple of eye - opening satellite pictures on the Nasa Earth Observatory website
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/
Look under "World Of Change" - Antarctic Ozone Hole
Micrówave · Member since
That's all fine and dandy, Sir GH, but I've got the one thing that throws the monkey wrench in your data.
Let me see the data from 50-100 years ago. Oh wait, you can't. There is none.
See, that's what these environmentalist whack jobs can't get past. Twenty years is a blink of an eye in the history of our planet. Technically, we've had global warming since the Ice Age... and it really hasn't been a bad thing.
Perhaps there was another form of life on Earth that could only live in absolutely freezing conditions. A few of them started driving snowmobiles and using aerosol deodorant, which caused global warming, thus causing extinction to the entire race of Yeti, save a couple that live in mountains and scare campers. That's about as plausible as this global warming talk.
Honestly, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Greenland will NOT be completely covered by ice in 200 years? No. See, weathermen can't even predict what's going to happen next Tuesday, but all of the sudden there's some scientist that can forecast years into the future by using a bar chart?
The Real Wizard · Member since
Micrówave wrote:
"Let me see the data from 50-100 years ago. Oh wait, you can't. There is none."
We have fields of study including geology, archaeology, and paleoclimatology to make educated assessments about the earth's past. Or with your logic, there were no dinosaurs, cavemen, or Pangaea since nobody was there to take notes at the time.
"Honestly, can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Greenland will NOT be completely covered by ice in 200 years?"
The concept of proof is only applicable in the present, as any given proposition can only be proven at a single instant in time. But let's save the philosophy discussion for another time.
The purpose of science is to make logical conclusions and predictions based on available data in the present and from the past. In the case of global warming, every credible scientist has all the necessary data to predict that sea levels will continue rising and land will begin to slowly disappear as long as our co2 emissions do not drastically decrease.
"See, weathermen can't even predict what's going to happen next Tuesday, but all of the sudden there's some scientist that can forecast years into the future by using a bar chart?"
Weather is cyclical and can be unpredicatable. Carbon dioxide emissions, however, are not fluctuating. Over the past few centuries, they have gradually increased. You're comparing apples and oranges. Comparing global warming to the weatherman simply demonstrates that you are not qualified to discuss this topic on any level. Educate yourself, please:
