Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 51
The Science of Global WarmingPage 3 of 19    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)

This makes no sense at all. Ice cap melts, ice becomes thicker. ...that isnt even reasonable logic prima facie.


Let me try this again. Global warming causes more precipitation. At the poles this means more snow. More snow means a thickening of the ice. However, global warming also means a warming of the oceans. This means a melting of the ice where it meets the ocean. Haven't you read the IPCC reports???
 netrunner38301
Joined: 5/6/2008
Msg: 52
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/17/2008 8:23:54 PM
my question now is this now that Global Warming has proven to be a farce/fraud

will that idiot al gore have to give the nobel prize back ?

in my opinion yes he should have to and publically disavow the unfortunate/inconvient truth movie about the same sham, however he will just probably make some excuse like he did when he claimed to have invented the internet and then backtracked on his statements about that too.

again just my 2 cents worth....
 nicebluiz
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 53
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/18/2008 5:13:18 AM
Dave, I'm going to add something here in response to your msg. 44, because for once we're in agreement here. Government is not the solution, as you only hope that government sets the target and adds incentives, then steps aside.

Unfortunately, my fine fellow, I think you and I both know that politicians can't and won't "step aside" once they're involved. Unlike the admiral of yore, who simply sends a ship's captain to a pre-determined location then lets him get the ship there as best he knows how (trusting he knows what he's doing); politicians not only set the goal, they then tell us all how to achieve it and steer the ship (even if it's in the wrong direction).

That is why it's best to leave politicians out of any of the "take action" changes you advocate. Once you've set them in the "leadership" role, they think they know better than you what should be done---and advocates have made the mistake of convincing them that the reason they're doing this is to save the planet, which will give them more impetus to label anyone who disagrees with the way to achieve a goal as some sort of heretic.

Basically, Dave, politicians are uncontrollable, and should be left in charge of as little as possible. That is what the history of politics teaches.
 Robinson2
Joined: 3/21/2008
Msg: 54
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/18/2008 10:53:57 AM
You're quite right bluiz, but it's actually worse than that. Since the second world war Science has become a government funded activity. There's a strong incentive there for scientists to attempt to direct the debate by publishing research that supports the paradigm, in order to obtain grant money for their institutions. Eisenhower warned about this, as did Kuhn. The end result is what you see today: papers almost wholly supporting the paradigm that see certain problems as "acute", when in fact they may not be at all.

Politicians are bound to act on scientific advice and the scientists are advising them to give their institutions more money, in order to support the paradigm. A veritable feedback cycle if ever I saw one.
 CountIbli
Joined: 6/1/2005
Msg: 55
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/18/2008 3:38:40 PM

Politicians are bound to act on scientific advice and the scientists are advising them to give their institutions more money, in order to support the paradigm. A veritable feedback cycle if ever I saw one.


You're dead on with this one. Almost all the scientific advances for the past hundred years have come from private companies. They have a strong incentive to produce results. If they can't produce results the company is wasting money and will eventually go out of business. Not so with government. Congressmen will vote to fund research as long as it benefits them politically. This is true whether we're talking about AGW or the Patriot Missile.
 2wheel
Joined: 2/19/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/18/2008 9:40:50 PM

Polar scientists on thin ice

Last summer, Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will "lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.

If these findings are validated in future by CryoSat-2 and other developments that are able to assess the 28% of Antarctica not yet surveyed, the low-lying areas of the world will have weathered the worst of the global warming predictions: The populations of these areas -- in Bangladesh, in the Maldives, and elsewhere -- will have found that, if anything, they can look forward to a future with more nutrient-rich seacoast, not less.




http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 57
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/19/2008 9:37:37 PM
my question now is this now that Global Warming has proven to be a farce/fraud

I can see the science has disappeared and the free form opinions have started...
 nicebluiz
Joined: 5/23/2006
Msg: 58
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/19/2008 10:57:46 PM
Not exactly, Peace. It's not PROVEN a fraud, but it's certainly open to serious doubt and open question. The science behind it is largely based on computerized General Circulation Models, and they've been shown to be invalid time and again, yet climatology still refuses whatever to reconsider them. Climatology treats the models as if they were experiments against reality, when they are not.

