djäveln wrote:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.htmlthink of climate change as a man walking up a hill playing with a yo-yo. the yo-yo represents annual temperature averages. It goes up and down. But the man is making steady uphill progress.
Nice analogy.
The problem is that the man walking up the hill is not made of carbon dioxide. He is made of sunlight.
Yeah, seriously, that isn't the best analogy. I get what you were trying to convey, but it's just not applicable.
I'll try to play along though:
Remember, that steady uphill progress is only in the last few decades. Go back further - like say, 400 years - and you'll see that the climate change man has traveled over a rolling terrain. Go back even further - like say, 1000 years - and you'll see that climate change man has hit a few peaks and valleys (not just 'roll'). Go back further than that, and you'll wonder why we humans think we're so damn important.
tax_us_all wrote:
Nice analogy.
The problem is that the man walking up the hill is not made of carbon dioxide. He is made of sunlight.
A common myth... but still a myth.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/index.htmlGLOBAL WARMING? IT’S THE COLDEST WINTER IN DECADES (UK Daily Express – Feb. 18, 2008)
Excerpt: NEW evidence has cast doubt on claims that the world’s ice-caps are melting, it emerged last night. Satellite data shows that concerns over the levels of sea ice may have been premature. It was feared that the polar caps were vanishing because of the effects of global warming. But figures from the respected US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show that almost all the “lost” ice has come back. Ice levels which had shrunk from 13million sq km in January 2007 to just four million in October, are almost back to their original levels. Figures show that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than is usual for the time of year.
djäveln wrote:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.htmlthink of climate change as a man walking up a hill playing with a yo-yo. the yo-yo represents annual temperature averages. It goes up and down. But the man is making steady uphill progress.
Correct, except he's been walking *downhill* for 10 years, and now he's coming to a *really steep downhill* patch. Best to burn lots of carbon-based fuels to try to mitigate the horrible consequences, like freezing penguins and roofs caving in from the ice.
are all college students dummm wrote:
DIII Runner wrote:If you're going to ask dingle about his background, then let's here your credentials too. I'm a science major and I don't know of a single professor in the department who does not believe in anthropogenic climate change. In fact, I don't even know of one who believes that there is still realistic debate.
You are either 1) lying, or 2) really need to get out more, both off and online.
I sincerely worry about people like you going into careers which involve "thinking."
Causes of climate change varied: poll
Engineers plan environmental summit
Gordon Jaremko
edmontonjournal.com
Thursday, March 06, 2008
EDMONTON - Only about one in three Alberta earth scientists and engineers believe the culprit behind climate change has been identified, a new poll reported today.
The expert jury is divided, with 26 per cent attributing global warming to human activity like burning fossil fuels and 27 per cent blaming other causes such as volcanoes, sunspots, earth crust movements and natural evolution of the planet.
A 99-per-cent majority believes the climate is changing. But 45 per cent blame both human and natural influences, and 68 per cent disagree with the popular statement that "the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled."
The divisions showed up in a canvass of more than 51,000 specialists licensed to practice the highly educated occupations by the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta.
"We're not surprised at all," APEGGA executive director Neil Windsor said today. "There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of."
The only agreement among professionals is "we should do everything we can" to understand climate, adapt structures such as buildings and bridges to change and reduce human contributions to harmful trends, Windsor said.
The survey received 1,077 replies or a sample rated as an accurate portrait of the occupational groups' views to within three percentage points 19 times out of 20, APEGGA reported.
Alberta Environment helped design the poll and will give the results to the provincial government, association spokesman Philip Mulder said.
APEGGA is planning an "environmental summit" with other concerned agencies on Alberta climate change causes, effects and adaptations.
No date is set yet for the event. "We would prefer to have it sooner rather than later," Mulder said.
"These sessions can be structured so that they result in ... a concerted action plan to be directed at policy makers," APEGGA's environment committee said in a report to association members.
Potential actions include devising Alberta climate change forecasts, encouraging greenhouse-gas cleanups like industrial waste carbon disposal, and developing adaptation programs such as water conservation and energy efficiency, the committee said.
Only one-third of engineers and earth scientists polled by APEGGA rated the province's current climate change action plan as adequate.
About two-thirds of the professionals said the government should take on a leading role in developing renewable or sustainable energy sources and promoting energy efficiency among consumers. About half urged the province to make Alberta a world capital of capturing and storing industrial greenhouse-gas waste.
Engineers and earth scientists mostly feel free to speak out about climate change and take it into account in their work.
