Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Winnipesaukee Forums > General Discussion
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-27-2006, 08:13 PM   #101
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,317
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Idea
ITD,

Until you do your homework and study the subject and present some info that isn't from tainted sources then the joke is on you and everything I said above is supported by your own responses and resistance to do some reading. Varney Point has and I have only asked you to study the research and you haven't done it. We told you why we held the opinion we do and Varney point provided you with links that demonstrate actual scientific studies. You won't read or consider them so unfortunely that appears to be closed minded on your part. Truth hurts. Further you provided some data and we unlike yourself looked at it and considered it. There was no scientific verification of the data and further it was pointed out by Winnigirl the source is a paid lobbyist from the oil/coal industry. We looked at your evidence , researched it and responded. That is fairly open minded? Yes? We keep posting our arquements supported by real science and actual statistics that can be verified if you read the studies. You counter telling us that its bull and liberal noise/hysteria yet you won't do the work to study it? Thats not priceless or funny..... just kind of sad. Keep laughing ...... hopefully some of us will pick up the slack for you and do something constructive to educate others and actually improve the situation for the future generations.
Oh no, no, no, you're not drawing me down this road again. Don't tell me what I have and haven't studied. Look up McIntyre and McKitrick. I've called no one any names, unlike you. Fact vs. theory, look it up in the dictionary. I don't buy your premises. When you educate others please teach the whole truth, not just your slant. And like it or not, you're priceless.

Well said Maxum, all except the e=mc^2 part...........nevermind, I still like the way you think.
ITD is offline  
Old 04-28-2006, 09:09 AM   #102
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 932
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Default Two schools of thought: One is wrong...

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM
"...Everyone.... global warming is a THEORY not proven scientific FACT..."
In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise. This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:

Quote:
"...In order to be able to deal with the negative effects of climate change in the short term and avoid them in the long term, Swiss Re proposes two strategies: the first is climate protection, which is necessary to prevent global warming from accelerating to such a degree that humans are no longer able to adjust. This approach includes reducing the degree of human intervention in the natural climatic system. Secondly, society as a whole must learn to anticipate changeable climates..." http://www.swissre.com/INTERNET/pwsw...l?OpenDocument
The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?
ApS is offline  
Old 04-29-2006, 11:04 AM   #103
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 857
Thanks: 142
Thanked 222 Times in 133 Posts
Default Warming?, maybe

Climate fluctuations, warming and cooling, are normal and have been occurring before man became a significant player in the world.

The methodology of global temperature measurement has only become precise in the last few decades. Measurements prior to that become more questionable the further back you go. Even current measurements may be influenced by the local "heat island effects. The amount of warming (.6 C, 1.1 F over the last century) is in the "noise" of our ability to measure temperature accurately.

Computer models suffer greatly from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out). There is still no model that is able to accurately project climate changes.

CO2 is not the most important contributor to "greenhouse" effects; water vapor and oxygen are more significant. The amount of CO2 that is contributed by human activities is disputable and is probably less than that contributed via "natural" causes. More CO2 may be a positive contribution to the biosphere.

Overall, climate is extremely complex and we do not know how all the components work and interact.

Here is a link to a discussion of some of the issues of interest:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

This is a summary of the points in the discussion:
  • The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential.
  • The potential planetary warming from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide from pre-Industrial Revolution levels of ~280ppmv to 560ppmv (possible some time later this century - perhaps) is generally estimated at less than 1 C.
  • The guesses of significantly larger warming are dependent on "feedback" (supplementary) mechanisms programmed into climate models. The existence of these "feedback" mechanisms is uncertain and the cumulative sign of which is unknown (they may add to warming from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide or, equally likely, might suppress it).
  • The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
  • There is no linear relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide change and global mean temperature or global mean temperature trend -- global mean temperature has both risen and fallen during the period atmospheric carbon dioxide has been rising.
  • The natural world has tolerated greater than one-degree fluctuations in mean temperature during the relatively recent past and thus current changes are within the range of natural variation. (See, for example, ice core and sea surface temperature reconstructions.)
  • Other anthropogenic effects are vastly more important, at least on local and regional scales.
  • Fixation on atmospheric carbon dioxide is a distraction from these more important anthropogenic effects.
  • Despite attempts to label atmospheric carbon dioxide a "pollutant" it is, in fact, an essential trace gas, the increasing abundance of which is a bonus for the bulk of the biosphere.
  • There is no reason to believe that slightly lower temperatures are somehow preferable to slightly higher temperatures - there is no known "optimal" nor any known means of knowingly and predictably adjusting some sort of planetary thermostat.
  • Fluctuations in atmospheric carbon dioxide are of little relevance in the short to medium term (although should levels fall too low it could prove problematic in the longer-term).
  • Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems

I don't deny that some warming may be going on. However, the amount of warming, the cause of it, whether it is a problem, and how much we can control it are very unsettled issues. The current proposed costs for "fixing" it are enormous and very real with very uncertain benefit. We need significantly better information before committing enormous resources to this questionable effort.
jeffk is offline  
Old 04-29-2006, 05:00 PM   #104
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,317
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
{snipped} Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?


Here we go again, are you going to show us that petroleum ring around the lake picture again? Still waiting for the answer from the last time you pulled out that picture.
ITD is offline  
Old 04-29-2006, 07:47 PM   #105
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".
....
1) Wrong. What's your definition of a scientist, a person who agrees with global warming?
2) Like Al Gore, Rush has no scientific training so he is only parroting someone else's research. Let's judge the science not the politician or entertainer who point to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?
....
The biggest effect fossil fuel has had on Lake Winnipesaukee is MTBE getting into the drinking water. Since MTBE is soon to be banned that problem should be gone. Other problems from gas and oil entering the water should be helped by the changeover to fuel injection and the change away from two-stroke engines. A true lake lover would work hard to speed this up. See this article:

http://www.news10.net/storyfull1.asp?id=8057

The important sentence:
...In the five years since the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency prohibited most two-stroke engines, those residual gas products have declined between 80 and 90 percent...
jrc is offline  
Sponsored Links
Old 05-01-2006, 04:15 PM   #106
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,148
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acres per Second
In 1998, Popular Science stated that Global Warming is a FACT. Last year, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did likewise. This year, the President's own Council on such things said the same.

Want a neutral report? Take Swiss scientists:



The two schools:

1) 100% of the scientists on this forum agree that Global Warming is a FACT.