As several papers on the subject of climate sensitivity have shown, the feedback mechanisms roughly cancel each other, and we're left with a small one degree celsius rise in temperature from a doubling of co2 (from the pre-industrial 280 ppm to 560 ppm). This is far from the expected rise and resultant alleged problems that such a warming would bring, as represented in the models.

Models are consistently incorrect, what do you suppose would be the reasonable conclusion concerning the hypothesis programmed into them? That it's incorrect, as well.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 59
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/20/2008 5:46:11 PM

Dave, I'm going to add something here in response to your msg. 44, because for once we're in agreement here. Government is not the solution, as you only hope that government sets the target and adds incentives, then steps aside.

Unfortunately, my fine fellow, I think you and I both know that politicians can't and won't "step aside" once they're involved. Unlike the admiral of yore, who simply sends a ship's captain to a pre-determined location then lets him get the ship there as best he knows how (trusting he knows what he's doing); politicians not only set the goal, they then tell us all how to achieve it and steer the ship (even if it's in the wrong direction).

That is why it's best to leave politicians out of any of the "take action" changes you advocate. Once you've set them in the "leadership" role, they think they know better than you what should be done---and advocates have made the mistake of convincing them that the reason they're doing this is to save the planet, which will give them more impetus to label anyone who disagrees with the way to achieve a goal as some sort of heretic.

Basically, Dave, politicians are uncontrollable, and should be left in charge of as little as possible. That is what the history of politics teaches.


We agree on the appropriate role of government, but disagree on the potential for government to act appropriately. The sort of responsible government intervention I advocate is exactly what happened in the eighties to address the ozone issue. It's exactly what has been used to address acid rain. So there is a track record, and a successful one at that.

Bear in mind that without government action we would have no limits on pollution whatsoever. Women would not have the right to vote. The civil rights movement would have gone nowhere. There would be no minimum wage, no overtime, no medicare, no social security system, no public roads or schools or police or fire departments. This list is endless. I hope you'd agree that we DO need government.

Every position of power requires some sort of check and balance. I fear an unfettered free market far more than I fear any freely elected government. Businesses exist to make profits. Some business leaders also strive to incorporate sound social values into their business practices, but while an economic case can be made for the long term profitability of values oriented business practices few businesses are able to think that far ahead, and it's too easy to sacrifice long term sustainable practices for the next quarter's balance sheet, ESPECIALLY if government doesn't intervene to create sound and immediate economic incentives for socially beneficial business practices.

But it's that very profit motive that can and should be used to develop effective government policy. That's what I advocate and many more politicians than you give credit to do as well.

And what is the check and balance system for government to prevent the sort of overly intrusive actions you fear? The ballot box. It's our collective refusal to vote intelligently or just vote at all that in my view has led us to the mess we're in now politically. We have consistently sent a clear message to any candidate that we pay scant attention to the finer points of good government, and far more attention to catchy sound bites, purported or actual personal indiscretions, hair styles, tie color or countless other baseless reasons for how or whether we cast our votes.

Just as the market responds to whatever silly trends we demonstrate the willingness to spend our money on, politicians respond to whatever tactics will get them votes.

You assert that politicians are uncontrollable. I assert that politicians are far more controllable by you and I than businesses are. All we need do is demonstrate through our votes and regular communications with our elected leaders that we are indeed paying attention and expect responsible leadership.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 60
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/20/2008 6:49:53 PM

Looking for opinions from the well informed of just what percentage has just volcanic eruptions and forest fires contributed to the co2 emmissions for the last 60 years? Less or more then the industrial emmissions and how much or how less? list your sources please.


Rather than cite specific percentages and numbers, let me throw back at you the question of how much of the INCREASE in CO2 atmospheric concentrations in the last 60 years can be attributed to volcanic eruptions and natural forest fires? Both of those sources have existed since before humans inhabited the earth, yet we have the highest CO2 concentration today in human history. Unless you have evidence to cite of an extraordinary increase in eruptions and natural fires in the past sixty years compared to the past 10-20,000 years, I'm not sure I understand the point of the question.