About two-thirds of the professionals say they feel no peer pressure to take particular stances on global warming, and 70 per cent report they have enough independence to take the issue into account in their professional roles.
But willingness to spend money on long-range climate change adaptations is still rare among employers of the science-based occupations, the survey results indicated.
In the poll of APEGGA's highly educated membership, "66 per cent state that corporate decision making is governed by short-term cost considerations rather than long-term investment."
Only 31 per cent of Alberta engineers and earth scientists say the organizations they serve regard them as valuable technical advisers on climate change. Just 26 per cent of the professionals believe they can influence corporate decisions.
gjaremko@thejournal.canwest.com© Edmonton Journal 2008
First of all, I'll write in bullet points since you don't seem to be willing to read anything more substantial.
1) You still haven't posted your impressive credentials
2) I said read "recent scientific literature"--not just some snippet from an online newspaper
3) Polls are inherently flawed; if you've ever taken any kind of psychology research methods course you would understand how difficult it is to design a valid poll/survey. It all depends on who you ask, how you word the questions, and how the readers interpret the questions.
4) A better study would be to randomly read several hundred recently published scientific journal articles about climate change and see what percent of results support/contradict anthropogenic climate change
5) The poll surveyed members of the "Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta." This means that these are not research scientists but people who work in industry. A large percentage of professional geologists and engineers work in the oil industry--do you think they just might be biased?
6) "Only 31 per cent of Alberta engineers and earth scientists say the organizations they serve regard them as valuable technical advisers on climate change."
6) The results of this poll are contradictory, only the first sentence supports your claim.
7) "66 per cent state that corporate decision making is governed by short-term cost considerations rather than long-term investment."
8) "About two-thirds of the professionals said the government should take on a leading role in developing renewable or sustainable energy sources and promoting energy efficiency among consumers. About half urged the province to make Alberta a world capital of capturing and storing industrial greenhouse-gas waste."—Why? If they don't believe in anthropogenic climate change? CO2 and CH4 don't have any other negative implications.
9) You say you are worried about me going into a career that involves thinking, but you immediately accepted this article after reading the first sentence. You didn't even consider the source or the validity of the results.
and yes, I realize I numbered them incorrectly
One more correction--I said that CO2 and CH4 don't have any other negative implications. That is not entirely true, but is probably beyond your understanding. Ever heard of ocean acidification?
Apples and Oranges.
Polar ice expands and contracts throughout the year. Comparing January with October is like comparing summer with winter. Comparing one decade to the next is like comparing the greeness your lawn with your neighbors lawn when there's a much better lawn in the next town over.
To view climate changes you have to look over the course of thousdands of years, not hundreds and not decades.
We are warming at a faster rate that at anytime in human history:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/Atmos-CO2.gif
Alan
Again, if you did real research you would have a better understanding. There are two types of sea ice. Seasonal and perrenial. It is the perrenial sea ice decline that is worrisome.
http://uwnews.org/relatedcontent/2007/September/rc_parentID36894_thisID36984.pdf
So yall actually think that there are no effects from mankind dumping sh!t-tons of pollution into the environment? Scientific evidence of warming or not, you have to be crazy to think that we are not altering our environment by introducing millions of tons of carbon that would not naturally be in the carbon cycle into the atmosphere.
You're right, I oversimplified things but thought it necessary. Read my following post.
What happened to Albert Gore?
thread killas
no one is saying that pollution is good, - just that CO2 doesn't cause global warming. al gore is a pitch man and was trying to make a few billion bucks, which would have come from our collective pocket books.
Not a single response was to one of my recent posts, so why would I get involved? No one seems to be saying anything of any importance anyway...
Runningart2004 wrote:
To view climate changes you have to look over the course of thousdands of years, not hundreds and not decades.
We are warming at a faster rate that at anytime in human history:
You say we need to look at thousands of years, and then you mention human history. The industrial revolution was 100 years ago. So exactly how valid of a data set is 100 years?
Fail.
You weren't the same poster as "are all college students dumb?" I was just anxiously awaiting a rebuttal to my post.
Jebus H Crist wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/weather/03/16/un.climate.ap/index.html
Glaciers are shrinking, yawn.
There are tropical plant fossils in Antarctica, and at one point glaciers extended all the way to the Ohio river... just North of Kentucky.
Yet for some reason, morons are alarmed when the earth's climate changes slightly. It has been changing for billions of years... without the help or hindrance of man.
You global warming bliss ninnies are just freaking out because your religion is being debunked.