2) In opposition is the school of thought personified by the "Most Popular Radio Talk-Show Program in the World", whose host "is correct 98.5% of the time".

While I defer to Limbaugh's acumen in politics, I strongly disagree with his broadcasting of misleading environmental news: Once, I attempted to "call him on it". (Literally).

At the time, he was discussing "Ozone-depletion", a problem that didn't appear until Andes Mountain tourists were getting sunburned in just fifteen minutes! Scientists rapidly determined the fact of Ozone depletion and Congress dragged itself into outlawing the worst of the Chloro-Flouro-Carbons. (Abbreviated "CFCs" found in air conditioning systems.)

As to Global Warming, Senators defeated the Kyoto Treaty 99-0. There's little question that Congress did the right thing for Western economies: China (not affected by Kyoto) is discussing oil drilling in the Gulf -- off Cuba! On the other hand, Iran (with huge oil reserves) could be hit with UN sanctions. (So don't go looking for fuel prices heading downwards).

There are too many "moneyed interests" to reduce Humanity's effects on Global Warming; but take a look at this lake as a microcosm of this planet.

Would those who deny the warming of the planet also deny that Humanity's use of fossil fuel has not affected Lake Winnipesaukee?

Wow - very interesting indeed.

So Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a real expert on the subject....

Popular Science may very well have published supporting information for the THEORY of global warming, that does not make it scientific fact.

The President's council may have supported the THEORY of global warming, but that does not make it fact.

As I have said before you can find as many people supporting the idea that global warming is a fact as you can that say it's not. Fact is the earth has experienced climatic changes naturally a LONG time before humans were around driving internal combustion engines. Matter of fact it has been estimated that the eruption of Mt. St. Helens threw more greenhouse gasses in the air than all the emmissions combined of internal combustion engines since they were first invented. Hmm.... better put a catelytic converter on every volcano across the planet then huh?

Ah yes Ozone depleation, I was watching NOVA a couple months back where they have discovered through ice core samples that there has been historically a fluctuating hole in the OZONE for thousands of years.

Personally I could care less what gas prices do, if they remain high then just maybe that will finally get people thinking about conservation and new replacement technologies. Again I say invest the money in inovation not more studies that are just nothing but theory and estimations. Fact is there is no way to know for sure how much man has effected the climate. What is going on now may very well be a normal warming cycle and has nothing what so ever to do with fossil fuels. There is simply not enough data to know for sure.

Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!
MAXUM is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 12:15 PM   #107
JPC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Milford, NH
Posts: 150
Thanks: 33
Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
Lightbulb Dimming Sun

Did anyone watch NOVA this past Sunday? Interesting subjet on the dimming sun and how it applies to global warming.
JPC is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 01:05 PM   #108
Orion
Senior Member
 
Orion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Cow Island
Posts: 902
Thanks: 544
Thanked 176 Times in 88 Posts
Default a moment to refocus on the Lake....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MAXUM
Finally, the only thing that is wrecking Lake Winnipesaukee is milfoil, out of date septic systems, construction that is effecting run off and fertilizer used on the sprawling lawns infront of all the mc-mansions. None of these things has anything to do with internal combustion engines!
I think MAXUM has correctly established our immediate Lake concerns. But I'd like to also add it's not just the lawns at the McMansions, but all lawns where owners are fertilizing. hundreds of small lawn owners believe their use of fertilizers (even these so-called "natural" fertilizers) are not really impacting the lake. Here's the bottom line.....what's good for grass is good for algae and undesirable underwater plants.
Orion is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 03:48 PM   #109
Bear Islander
Senior Member
 
Bear Islander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Island
Posts: 1,685
Thanks: 23
Thanked 363 Times in 170 Posts
Default

I was at the North Pole last week and I ran into some scientists that were part of the Polar Buoy project. They claim that the data they are getting from the buoys show alarming temp increases in the arctic. However there are theories that can explain this other than global warming.

Their pet theory was about disruptions in the polar stream that circles under the ice pack.
Bear Islander is offline  
Old 05-02-2006, 07:53 PM   #110
skisox24
Senior Member
 
skisox24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 71
Thanks: 9
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default Fact or Fiction?

I will concede to having maintained a healthy scepticism of the global warming hysteria. Yet my ego is humble enough to recognize its possibility.

I highly recommend a 2004 fast-paced adventure novel entitled State of Fear by Michael Chrichton. Its a great read, and its central theme pulsates with the very same issues that have been the essense of this thread. Yes, the novel is fiction, but throughout the story the author references factual footnotes that support the contentions made within the story's plot.

At the end of the book the author includes a section with his personal conclusions which he arrived at following his three year period of dedicated research that stands behind his intricate story.

Its a great beach book for the summer, and it might even provoke some enlightented thought on this controversial issue!
skisox24 is offline  
Old 05-04-2006, 05:31 PM   #111
MAXUM
Senior Member
 
MAXUM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hooksett, NH & Bear Island, NH
Posts: 2,148
Thanks: 191
Thanked 1,374 Times in 554 Posts
Default

Here is the bottom line. Is the globe any warmer now than it was say 50 years ago. Maybe, maybe not. For this conversation lets say it is. So what exactly does that prove. IMHO nothing!

Lets say the globe is warmer now than it was say 10 years ago what does that prove? Again nothing!

Fact - scientists have been able to determine that the earth has undergone global temperature changes in it's past, at times being much colder than it is now, other times much warmer than it is now. All these thing happened without man being a factor. What is in question now is what we see going on around us a natural cycle or something that is man made. With only a couple hundred years of hard factual historical data, a mere blink in the history of the earth I find it very irresponsible for any scientist to either confirm or deny the idea of global warming. No matter there isn't a thing we can do to stop it, leading me to believe there is little doubt we are doing much to cause it in the first place. However doing our best to conserve and respect the earth we live on (with in reason, not hugging trees or spotted owls) is in the best interest of mankind as a whole.

The more studies that come out either somehow proving or disproving global warming the less credibility they have and so does the theory. There is simply not even 1000 years of hard data to come to that kind of conclusion.
MAXUM is offline  
Old 05-08-2006, 12:42 PM   #112
Pine Island Guy
Senior Member
 
Pine Island Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: pine island of course!
Posts: 367
Thanks: 172
Thanked 200 Times in 92 Posts
Default when all else fails... try humor!

Saw Steven Wright at Hampton Beach Casino last Saturday and his perspective is...