Dave
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 61
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/20/2008 8:43:04 PM
I would conclude the atmospheric CO2 has multiple causes and is pretty much meaningless except for the positive effect on plant growth. As I have explained before, I disagree with the theory behind AGW. Water vapor and cloud cover have much more profound effect. Clouds reflect heat in the form of IR much like green house glass yet reflect broad spectrum sunlight, the source of the heat. Water vapor is a far wider spectrum absorber of IR than CO2. Weather patters, largely dictated by geography, distribute water vapor and clouds. Ocean currents, powered by solar heating and fresh water, much from melt, distribute heat and impacts atmospheric water. Man has made huge changes in land based water flow mostly for watering plants and generating power. This has made large and measurable humidity changes accompanied by changes in flora. Again, how much does this mean? I would suspect by far the greatest impact still comes from those ocean currents, steered by geology, and powered in part by fresh water ingress from melting. In theory, as the polar ice melts, the warm water current flow closer to the poles increasing the melt rate. This further increases the polar currents etc. Once it runs out of adequate fresh water, the polar currents weaken or stop and a refreeze starts over. A very long cycle, say ice age, with an asymptotic peak as the melt increases. Exactly what is being observed. As the long frozen tundra thaws, decay could increase CO2 but so what? That's not the engine.

Much of the AGW religious chanting is along the line of man-made CO2 being an experiment without a control. I would suggest a bias against "evil" oil companies colors not just conclusions but observations. What is a dangerous experiment with a history of negative results is empowerment of government. The early pollution fighting efforts in cars had government dictated technologies resulting in higher fuel consumption. Then we had MTBE in the water supplies. Now we have methanol mandates causing all kinds of environmental damage with very questionable results. The lower energy results in higher fuel consumption. The caustic damage to fuel systems results in poorer functioning engines with less efficiency and shorter life. A shorter life means more resources used to replace the cars.

What we have now is a society that puts its trust in celebrities, when they are not in rehab. If you were to ask the average person the three most common gasses in the atmosphere, most who could actually name three gasses, would have CO2 as the third most common. They are far more likely to name the three most celebrated celebrity's rehab facilities and what they are doing to fight global warming.
 Dr. Gazebo
Joined: 3/24/2008
Msg: 62
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/20/2008 10:40:48 PM
Whew..back on track...ty !
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 63
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 11:14:51 AM
The global warming problem is quite simple if you look at it on logical stand point.
Basically, it divides into 2 possibilities, assuming we rule out the idea that the earth isn't warming. It leaves us with:

1) - The global warming is caused by industrial CO2 and human activity

or

2) - The global warming isn't caused by industrial CO2 and human activity

There is also 2 possibilities as to what to DO about it. Essentially, we can:

a) - Do something about CO2

b) - Do nothing about out CO2 emissions and continue business as usual

Now, let's see what are the possible combinations, and their consequences:

Case 1 + a : Global warming is caused by CO2 and human activity, and we do something to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions
=> It is going to cost a lot, it will be a tough change and we end up surviving, we stop the raise of the oceans, prevent the displacement of millions of people, and end up in a new ear of alternative energy with clean, renewable sources and infrastructure, quite possibly changing our way of life forever (and yes, with a lot less comfort that we have now on the occidental world).

Case 2 + a: Global warming isn't caused by CO2 and human activity, yet we do something to dramatically reduce our CO2 emissions
==> So maybe it was solar flares. Or maybe it was "normal" - a cyclic warming that happens every few thousands of years. Either way, we are screwed, because nothing we do can change what's about to happen. Yet, we are going to try it, and it's going to cost a lot, many industries will die (such as the oil industry) and we end up deeply changing our way of life before the major consequences of global warming hit us. Yet, it's not like our way of life was worth saving: at this rate, we ARE deleting earth's resources, polluting our water and food, killing other humans in mad wars for energy, and so on. So, all in all, even if global warming wasn't stopped by the ban on CO2, the beneficial effects would still be worth it: at least, in this changed earth, we won't be dependent anymore on fossil fuel to survive, so this change will at least prepare us to survive the odds.

