[Gordon]

In reponse to a question through a different thread, i thought perhaps this piece would clutter things less if it was placed on its own... I originally wrote this over three years ago now as part of a 286-page reponse to two of my best friends who had stunned me by claiming global warming was a hoax. As such this is rather informal, and not really properly cited or quoted... but about 90% of this probably is from Spencer Weart's book, "The Discovery of Global Warming", for which he created a companion web site here: http://www.aip.org/h...ex.htm#contents

For those of you not so fired up to read all my boring text below, you may prefer to view one or more of these excellent videos, each about ten minutes long or so...


Peter Sinclair's "Climate Science 1956: A Blast from the Past":
http://www.youtube.c...ture=plpp_video

Peter Sinclair's "Climate Science 1958: The Bell Telephone Science Hour":
http://www.youtube.c...3&lf=plpp_video

Peter Sinclair's "Isaac Asimov on the Greenhouse Effect: 1989":
http://www.youtube.c...3&lf=plpp_video

the gist of it all is that "global warming" was not invented by Al Gore, and is not some sort of new or rogue theory... it has been developed progressively from the early 1800s through to present day... it started as a barely understood concept that was largely dismissed by the scientific community, until over time and with improved monitoring technologies and better data accumulation... it has become widely accepted by relevant researchers in the field - 97% of practicing climate scientists (that's a higher percentage than dentists who recommend chewing Trident gum to patients who chew gum) ... http://www.skeptical...ntermediate.htm


A Brief History of Global Warming, As It Were…

The 1800s: Fourier, Tyndall, and Arrhenius, oh my

In the 1820s, Joseph Fourier, French mathematician and physicist, most likely became the first scientist to seriously consider that the earth’s atmosphere played a role in warming the planet. He calculated that the earth, given its distance from the sun, should be considerably colder than it is (a simple blackbody calculation yields the result that the earth should be about 30-33 degrees C colder than it actually is on global average. Rather than averaging about 14-15 degrees C, we “should” be about -15 degrees C). He investigated potential sources for the additional warmth that we observe. One of the sources he considered was the atmosphere acting as some sort of insulator, slowing down the radiation of heat back out to space, and raising the surface temperature. Ultimately, Fourier settled on interstellar radiation as the most likely source of most of the additional warmth, which only goes to show even legendary scientists like Fourier, who gave us Fourier series and Fourier transform in mathematics and statistics as well as Fourier’s Law in thermodynamics, were capable of making mistakes or drawing poor conclusions. But Fourier is largely credited with developing what eventually came to be known as the Greenhouse Effect.

Irish physicist John Tyndall figured out that carbon dioxide was a greenhouse gas in the 1850s. He was able to determine the absorption spectra of numerous atmospheric constituents, including water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane. But, I don’t think he predicted doom and gloom – I he just observed that without the greenhouse gases, the planet would be inhospitably cold – he built on the earlier work of Fourier, essentially resurrecting the “atmosphere as an insulator” idea, but developing it further by identifying how individual gases in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation, thereby leading to the warming effect. Tyndall is interesting because he was an Alpine climber, and he was one of the earliest to believe that tens of thousands of years ago, northern Europe had been covered with enormous glaciers. One of his main interests was in trying to figure out how this “ice age” came to be.

In 1896, Swedish physicist and chemist Svante Arrhenius, who was one of the founders of physical chemistry, became the first person to forecast that human activity would inevitably lead to climate change. He used a very simplistic model, but he predicted that fossil fuel emissions would lead to increased global mean temperature through the 1900s. Now, basically, Arrhenius was just observing that there is a natural carbon cycle at work, and fossil fuel emissions were necessarily adding carbon to the system, and as this carbon accumulated in the atmosphere, it would raise the earth’s temperature because it is a greenhouse gas, as demonstrated decades earlier by Tyndall. One of Arrhenius’s colleagues, Arvid Hogbom, had been studying the carbon cycle. Hogbom decided to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by factories and other sources. To his surprise, he found that human activities were adding CO2 to the atmosphere at a rate on a par with natural processes. Though the amount was very small, he reasoned that the additional CO2 could add up over a long time, and perhaps significantly affect the earth’s temperature.