"I believe Global Warming started when the Cold War ended"

Pine Island Guy is offline  
Old 05-09-2006, 07:42 AM   #113
KonaChick
Senior Member
 
KonaChick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 518
Thanks: 19
Thanked 62 Times in 15 Posts
Default

There was an informative documentary on HBO last night about Global Warming "Too Hot Not To Handle". It presented some pretty interesting arguments that indeed Global Warming is real and we are headed for some big problems in the future. All I can say after watching the docementary and absorbing all the information is that a picture is worth a thousand words. If you have HBO and get a chance it's a good watch!
KonaChick is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 12:40 PM   #114
Great Idea
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default The Evidence......

just keeps mounting..... this is one situation where it won't be pleasant to say "I told you so"...

John England, a geologist who was with the team that spotted the earlier grizzly.

"If we want evidence for climate change, we don't have to go to an isolated occurrence of a grizzly bear somewhere," said England, who holds a northern research chair on environmental change in the Arctic.

"The satellite imagery showing sea ice reduction over the last 30 years is proof positive of very dramatic changes in the northern hemisphere."

No one disputes that warming and cooling cycles are natural and have happend before.....
Its the SPEED at which the climate is changing that is at issue and supports with little doubt that CO2 generated by fossil fuels is the chief culprit. While changes happened in the past never has the change been so rapid. Ice cores and tree ring fossils demonstrate the past patterns over thousands of years regarding rates of warming and cooling and the evidence is undeniable.
Great Idea is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 01:32 PM   #115
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

How can one say"while change has happened in the past,never has the change happened so fast" and that means that fossil fuels are the culprit?We have had cataclismic events that wiped out the dinaseurs which are beleived to have been caused by a giant meteor colliding with earth.This event caused the earth to go into total darkness and kill almost all living things.How could this event not be much quicker than we are experiencing right now?It's these kind of conclusions that make me doubt some of theories that are presented.We simply have a much too small of a sample of climate varables to weigh to come to an absolute conclusion.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 02:29 PM   #116
Great Idea
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Exactly .......

And how do you think they confirmed this event and the speed in which it impacted the environment? Sediment layers and tree ring fossils..... these events were measurable and could be tied to a cause. Other temperature changes were more gradual over a period of 100's of years.... we have exceeded this rate of "natural" temperature change and seen it occur in just 20-30 years. Why? Just as volcanoes or meterors did it quickly in the past we are accelarating the "natural" rate via CO2 and man made fossil fuel consumption.
Great Idea is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 02:42 PM   #117
Cobalt 25
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Cape Cod
Posts: 169
Thanks: 148
Thanked 19 Times in 12 Posts
Default

SIKSUKR,

"...too small of a sample..."

Scientists for the past several years have been compiling vast amounts of incontrovertible evidence supporting the existance of global warming. Even President Bush, EVEN President Bush, has recently and quite reluctantly admitted to these conclusions.

We have no control over meteorites. We do have some control over what we emit into our atmosphere.

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter
Cobalt 25 is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 03:03 PM   #118
Winnigirl
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 61
Thanks: 247
Thanked 14 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt 25

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter
Very true. However, I don't think Clinton is blameless in that either.
Winnigirl is offline  
Old 05-11-2006, 05:09 PM   #119
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,317
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Please, all of you believers in Global Warming, give up your "greenhouse" gas producing activities immediately then. No electricity, no car, no heat. Put your money where your mouths are. Leave the rest of us alone. I still don't believe what's being promoted and it is being promoted.
ITD is offline  
Old 05-12-2006, 10:24 AM   #120
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt 25
SIKSUKR,

"...too small of a sample..."

Scientists for the past several years have been compiling vast amounts of incontrovertible evidence supporting the existance of global warming. Even President Bush, EVEN President Bush, has recently and quite reluctantly admitted to these conclusions.

We have no control over meteorites. We do have some control over what we emit into our atmosphere.

Now, if he would only realize how embarassing it is for our country to oppose the Kyoto Treaty...

Peter
If you took the time to read my posts in this thread,you would see I never said there wasn't global warming.My argument is with whether this is mainly a natural occurance or man-made.Obviousy we don't have any control over meteorites.That was not my point.Great idea said"never has change been so rapid"I was only disputing that,ok?As far as the Kyoto treaty goes,we are right on the money for not signing on to a feel good piece of propaganda that will have little if any impact on what it was created for.Alright,I'm off the soapbox for now.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 05-15-2006, 09:04 PM   #121
skisox24
Senior Member
 
skisox24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 71
Thanks: 9
Thanked 5 Times in 3 Posts
Default Right On

Agree SIKSUKR! I also concur with those that argue that our lifetime experiences are too small a sample from which to draw material conclusions.
skisox24 is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 01:46 PM   #122
Seaplane Pilot
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 881
Thanks: 313
Thanked 493 Times in 188 Posts
Default Another take on global warming

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807
Seaplane Pilot is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 02:22 PM   #123
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Obviously the sinister oil company people have infiltrated the Denver Post. I like the McCarthyism analogy:

"Are you now or have you ever been a member of an oil company. Do you know anyone who is a member of an oil company. Will you name names?"

"What about this Exxon credit card, aren't they giving you cash back on every purchase. How can we trust your research when you're taking cash from big oil?"
jrc is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 04:41 PM   #124
Great Idea
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default The Evidence just keeps mounting.....

Keep citing "editorials" and "opinions" and us "liberals" (by the way many of us are VERY conservative politically) that are inciting "hysteria" will stick to evidence and science..... more bad news for the climate below. Whether the warming is natural or not if there is even a small chance we can slow it down by lowering CO2 emissions I say lets do it.... worst case we clean up the planet and create vast new industries that would employ more people and create new jobs. Go to link below...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/
Great Idea is offline  
Old 06-05-2006, 08:31 PM   #125
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,317
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Great Idea
Keep citing "editorials" and "opinions" and us "liberals" (by the way many of us are VERY conservative politically) that are inciting "hysteria" will stick to evidence and science..... more bad news for the climate below. Whether the warming is natural or not if there is even a small chance we can slow it down by lowering CO2 emissions I say lets do it.... worst case we clean up the planet and create vast new industries that would employ more people and create new jobs. Go to link below...



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13147504/

Who'll pay for it Great Idea? If it ain't ecomonically viable it ain't gonna happen, unless my taxes pay for it, and I pay enough taxes.