Case 1 + b : Global warming is caused by CO2 and human activity, but we do nothing about the CO2 emissions and continue business as usual
===> Ocean rises. The map is changing dramatically, and hundreds of millions of people are displaced or killed. The ecosystem reaches critical level, changing the delicate balance we live in. Europe falls into an ice age, as the gulf stream slows down and eventually stops. Tornado increase to much higher rates. Some places get flooded, some other become deserts. Billions might die. It might have been prevented, but some people preferred to argue and keep the huge oil industries running instead, so we did nothing. When we finally wake up collectively, it is too late, as the no-return point has been reached.

Case 2 + b : Global warming isn't caused by CO2 and human activity, and we do nothing about the CO2 emissions and continue business as usual
===> So maybe it was solar flares. Or maybe it was "normal" - a cyclic warming that happens every few thousands of years. Either way, we are screwed, because nothing we do can change what's about to happen. So hey, let's do nothing. Let's sit back and relax, enjoy our famous American way of life, consume enough goods to waste the content of 5 planets, pollute our food and water (as well as everyone's food and water), and continue to exploit and screw over the poor countries, until all hell break loose and we all die - except out elite of course, because when you have the money, you can survive, right?

Basically, the result of this little demonstration is simple.
That global warming IS or ISN'T caused by human activity is not an important question. Either way, if we act, we win: we wither stop a disaster, or we don't yet we at least become independent from fossil fuel and change our way of life toward sustainability.
If we do nothing, we loose. We can loose by letting our industries and oil giant kill the planet is so many other ways than global warming, and then face global warming consequences, while we feel helpless, or we can loose by CHOOSING to do exactly the same. How is that for choice?
 Steve_Sandy
Joined: 3/19/2006
Msg: 64
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 2:03:01 PM
looked at the global warming as a way of taxing people

mercury and mars noted to be suffering from global warming, what is common with them ?

Answer = The sun

yes, mankind have a small amount of input, something along a few fractions of 1 %

Greenland used to be green and covered in birch forests 4-5 metres high, due to all the ice, it gets dwarf trees at best..
 cingray3
Joined: 10/17/2007
Msg: 65
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 4:13:34 PM
What is the core ambition of the ("Global warming is happening people. SO PANIC" )community...?
I get the creeping feeling that ..."The industrialization of the world has been a curse people....SO STOP DOING IT"...is the core sentiment! -WRONG!

The other sentiment is "Industry is only interested in making a profit"... MMM!
My friends, There are only two possible positions... Making a profit...or making a loss.
You don't survive very long persuing the latter.
The main curbs on life expectancy are: War, Disease and Hunger.
The effect of industrialization, of the places that have done it, is to double life expectency.
Talking about waste is a good thing...talking about dropping the industrial society, is quiet frankly nuts!
The whole world is now getting in on the act...Health and Welfare is such draw you comfortable people out there...with too much time on your hands
Deal with it.
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 66
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:12:16 PM
I think we should change the term to "Climate Change" and abandon "Global Warming", because the whole globe is just not seeing the "warming".

Here is a cut and paste from the USA Today for average temps in St. Clair County Michigan. For July 2008. Sorry the columns have shifted a bit, but I don't want to mess with the scientific data at all.

If you will all notice the most recent record high was in 2002.