Arrhenius calculated that for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, the Earth’s temperature would increase about 5-6 oC. Arrhenius wasn’t alarmed, though. He calculated that at the rate of emissions in 1896, it would take civilization 3,000 years to double the CO2 concentration. He and Hogbom also calculated that the oceans would absorb about 83% of the CO2 emissions, further slowing the accumulation. The problem though, is that neither considered that if CO2 emission rates increased, the ocean absorption rate would not keep pace. But, in Sweden, global warming didn’t sound so bad – in fact, scientist Walter Nernst even dreamed up an idea to set fire to coal seams in order to deliberately release carbon dioxide to warm the climate!

Arrhenius eventually published his calculations in a book in 1908, and the rate of fossil fuel emissions had already increased to the point where Arrhenius predicted warming would occur on the order of centuries rather than millennia. But, this was really a side point of his work – his main focus was on trying to explain the cause of the ice ages.

1900-1950: Rise of the American Scientists

In the early 1900s, American geologist T.C. Chamberlin picked up on Arrhenius’ work and wondered how the gas cycled through the Earth’s oceans, minerals, forests, and atmosphere. Chamberlin believed that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 probably varied over the long term and might explain gradual shifts in climate over millions of years. Chamberlin was the founder of the Journal of Geology and served terms as the chief geologist for the Wisconsin Geological Survey, head of the glacial division of the U.S. Geological Survey, president of the University of Wisconsin, founder of the geological department at the University of Chicago, and president of the Chicago Academy of Sciences.

But aside from that, most scientists seemed to find Arrhenius’ calculations indicating that CO2 could raise global temperatures to be implausible. They felt his climate model was too simplistic; they felt he didn’t account for potential changes in cloud cover if the Earth warmed and became more humid. Then, a few years after Arrhenius’ published hypothesis, an assistant of Knut Angstrom conducted an experiment with a limited amount of CO2 in a tube and concluded that, even at low concentrations, the gas would “saturate” with respect to its absorption properties (i.e., in the wavelength that CO2 blocked radiation, it accomplished it so efficiently that a small amount of gas would block virtually all the radiation at that band, and additional gas would have no additional effect). Other scientists argued that water vapor is far more abundant in the air and it also intercepts infrared radiation, and in the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared bands of the two gases overlapped one another. Therefore, they presumed that a little more CO2 could not increase the blocking of radiation that was surely entirely blocked by water vapor and existing CO2 anyway.

But, those arguments were flawed. Angstrom’s assistant, Koch, had a couple problems with his experiment – the first in measurement precision, and the other in the fundamental assumption that a little CO2 in a tube was representative of the Earth’s atmosphere. Even if the absorption in the Earth’s lower atmosphere was completely “saturated,” the greenhouse effect will still operate because the planet’s temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers of the atmosphere, where radiation escapes into space. Adding more greenhouse gases will upset the balance, and even a small increase will change the planet’s surface temperature. Fundamentally, the term “greenhouse gas” reflects the lack of understanding of the atmosphere at that time. The Earth’s atmosphere acts more like a set of interacting layers rather than a single, thin slab, like a greenhouse glass, as in Koch’s experiment.

So, nobody took Arrhenius seriously. Or at least few did. In 1931, American physicist E.O. Hulburt determined that investigators were too interested in the absorption bands and not the absorption coefficients of individual greenhouse gases. He set about to obtain more accurate estimates of the absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide, and eventually calculated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would create a 4 oC rise in temperature. But Hulburt was a pretty obscure scientist (heck, I never heard of him) at the Naval Research Laboratory, and the American Meteorological Society, even as late as 1951, believed that the idea that increasing CO2 could have an effect on climate “was abandoned when it was found that all the long-wave radiation [would be] absorbed by CO2 and water vapor.” Scientists also generally believed that the Earth was too “big” and “balanced” for man to have an effect on it. The oceans had 50 times as much CO2 as the atmosphere, so it should soak up any excess CO2 humans emit. If not the oceans, then certainly the forests would.

In 1938, a guy by the name of Callendar – actually his name was Guy Callendar – first compiled empirical evidence that Arrhenius was correct. He is the first to compile weather measurements from the 19th century on – he did this as a hobby, after observing that, based on personal anecdotes, people seemed to be thinking that there was a warming trend underway. Callendar found that the stories were right. So, he dug up old records of carbon dioxide concentrations and concluded that the gas had increased by about 10% over the prior 100 years. Callendar attributed the warming to the CO2 rise and estimated that a doubling of CO2 could result in a 2 oC increase in temperature. But Callendar, like Arrhenius and Chamberlin, was more interested in explaining the ice ages than in worrying about global warming. Still, most scientists believed the overlapping absorption band with water vapor was decisive (Callendar argued that the spectrographs were too crude to be decisive), and the U.S. Weather Bureau even stated that because of the masking of CO2 by water vapor, “no probable increase of atmospheric CO2 could materially affect” the balance of radiation.