BTW, that link was hardly scientific, looked a lot like editoral to me.
ITD is offline  
Old 06-06-2006, 07:46 AM   #126
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default We all will pay for it....

The climate changes are disrupting the normal flow of things, and businesses who depend on consistency are going to be in trouble. That means lower tax revenue for the state, and more pressure for higher business tax rates and maybe even broad base taxes on individuals. We all will pay for that.

The polar ice cap is melting and shrinking, and is possibly the cause of some weather pattern changes. Some parts of the northern hemisphere are warmer, some parts are colder. Here in NH, we seem to be getting warmer winters, longer growing seasons, and more frequent floods. Maybe warmer summers eventually, and that would help the summer economy - but that hasn't happened yet. It will take another decade to figure out if the pattern changes are a fluke or connected with the polar melt, but if the latter, then the winter economy in north country has to find something else to bring in the cash. Individually, you can't do much to change the climate. It is already past the tipping point, and it is unclear what would bring it back. However, you should consider weather variability in investments that you make. Note how the cost of ski area season passes are way down from what they used to be. The ski area industry is a whole lot different than it was 25 years ago when climate change in NH was first being noticed. Will it even exist 25 years from now?

A good site for arctic climate information from the University of Alaska in Fairbanks can be found at: http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/index.php The information there seems to be unbiased. They provide both sides of the story (that is, what could be both good and bad). The facts are, the polar ice is changing. The old thick-pack ice is gone - washed out to sea in the 90's - and most of the polar sea ice is now "first year" ice. Our climate is partially driven by an ice-cap that is smaller than it was 50 years ago, smaller by about the size of Alaska (more than two times the size of Texas). Without some summer cold snaps to allow old-ice to rebuild, the ice will keep shrinking and we will experience what ever climate changes come with that.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 02:28 PM   #127
Great Idea
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Time to Wake Up.....

and face the bad news. Global Warming is actually occurring..... Time to get busy and demand our paid officials take action. We all need to do what we can to reduce green house gas emmissions.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13474997/
Great Idea is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 02:57 PM   #128
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,768
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Not that I disagree, but it would be nice to know where/how it was measured. For instance, how can they know what the temperature of Lincoln Nebraska was 400 years ago?
Dave R is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 02:59 PM   #129
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 430 Times in 207 Posts
Default

I agree.....Here is the USA Today report: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/clim...-warming_x.htm
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 03:10 PM   #130
LIforrelaxin
Senior Member
 
LIforrelaxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Long Island, not that one, the one on Winnipesaukee
Posts: 2,265
Thanks: 792
Thanked 654 Times in 355 Posts
Default Well here is the thing

I am all for helping the enviornment......but until until Politics stop getting in the way there isn't much headway to be made.....
__________________
Life is about how much time you can spend relaxing... I do it on an island that isn't really an island.....
LIforrelaxin is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 03:27 PM   #131
ossipeeboater
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 157
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default the earth been warming up and cooling off for thousands of years

this isn't the first time the earth has warmed up, not saying we shouldn't try to make common sense descisions to cut back emmissions on stuff but nothing will stop the natural warming and cooling actions.
ossipeeboater is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 05:18 PM   #132
Paugus Bay Resident
Senior Member
 
Paugus Bay Resident's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Gilmanton, NH
Posts: 643
Thanks: 33
Thanked 36 Times in 22 Posts
Default

Quote:
For instance, how can they know what the temperature of Lincoln Nebraska was 400 years ago?
Agreed, and what about a 1,000 years ago? I've read some theories from credible (IMO) sources that speculate this is a cyclical thing. So, maybe the cycle started earlier? Who knows.
Paugus Bay Resident is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 06:48 PM   #133
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,

1806, 200 years ago. There were CO2 emissions from trees (Ronald Reagan's killer trees speech), there was smoke pollution from burning the trees. Cow and Horse manure fermenting...

0806, 1,000 years ago, Pretty much the same sources as in 1806.

0006, 2000 years ago, ditto

2006. We all contribute, do I really need to make a list?

The Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice Caps are melting at a rate never scienticially documented prior to now.

There is much information available now documenting these changes.

It will take political leadership to change things, unfortunately that leadership is not happening from EITHER party, and never will! The folks on both sides of the political spectrum that are warning us are being called "disgruntled, quacks, etc"

Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

A country, a world, that can't see 50 years into the future? That is what we have become!

What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!

I won't live another 50 years, but my neices and nephews will. Your children will. What are we going to leave them?

One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, "Live Free or Die".

That is a political statement, originating in the birth of our country. It does NOT mean "anything goes" especially regarding the quality of life of residents.

NH relies on a substantial tourism trade that focuses and promotes a prestine environment. How many times have folks on this board lamented the deterierating quality of the water of Lake Winnipesaukee? When I was a child growing up on the lake during the summer months, we use to lay a rubber pipe into the water. That pipe provided us with all of our unfiltered drinking water. I can tell you that I never NEVER suffered ill effects, not even diahrea!

It certainly would be in the best economic and environmental interest for the state to take a leadership role in preventing global warming and anything else that is a threat to the environment!

Just my humble opinion...flame away

Please forgive spelling errors
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 07:07 PM   #134
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
One of the things that always amazed me, and I know I will be flamed for this, is the attitude in NH that everything is okay, Live Free or Die.
Proper text for Live Free Or Die:

The motto was part of a volunteer toast which General Stark sent to his wartime comrades, in which he declined an invitation to head up a 32nd anniversary reunion of the 1777 Battle of Bennington in Vermont, because of poor health. The toast said in full: "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst of Evils." The following year, a similar invitation (also declined) said: "The toast, sir, which you sent us in 1809 will continue to vibrate with unceasing pleasure in our ears, "Live Free Or Die; Death Is Not The Worst Of Evils."

A little different in its original text than "everything is okay".

http://www.state.nh.us/nhinfo/emblem.html

http://www.seacoastsearch.com/nhlinks/people/johnstark/
GWC... is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 09:20 PM   #135
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default What will reducing CO2 do?