D Sunrise Sunset Avg. High Avg. Low Mean Record High Record Low
1 5:56 AM 9:12 PM 80°F 61°F 70°F 97°F (2002) 44°F (1950)
2 5:56 AM 9:12 PM 80°F 61°F 70°F 97°F (2002) 47°F (1988)
3 5:57 AM 9:12 PM 81°F 61°F 71°F 98°F (1949) 50°F (1953)
4 5:57 AM 9:12 PM 81°F 61°F 71°F 98°F (1955) 49°F (1960)
5 5:58 AM 9:11 PM 81°F 61°F 71°F 99°F (1955) 52°F (1960)
6 5:59 AM 9:11 PM 81°F 62°F 71°F 100°F (1988) 48°F (1965)
7 5:59 AM 9:11 PM 81°F 62°F 71°F 100°F (1988) 48°F (1950)
8 6:00 AM 9:10 PM 81°F 62°F 72°F 99°F (1988) 45°F (1954)
9 6:01 AM 9:10 PM 82°F 62°F 72°F 99°F (1955) 49°F (1953)
10 6:01 AM 9:09 PM 82°F 62°F 72°F 93°F (1989) 50°F (1953)
11 6:02 AM 9:09 PM 82°F 62°F 72°F 94°F (1976) 50°F (1954)
12 6:03 AM 9:08 PM 82°F 63°F 72°F 94°F (1972) 50°F (1978)
13 6:04 AM 9:08 PM 82°F 63°F 72°F 96°F (1995) 51°F (1949)
14 6:04 AM 9:07 PM 82°F 63°F 72°F 101°F (1995) 42°F (1950)
15 6:05 AM 9:06 PM 82°F 63°F 72°F 100°F (1977) 47°F (1950)
16 6:06 AM 9:06 PM 82°F 63°F 72°F 96°F (1988) 47°F (1954)
17 6:07 AM 9:05 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 97°F (1986) 51°F (1954)
18 6:08 AM 9:04 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 97°F (1986) 52°F (1976)
19 6:09 AM 9:03 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 94°F (1977) 54°F (1965)
20 6:10 AM 9:02 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 98°F (1977) 47°F (1951)
21 6:11 AM 9:02 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 95°F (1957) 49°F (1950)
22 6:12 AM 9:01 PM 83°F 63°F 73°F 94°F (1955) 51°F (1992)
23 6:12 AM 9:00 PM 83°F 63°F 73°F 95°F (1984) 47°F (1985)
24 6:13 AM 8:59 PM 83°F 63°F 73°F 94°F (1955) 48°F (1954)
25 6:14 AM 8:58 PM 83°F 63°F 73°F 95°F (2001) 45°F (1953)
26 6:15 AM 8:57 PM 83°F 63°F 73°F 94°F (1953) 43°F (1991)
27 6:16 AM 8:56 PM 83°F 63°F 73°F 96°F (1955) 50°F (1962)
28 6:17 AM 8:55 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 96°F (1964) 50°F (1978)
29 6:18 AM 8:53 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 95°F (1964) 50°F (1952)
30 6:19 AM 8:52 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 94°F (1955) 51°F (1965)
31 6:20 AM 8:51 PM 82°F 63°F 73°F 102°F (1975) 51°F (1956)
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 67
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:22:16 PM
I apologize, USATODAY sent me to weather.co, so this is my source.

Oddly enough every month checked was cooler.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 68
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:25:05 PM
"There are only two possible positions... Making a profit...or making a loss"
- cingray3

You are wrong. The capitalism paradigm is so strongly implanted in your mind that you cannot even think outside of its frame.

For starter, consider non-profit organizations. They perform very well, produce goods and services, pay their employees - sometimes very well - and they can even make a profit, providing this profit is re-invested in the organization rather than going to shareholders.

You could also take a look at nationalized resources, everywhere in the world. Start in Quebec, where the electricity is amongst the cheapest on the globe, since we have the Bay James, the biggest hydro-lectrical complex on the world. Is the electricity sold to make a profit? No. It is a national resource and the company that distributes it is public. Although they do maek profits, their profit level is managed by governement regulations and their profits must be invested into the population's long terme benefit.

So, the idea that profits and losses are the only inescapable truth is preposterous. It's only an idea that was deeply implanted in your brain by our current regime. It not the only idea that is flawed: the idea that profit can always be increasing, toward infinity, using expendable and wasted, finite resources, is also ridiculous:

" The effect of industrialization, of the places that have done it, is to double life expectency." -cingrey3

Good. So tell me, what will be the effect of industrialization's collapse on life expectency, once we reach the end of our finite resources?
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 69
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:32:23 PM
"I think we should change the term to "Climate Change" and abandon "Global Warming", because the whole globe is just not seeing the "warming". Here is a cut and paste from the USA Today for average temps in St. Clair County Michigan. For July 2008. Sorry the columns have shifted a bit, but I don't want to mess with the scientific data at all. If you will all notice the most recent record high was in 2002." -roverdisc1

Okay, you are proving by a + b that you don't understand what global warming is all about, roverdisc1.