1950-1980: Development of the Science

Then in the 1940s and 1950s, the complacent view that humans could not upset the balance of nature began to be eroded. It started in the 1940s when military funding led to improved experimentation. Scientists discovered that the overlapping, smeared spectral bands from the old experiments conducted at sea-level pressure and temperature were misleading. At low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines with gaps where radiation could pass through. The most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly with the water vapor lines. Between this observation, and observations that the atmosphere was layered, with more water vapor in the lower atmosphere, and little water vapor in the upper atmosphere, scientists began to realize that changes in atmospheric CO2 could in fact have a significant effect on the Earth’s climate. Lewis D. Kaplan used a digital computer in 1952 to calculate that adding more CO2 to the upper atmosphere must change the balance of radiation significantly. In 1956, physicist Guy Plass calculated that human activity would raise the average global temperature at the rate of 1.1 oC per century. “If at the end of this century the average temperature has continued to rise,” Plass wrote, then it would be “firmly established” that CO2 could cause climate change.

It was about this time that scientists also developed the ability to track the movement of carbon through the radioactive isotope carbon-14. In the upper atmosphere, cosmic rays create C-14, which then decays over thousands of years. The carbon from fossil fuels is millions of years old – there is no C-14 in it. In 1955, chemist Hans Suess first reported that he had detected fossil carbon in the atmosphere. Though his initial results were very preliminary, he continued to develop more accurate results over the next decade. He teamed with Roger Revelle at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. They measured isotopic concentrations in the atmosphere and in the oceans, and they determined that the ocean surface waters absorbed a typical carbon dioxide molecule from the atmosphere in a decade or two, and that the oceans would completely “turn over” in several hundred years. Other independent researchers confirmed this.

Revelle was an oceanographer, and had been studying the oceans his entire career. He knew that the oceans were not composed of simple salt water, but contained a veritable “stew” of chemicals that create a buffering mechanism, stabilizing the acidity of sea water. He knew that the buffering effect would prevent the oceans from retaining as much carbon dioxide as simple calculations might suggest they would absorb. He determined that the ocean surface waters would take up only about 10% of the carbon predicted by calculations. Assuming a constant rate of emission of CO2 by industries, Revelle calculated that the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would level off after a few centuries at a total increase of about 40%. But, he cautioned…

“[Greenhouse effect warming] may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel combustion continues to rise exponentially. Human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”

Still, other scientists missed the full ramifications of Revelle’s studies and continued to deny that there was a greenhouse effect problem. In 1958, Callendar again published a paper concluding that atmospheric carbon dioxide continued a steady climb since the 19th century, but expressed consternation that “the oceans have not been accepting additional CO2 on anything like the accepted scale.” In 1959, two Swedish meteorologists, Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson explained the sea water buffering originally described by Revelle so clearly that they were often cited as the original source of this observation for many years. The oceans could absorb the carbon dioxide, but they lost most of the gas through evaporation before currents could sweep it to the depths. The atmosphere and oceans would theoretically reach equilibrium, but it could take thousands of years.

So, by the late 1950s, a handful of scientists had started informing the public that greenhouse gases could become problematic. Plass may have been the first American scientist. Revelle warned journalists and government officials that greenhouse warming could arrive within the foreseeable future and deserved attention. Bolin and Ericksson assumed that industrial production would continue to rise exponentially and calculated that atmospheric CO2 would rise by about 25% by the end of the 20th century (it actually rose from about 316 ppm in 1960 to about 370 ppm by 2000 – 17%). Soviet climatologist Mikhail Budyko predicted that exponentially increasing industrial emissions would create “drastic” global warming over the next century.