Its obvious we are in a warming period, and one that could last for decades or longer. However, I haven't seen any study that shows what would happen if greenhouse gas levels were reduced, or how much reduction would be required to stop the climate change. Sun cycles and volcanos contribute too. If everyone started using solar, wind and nuclear power to charge electric cars and heat homes, would the climate stop warming? Would it even slow down? Is changing to cars that get 50 MPG enough? There are political reasons for getting away from oil, but the alternatives are not here yet, nor are the models that predict the climate results.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 09:42 PM   #136
Waterbaby
Senior Member
 
Waterbaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kensington, NH and Paugus Bay Marina
Posts: 654
Thanks: 229
Thanked 16 Times in 12 Posts
Default is it just about us?

with all of the talk about global warming, greenhouse effect,etc. going on...... seems to me it has to be every country (and their inhabitants) in the world working together to do something about it and the likelihood of that is slim to none, IMO....... and with that said, i hope this isn't just another "jump on the bandwagon" thing that our politicians have going, to appeal to the "treehuggers" or "green" people in this country. do i think there is global warming going on? yes. and i base this on my own experience - wednesday was an absolutely, totally, gorgeous day here. mid-70s, dry, breezy, bright blue sky with white puffy clouds. the kind of day that used to be the norm, 20-25 years ago and even 10-12 years ago. THAT is what made me start to thingk there is something to all of this talk about the above. what can we do about it? i don't know. i DO know, however, that i am doing what i can -- recycling, composting, getting paper instead of plastic at the grocery store, asking that my meats (even at the grocery store) be wrapped in butcher paper instead of the plastic trays and saran wrap..... i don't know what difference my little bit is going to make, be it in 5, 50, or 500 years, but i'm trying.

just my rant, sorry for the lack of punctuation and proper capitalization - for those who know me you know i don't usually do this but i had to get this out. off of my soapbox now.
Waterbaby is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 10:09 PM   #137
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

The biggest point.....BIGGEST POINT... of my post is to say

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON TOURISM. TOURISM IN NEW HAMPSHIRE RELIES ON ITS PRESTINE BEAUTY!

New Hampshire "Tree huggers" are bad because they protect the very economic engine that keeps New Hampshire viable!

The " Greens", Hell, they should be shot along side the tree huggers while chained to a Christmas Tree (largest tree left in NH without those annoying tree huggers and Greens.

Is this limited to the United States? Nope, Is the United States the country the world looks toward for leadership. Maybe, maybe not. The United States has not signed the Kyoto Treaty.

So, want to breath some clean air and swim in clean water? Why come to NH? As I have said, I used to be able to lay a rubber pipe 10 feet into the water and drink without any problem.

Anyone want to try that now?

Would elimination of reliance on fosil fuels change anything at this point? Maybe, maybe it's too late.

What are you going to tell your children and grandchildren that YOU did to change things?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-22-2006, 10:36 PM   #138
JPC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Milford, NH
Posts: 150
Thanks: 33
Thanked 15 Times in 13 Posts
Default Global Warming on National News

I haven't seen anyone mention that the global warming issue was important enough to merit a news segment by Charlie Gibson. I don't understand the science that goes in determining temperature levels in past history. So, I'm not going to ask to see the detail reports/data that were used to come to the global warming conclusions. I trust that the scientists know what they are doing and that global warming warnings are not a scare tactics.
JPC is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 01:51 AM   #139
GWC...
Senior Member
 
GWC...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,325
Thanks: 5
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!
Perhaps, some day, the question will be, "Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that humans caused Global Warming?"

Some interesting reading:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinction.html

and also

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/extinctheory.html

Note: Read "The common ground", Number 1, about global climatic change, just for giggles...
GWC... is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 06:36 AM   #140
jbess
Member
 
jbess's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Waterbury, Ct~Laconia, NH
Posts: 31
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!
This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!
jbess is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 07:28 AM   #141
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,493
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 281
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default Spin is a big part of the problem

Quote:
Originally Posted by airwaves
What is America today? American Idol contestants get more votes than are cast in the election of the leader of the free world!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbess
This pretty much sums up the problems of our Country today!
Sound bites like this are part of the problem. There is plenty of mis-information around global warming. Now that it is becoming a political issue, the spin doctors are hard at work for political gain. The truth is no longer important.

I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.

Much like the speed limit discussion, I fear that the spin doctors will use mis-information as a control tactic, yet focus on new rules that have no impact on the real issue.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 07:53 AM   #142
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default

[QUOTE=Airwaves]I've tried to ignore these threads, but when I see posts comparing the conditions on earth several thousands years ago, or even 1-thousand, or 2-hundred years ago, to the conditions of today, I have to wonder what the folks suggesting that, this is the way things are, are thinking!

Let's start with the most recent comparison,


Can you remember your history when the accepted belief was that the Earth was flat? That the Earth was the center of the universe? etc. The folks that told us that those "facts" were wrong were also called quacks and even heritics!

This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 01:47 PM   #143
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

SIKSUKR wrote:
Quote:
This is a great argument.Let me see.At the same time people thought the earth was flat they burned witches at the stake.The Romans worshiped all of those Gods that ruled the world.Yup,kill all of those Christians cuz their evil.Give me a break.We have the right to use slaves to the death to build those pyramids.Yup,a solar eclipse meant the gods were mad and the world was about to end.Come on.There was a lot of backward thinking in centuries past.Dont try to justify your point by midevil thinking cuz it only sounds midevil.I think our thinking is a lot more advanced today than to say"but,people used to think the world was flat".
Exactly! At one time all those things were blindly accepted. Today we know that they are blatantly wrong!

Page 4 of today's 6/23 Boston Herald coincidentally carries a story headlined
"Gosh, it hasn't been this hot in about uh, 2000 years"
It's an Associated Press report on a Congressional request of the National Academy of Sciences. It concluded "recent warmth is uprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia".

The article also shows new research linking global warming to the production of half the hurricane fuled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005.

They also studied evidence of the climate going back thousands of years and:

"The panel considered the evidence reliable enought to conclude there were sharp spikes in "greenhouse" gasses blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years".

Unfortunately I couldn't find a link to the article on line but since it is an Associated Press story I'm sure it will turn up in other papers that may have a link.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 07:19 PM   #144
Weekend Pundit
Senior Member
 
Weekend Pundit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 192
Thanks: 7
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Angry Oh, Jeez....

I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.
Weekend Pundit is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 10:05 PM   #145
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,317
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit
I saw reports about the "warmest in 2000 years" claim. One of the TV reports showed the so-called hockey stick chart, showing greatly increased temperatures over the last 100 years or so. The only problem with that chart is that it is a fraud. It was never reviewed by the rest of the climatological community, the algoritm was never released or subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis, and the media and the It's-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans Club seized upon it to 'prove' that human caused global climate change is fact.