It's called GLOBAL. you know? Not just warming.

The idea is the earth as a WHOLE is slowly gaining warmth. If your head is in the freezer and your feet are in boiling water, does that make you globally good? I don't think so. So, yes, some regions will become generally colder and some will generally be warmer, but GLOBALLY, it's rising and this is debalancing the ecosystem at a scale never seen before in human life. Specific data from a single pinpoint area of the globe across a single month proves zit. Nothing. Niet. Nada. It would be like telling that your insurance fee will not rise after a car crash because your neighbore's fee didn't raise this year. It is clearer?
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 70
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:34:43 PM
The USA's highest temperature, 134° on July 10, 1913 in Death Valley, Calif., is also the official highest temperature in the Western Hemisphere. http://www.usatoday.com/weather/wheat7.htm

In that same link, scroll to the bottom and look at the State high temp record.

After you see that, can you tell me exactly how the globe is warming?
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 71
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:46:01 PM
I understand what I am talking about. Global does mean the "Globe". But id some regions get colder and some regions get hotter, doesnt that mean that "Globally" we are constant?

Here is the biggest question that I have. Considering that the earth will cool and warm all on it's own. Where do we set the "Global Temp."?
 fit_man4U
Joined: 4/13/2005
Msg: 72
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:54:09 PM
Is it not true that the head of the IPCC reluctantly admitted (i believe in January of this year) that global temperatures,on average, have not risen since 1998? Can someone confirm or elaborate on this.
 ConsciousSoul
Joined: 7/9/2008
Msg: 73
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 7:54:24 PM

The USA's highest temperature, 134° on July 10, 1913 in Death Valley, Calif., is also the official highest temperature in the Western Hemisphere. After you see that, can you tell me exactly how the globe is warming?


If the globe is warming past the non-return point, and the gulf stream stops, the entire Europe will go back to ICE age. Yet, it is a global warming that would have caused it.

For each year between 1913 and 2008, take the average temp for a state and add it to each other average temp for each other state for the whole Western hemisphere, then divide by the number of states. You now have a very rough GLOBAL average for the western hemisphere. Now, plot these number for each year, from 1913 to 2008, on a graph. Put the years horizontally and the temperature scale vertically. Draw an curve. Observe how the average temperature has been constant for years, then started increasing steadily in the last 20 years.

Or, if you still want to look at local temp rathern than global temp, take a plane and have a trip over a few well known mountain: Mont Blanc, Kilimanjaro, Everst. Notice the eternal snow peaks? They were named that way because the snow is eternal there, it cannot melt.. well, actually, it did. They are all dry now. Explain this?

Climatology is complex. It's not about one single place on earth, it's about the delicate balance of an entire ecosystem.
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 74
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:02:01 PM
The process of monoculture species has been common many times in the history of life on this scum covered ball of magma. Species that fall into this trap tend to de-evolve to some minimal level of existence incapable of surviving inevitable challenge. Human society has tried it many times as well.
Capitalism and industrialism are human society adaptations to enable innovation and collective human effort to achieve greater productivity and survive adversity and challenge. They are in effect a streamlined adaptation processes. Socialism takes away natural survival of the fittest and rewards non-productivity. Instead of the most productive becoming the decision makers through capitol generated by productivity, socialism puts the most parasitic in charge. Productive adaptations to energy supply will come from rewarded innovators, not government edict. Government will reward itself first. Suggest reading Animal Farm.
 Roverdisc1
Joined: 12/16/2005
Msg: 75
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/21/2008 8:06:49 PM
For the time being ConsciousSoul. I will agree with you if you can answer my last question.

The earth will warm and cool even without human intervention. Where do we set the global thermostat?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > The Science of Global Warming