It is not. It is still a theory with a lot of holes in it.

Frankly, I am more inclined to believe the solar output theory of climate change. There's a hell of a lot more evidence that the sun is the major driver of climate change and not homo sapiens.
Whoa WP,

Been there done that, don't know what your getting yourself into, but I am one of the few here that agrees with you.
ITD is offline  
Old 06-23-2006, 10:23 PM   #146
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-24-2006, 08:47 AM   #147
Dave R
Senior Member
 
Dave R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,768
Thanks: 225
Thanked 628 Times in 368 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
Okay Weekend Pundit,

So, you are a scientist that has reseached this, perhaps you are a member of the National Academy of Sciences that made its report to Congress this week and you have an opposing point of view?

If you are a scientist then speak up and show us your credentials and show how the National Acacemy of Sciences is wrong.

If you are just another lamb being lead to slaughter, well... I guess you don't need to know what real scientists believe now do you? All you have to do is believe what the politiians tell you to believe.

Don't worry, after you're dead your kids will be left to sort things out.

After all, I quoted that bastion of liberalism, the Boston Herald!
I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt. Often, scientists have a specific goal in mind when the research begins, and having such, clouds their judgement.

As an interesting parable, one could say that you have found a study that says exactly what you already believed and have used it as a confirmation that you were right all along. Why not start digging for papers that oppose your own views and really broaden your mind?

FWIW, I think global warming is probably happening but somehow I doubt a miniscule increase in carbon dioxide is gonna cause it. We are talking about a change from .002% to .0035% (worst case) CO2 in the atmosphere. It's such a tiny amount in the whole scheme of things.

What if this CO2 increase helped plants grow and decreased world hunger?
Dave R is offline  
Old 06-24-2006, 09:35 AM   #148
jbess
Member
 
jbess's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Waterbury, Ct~Laconia, NH
Posts: 31
Thanks: 4
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakegeezer
I agree with the intent of jbess's post; voters are part of the problem today. The US got what it voted for and so can't complain. However, the sound bite implying that more people voted for american idol than the president is nothing but spin. There was clearly more votes, but not more people voting. The voting systems could not be more different. With american idol, people voted with telephone and text messaging. They were allowed to vote as many times as they wanted to, within 2 hours. Most fans vote at least several times, the crazies vote 100's of times. In the US system, most people (except those in Florida and Ohio) get to vote only once.
Just to clearify, I am not of the party that believes the elections were stolen in 2000 and 2004. I was mearly agreeing to the fact that there is MUCH more interest in silly things like American Idol contests than things that really matter. I don't believe it is spin, but fact, that this country has taken a turn for the worst. Case in point, that the mere fact that there is legislation taking place for speed limits on the lake because of the lack of personal responsability is just more proof.

Joe
jbess is offline  
Old 06-24-2006, 01:25 PM   #149
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

Quote:
I'm interested in your credentials as a scientist. I have none but I tend to take any reports made by them with a grain of salt.
Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.

Now all those scientists can get on with the really important questions of the day....like "do you want fries with that"? and "Who is the next American Idol"?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-24-2006, 05:31 PM   #150
Weekend Pundit
Senior Member
 
Weekend Pundit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 192
Thanks: 7
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
Okay, I guess they're all wrong and you're right cause you want global warming to be just one of those issues that will go away.
No, they're not all wrong. Many climate scientists disagree with them, some because the methodolgy used is sloppy or suspect, as are some of their motives.

Earlier you asked me if I was a scientist. No, I am not. I am an engineer with a Masters in Physics, one used to dealing with data, using it to design, build, test, and if need be, redesign, rebuild, and retest advanced electronic and optical instruments. I understand scientific method: observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena; formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation; use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations; performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments. I use it, or a variation of it, when delving into new territory when developing new instruments using bleeding edge technologies or working with PhDs to advance our understanding of optical phenomena.


I understand the process of peer review, which means to have the theory one has put forward reviewed by one's peers, both those that agree and disagree with it. If it is reviewed only by those who agree with it, then the review is suspect. It may cause a self-perpetuating positive feedback loop, blocking out all opinions or data that disagree with the theorem, particularly those that show the theory to be flawed. It is this problem that I see with the many proponents of anthropogenic global climate change. It is the problem with the National Academy of Sciences, a body that is supposed to be apolitical and open minded. It hasn't been open minded since the 70's and is less so today. It has become far too political to be considered unbiased.


In my previous post I mentioned the Mann “hockey stick” graph, the one that shows a marked increase in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. It was used by the NAS as one of the proofs that human-caused global warming was indeed happening. But that graph has been debunked as being based upon questionable data, has not undergone true peer review, and neither has the algorithm used to generate the graph. For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory:


http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf



Other theories with a good deal of verifiable data that point to other causes of global climate change have been ignored out of hand. One such has been postulated by Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish Space Research Institute. Svensmark theorizes that the sun's output is the major driver of climate change throughout history, barring such things as volcanic eruptions and extraterrestrial events (asteroid strikes). He backs it up using carbon dating techniques on layers of soils, peat, and other organic layers in clay and sedimentary rock to determine the solar output throughout the past millennia: http://www.dsri.dk/~hsv/Noter/solsys99.html



Others have checked his data, including some of his skeptics, and so far no one has been able to prove his theory wrong. Yet others have gone beyond Svensmark's initial work and looked back a number of millennia and still his theory holds up.


The one thing I have learned over the years is that just because the media splashes theories of global warming across the pages/TV screens/computer displays doesn't mean they're valid. All theories should be taken with a large grain of salt until others have had a chance to dig deep and prove or disprove them. Anthropogenic global warming is one of those that should be looked at with skeptical eye. There are still too many unanswered questions, too many flawed computer models that are being used to extrapolate what Earth's climate will be like over the next 100 years. Basing environmental policies upon a problem that may not even exist is foolish at best and extremely dangerous at worst.
Weekend Pundit is offline  
Old 06-24-2006, 07:23 PM   #151
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-24-2006, 08:16 PM   #152
jeffk
Senior Member
 
jeffk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Center Harbor
Posts: 857
Thanks: 142
Thanked 222 Times in 133 Posts
Default Bad methodology in global warming analysis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weekend Pundit
For background on the Mann graph, here is a paper that addresses the issues with the graph, the data that was used to generate the graph, and well established historical data that was ignored by Mann and his colleagues because it didn't fit in with the theory
This is a very interesting read. There are two points that jump out; Mann's results do not seem to be reproducible and Mann seems to be unwilling to assist (even hindering) those trying to verify his work. Even without expertise in the subject matter these are significant reasons to question the conclusions that Mann draws as well as questioning his integrity.

In my opinion, much scientific work suffers from these types of problems. The only check on scientific work is that results are repeatable by other scientists, especially critics, and that rigorous review over time yields consistent results. This requires scientists to publish details of their research and support an open review process.

The current state of Global Warming theory is largely initial publication of observations and proposed explanations (theories) for those observations. They have not been replicated and reviewed. In fact, many articles that declare new observations often make comment about the fact that the current computer models can't explain the new data. That means that the existing models and the assumptions they were based on are WRONG. If we can't accurately predict climate behavior that is occurring right now, why would we think we have the slightest chance to predict climate changes 20 years or more from now?

If the "fix" for global warming was for everyone to chip in a few bucks and build a giant air conditioner for the planet I'd say, GREAT, let's do it. Even if they were wrong the cost is negligible and the impact controllable. However, the "fix" that is actually proposed would be severely crippling to our economy with a minimal impact on the problem. We simply do not have enough reliable information for a commitment of that scale.
jeffk is offline  
Old 06-24-2006, 10:51 PM   #153
Weekend Pundit
Senior Member
 
Weekend Pundit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 192
Thanks: 7
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
So now the results of the research into Global Warming, that MOST scientists agree with, is media driven!

As I said, let's just move on to the important issues of the day, American Idol, because if you and yours take the results of studies "with a grain of salt" and "scientists have an agenda" then there is absolutely nothing I am going to say to change your mind.
Believe it or not, many scientists do have an agenda. It's called "funding". If you think that it is merely altruism that drives scientists, then you are sadly mistaken. It is funding. Funding is what enables scientists to do their research. Altrusim does not. Global warming is the research subject du jour, garnering much of the interest and a lot of funding.

And most scientists do not agree with the results of the research, at least when it comes to anthropogenic global warming. Only the most vocal and politically correct scientists appear to agree. Most of those who disagree rarely get the media play, or are derided as crackpots, or seem to have their funding slashed.

Am I a cynic when it comes to this partcular subject? You betcha. I've seen too much of what I've described here in the halls of academia, government, and in the corporate world. I speak from experience, not ideology.
Weekend Pundit is offline  
Old 06-25-2006, 08:27 PM   #154
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

As I stated, I am not going to write anything that will change your mind, not with the attitude that you "take the research with a grain of salt" or, "Scientists have an agenda" (yep, funding is an issue but if the scientists are wrong, then their reputation and future funding sources instantly dry up, that's generally known as peer review). Or, my favorite, "Most scientists do not agree with the research". Those would be the " most scientists" who still believe smoking does not cause lung cancer? (now whose funding source is in question?)

It appears that you folks who believe everything is just fine, find a few scientists who disagree that the earth is subject to global warming and that that the majority of the global warming has occurred based on what "we" have done in the 20th century, so it must be so...

So scientific resarch isn't to be trusted, media reports on that scientific research isn't to be trusted, but God bless the politicians (scientists all!) who have kept us on the straight and narrow and away from Kyoto! (BTW, the US Govt is a major scientific funding source as well).

One day, your kids will thank you.

edit:
Don't know how to show you how I edited my post, Here are the edits
(that's generally known as peer review) and
"God bless the politicians (scientists all!)"

Last edited by Airwaves; 06-25-2006 at 11:57 PM.
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-26-2006, 12:33 PM   #155
Great Idea
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Lets look at some FACTS.....

Weekend Pundit.... you reference McKitrick's articles as others supporting your opinion have on this post. You speak of FUNDING? Guess who has paid for all of his "research" and "articles"? The COAL and OIL industry. Internal documents and emails published from the oil/coal industry lobbyists admit to such studies and articles done to create "confusion" and doubt regarding the theories of global warming.

The hockey stick is very relavent data. In only several other periods over the last many thousands of years have steeper spikes been seen in increased temperature as we have seen in the last 140 years. (YES , these temperatures can be accurately measured scientifically via ice cores, tree rings and tree fossils as well as sediment layers) In either case it involved a CATASTROPHIC event. Volcanoes and meterors were the culprits. So why such a steep increase and dramatic change in such a SHORT amount of time? What is the catastrophic event this time? ( Yes 140 years is VERY short) CO2 and green house gases are clearly contributing to the dramactic changes we are all witnessing around us. The evidence that fossil fuels is contributing to this are overwhelming.

The final flaw and myth in your arguement is that scientists don't agree. Over 80 percent of the scientific community is in AGREEMENT regarding global warming and as to its root causes. Go to all the major research foundations and communities in the world and verify this for yourself. Only a few stand against the tide .... like McKitrick..... who along with most of his peers are paid lobbyists working for the fossil fuel industry. This isn't liberal noise.....

My final observation although not scientific should stir some consideration among skeptics....... just look around you! Do you really think all this drought then rain/flooding is normal?? 23 inches of rain since MAY1... we normally get 6 or 7. Just look at the flooding this spring, last fall as well as the hurricanes last season....... whats your gut tell you? Sure it happens once in a while but not every few months like it is now. My gut tells me that we need to start paying attention to what our earth/environment is trying to tell us...... something is "OFF" with our climate and we are contributing to it. AND we need to do EVERYTHING in our power to try and change it.
Great Idea is offline  
Old 06-26-2006, 05:42 PM   #156
Weekend Pundit
Senior Member
 
Weekend Pundit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Gilford
Posts: 192
Thanks: 7
Thanked 23 Times in 10 Posts
Default

Airwaves: I haven't said that I disagree that global warming, or rather, global climate change is occuring. Rather, I am disagreeing with the stated cause. Climate changes all the time. Anyone that believes the climate has always been like it has been over the last few decades is deluded or misinformed.

To hear some tell it, all climate change everywhere is our fault. This includes many of the same scientists that so many hold in such high regard, even though their theories, their computer models, and so on, haven't been able to predict what will happen next year, let alone 100 years in the future. That makes it all suspect.

Great Idea: In regards to funding, where do you think the scientists who say all global climate change is human-caused get their funding? I think you'll find that quite a bit of it comes from organizations, governmental agencies, or corporations that have a lot to gain should that be the case. The vested interest door swings both ways.
Weekend Pundit is offline  
Old 06-26-2006, 06:18 PM   #157
Great Idea
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Is has happened before ....

BUT not this fast without a direct cause. No one is disputing that is changes .... just as to the RATE at which it changes. Only drastic influences cause such dramatic changes in such a short period of time..... ie huge volcanic eruptions, meteors OR IN THIS CASE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CO2 EMMISSIONS THAT ARE MAN MADE...... As for who funds these so called "liberal" studies? You can look at all the different scientific groups that support these claims and there is a VAST array of sources and governments funding the data. Much of it comes from our own government. Many of these climate studies are continuously funded NO MATTER what the conclusions and unfortunately the funding hasn't increased with these findings at all. Many of the universities and NASA which is measuring this data is doing so much the way they always have. Are they now making it up to get .... what? Unlike the "science" you quote that gets paid directly fees to "testify" and contradict the facts for a fee. Most of the world's science supporting these conclusions don't have any agenda or benefit from such findings, unfortunely they just have environmental problems that need solutions.

Unlike your quoted sources that have a huge agenda called MONEY.

Heres some food for thought Weekend Pundit...... if your I am wrong and you are correct and we follow the majority of the available scientific data now available supporting global warming/CO2 we just end up with a cleaner environment and some much needed new industry...... IF you are wrong and I am right yet we continue to do little and nothing, keep the status quo of fossil fuel waste (your way) and the results are catastrophic environmental damage and possibly worse......... which side of that equation do you really want to be on??? Lets play it safe and clean up our act so that our children and future generations will look back and be proud of what we accomplished.
Great Idea is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 09:16 AM   #158
SIKSUKR
Senior Member
 
SIKSUKR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,073
Thanks: 215
Thanked 895 Times in 506 Posts
Default Let's hear a solution.

I love all this talk about CO2 emmisions causing global warming.Now tell us how you would change this short of going back to the stone age.Any ideas that help help reduce emmisions are worth exploring and we have already made great strides since the 70's,but to think we can switch away from fossil fuels with the snap of a finger is very niave.The developing countries would almost certainly not go along with these drastic changes and we have to be competitive in the world market.The one good thing about high oil prices is it makes other energy sources more competitive and in turn can spurn the growth towards alternative energy.There is nothing wrong about exploring other energy sources that will be clean burning or zero emmisions but were not prepared to switch over.I would love to see the US have zero dependence on oil if for nothing else,not being under the thumb of the big oil producing middle east.We are heading in the right direction,just don't let the chicken little scare tactics shape our society.
__________________
SIKSUKR
SIKSUKR is offline  
Old 06-27-2006, 09:48 AM   #159
ApS
Senior Member
 
ApS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Winnipesaukee & Florida
Posts: 4,495
Thanks: 932
Thanked 433 Times in 317 Posts
Question But How is Global Warming Affecting Lake WInnipesaukee?

Slowly and imperceptably: There will be more algae and milfoil growth, more exotic plants and creatures, water temperatures will creep upwards and more boaters, tourists, and swimmers will cavort in its warmer waters. Residents will add air conditioners to their homes, camps, and trucks.

It also appears that those who reject Global Warming are "invested" in the belief that it's not happening; for example, I've never owned a car, boat, or anything with more than an economical four cylinder engine. I have no trouble realizing that the world is a warmer place.

On the other hand, a respondant with one or more road vehicles with V-8s (or greater) and/or with boats with 1 (2, or even 3) V-8 engines are heavily invested in the belief that Global Warming must not affect their chosen life style pursuit, and therefore a carefully-considered response to the concept will be clouded.

More Reading:
Here's a piece on Greenland's icecap: While it's written sensationally for this particular newspaper's subscribers (i.e., sea levels to rise 21 feet, but doesn't state that ALL of Greenland's ice must melt for that to happen), it does give incite into the personal effort that scientists must go through to make such Global Warming determinations .

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...ge=4&track=rss
ApS is offline  
Old 06-28-2006, 02:35 PM   #160
Great Idea
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 38
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Solutions/answers are everywhere!!

The REAL "HYPE" that exists comes from the oil industry saying there is a
" lack" of options/technology or it will be "too expensive" or painful to covert to other fuel sources......although challenging the options are numerous.

http://autos.msn.com/as/minishow/art...s=bibendum2006
Great Idea is offline  
Old 06-29-2006, 10:50 PM   #161
Airwaves
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: I'm right here!
Posts: 1,153
Thanks: 9
Thanked 102 Times in 37 Posts
Default

There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?
Airwaves is offline  
Old 06-30-2006, 07:45 AM   #162
ITD
Senior Member
 
ITD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Massachusetts and Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 2,317
Thanks: 343
Thanked 424 Times in 245 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Airwaves
There are alternatives to fosile fuels. The problem really isn't research and development, it's distribution!

The Oil companies have things locked up nicely. Otherwise we could seriously look at things like Hydrogen and electric vehicles to replace gasoline driving autos.

Without a distribution network all the research and development in the world that comes up with alternative sources of energy will be for naught.

The introduction of a distribution network for hydrogen/electric or other sources of energy that can be (and eventually will be) produced in the U-S will reduce the importation for foreign oil and all that such importation means.

This is not the proper forum to go "political" but if the US Government wanted to facilitate these "alternative" sources, they would by forcing the creation of a distribution network, much like they tried to do with telephone services when Ma Bell was deemed to be a monopoly.

How do you reduce greenhouse gasses....did I mention the development of a solid, realistic distribution network?

If hydrogen were readily available for use as a fuel, a distribution system would quickly be developed.

Hydrogen is not readily available in nature, it is always combined with something else. The processes that currently produce hydrogen use more energy than the collected hydrogen will produce. Those processes use mostly energy derived from fossil fuels. There is a professor from U Lowell who feels hydrogen can be economically produced using nuclear energy, he is probably right but nuclear power has its own political problems.

Hydrogen is also very unstable (Hindenberg) and very difficult to store due to high pressure required and small molecule size. Gasoline is much more stable and exists as a liquid at room temperature.

If an economically viable source for hydrogen becomes available, you will see it take over oil as an energy source. There is nothing the "scary and omnipotent" oil companies will be able to do about it. Developing a distribution system before that source is available is like putting the cart before the horse, it doesn't make sense.
ITD is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.25392 seconds