However, most scientists seemed to remain skeptical. Carbon dioxide measurements were not particularly precise, and by the mid 1950s, researchers began attempting to establish more accurate monitoring stations. Most of them only re-affirmed that accurately measuring carbon dioxide was difficult, and they were frustrated by “noisy data” and various interferences. But then Revelle and Suess hired Charles Keeling, who had developed infrared instrumentation for improved precision in measuring gases like CO2. Keeling established monitoring stations in Antarctica and atop the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii. Within two years, he had collected enough data to demonstrate a discernible rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide consistent with calculations using the recently demonstrated limited absorption capacity of the oceans. The Antarctica station was shut down because of funding issues, but the Mauna Loa station operated almost uninterrupted. As the record extended, it became increasingly significant – jagged but rising inexorably year after year. http://earthobservat...iew.php?id=5620



During the 1960s, there was a growing community of scientists from many fields communicating and collaborating. Biological scientists studying natural cycles of nitrogen and carbon got in touch with geochemists, who in turn communicated with atmospheric scientists (from primarily government-funded laboratories like the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, and the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey). In 1965, President Johnson commented on carbon dioxide in his Special Message to Congress. Later in the year, the President’s Science Advisory Committee warned:

“…by the year 2000, there will be about 25% more CO2 in our atmosphere than at present [and] this will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate… could occur.”

In 1966, the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Weather and Climate Modification was helmed by geophysicist Gordon MacDonald, who later served on President Richard Nixon’s Council on Environmental Quality. While examining (primarily military) potential for deliberate weather modification, MacDonald’s committee concluded that increased CO2 might also lead to “inadvertent weather modification.”

Although a few groups of scientists were determining that CO2 drivers could be significant, most only viewed it as one parameter in a larger system that they were attempting to understand. Most still thought that the Earth’s geochemistry was dominated by mineralogical processes that occurred over millions of years. By 1970, veteran climate experts like Helmut Landsberg and Hubert Lamb doubted that greenhouse warming was a possibility, and the observed general decline in global mean temperatures since 1940 seemed to justify the doubters.

In the 1970s, there were a few notable scientists, or groups of scientists, that indicated that perhaps those scientists who had warned of global warming should be listened to more closely. In 1978, Robert White, the first administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, commented:

“We now understand that industrial wastes, such as carbon dioxide released during the burning of fossil fuels, can have consequences for climate that pose a considerable threat to future society.”

In 1979, the JASON committee looked into the subject. The JASON committee is a group of elite scientists with high-level security clearances, who gather annually to advise the U.S. government. This panel was chaired by Gordon MacDonald. The JASON scientists concluded in their report “Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate,” that atmospheric CO2 might double by the year 2035, and this increase could raise global mean temperature by about 2-3 oC. They also estimated that polar temperatures might increase by four or five times as much.

Note: here is a NASA temperature anomaly map taken from the Washington Post:
http://voices.washin...ill_likely.html



Frank Press, Science Advisor to President Carter, after reading the JASON report, asked the National Academy of Sciences to research the state of knowledge on the subject. The resulting report by special committee, chaired by MIT meteorologist Jule Charney, and including such noted scientists as Bert Bolin (University of Stockholm), Robert Dickinson (NOAA), Henry Stommel (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution) and Carl Wunsch (MIT), stated:

“If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. The conclusions of prior studies have been generally reaffirmed. However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global climate system, may be expected to slow the course of observable climatic change. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.”

***

“We conclude that the predictions of CO2-induced climate changes made with the various models examined are basically consistent and mutually supporting. The differences in model results are relatively small and may be accounted for by differences in model characteristics and simplifying assumptions. Of course, we can never be sure that some badly estimated or totally overlooked effect may not vitiate our conclusions. We can only say that we have not been able to find such effects. If the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is indeed doubled and remains so long enough for the atmosphere and the intermediate layers of the ocean to attain approximate thermal equilibrium, our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the order of 3 oC will occur and that these will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns.”

This really set the stage for the first international efforts to study climate change – what eventually led to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, it also set the tone for climate research in the U.S. in the 1980s. The potential for the greenhouse effect to cause or contribute to global warming was being taken much more seriously by most researchers.

[Simple Simon]

Thanks for that background, Gordon. I have to admit that I hadn't realised the science went back that far.

Just out of interest though, did your efforts result in any changing of minds on the part of your two friends?

[Bruce N]

Quote

"If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result, and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible. The conclusions of prior studies have been generally reaffirmed. However, the study group points out that the ocean, the great and ponderous flywheel of the global climate system, may be expected to slow the course of observable climatic change. A wait-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late."

Unfortunately, it's already too late, I don't need climate models, Al Gore, or the multitude of scientist and their studies to tell me that climate change is happening, I merely just have to step outside my door to see it.

I would imagine it is a bit difficult for someone living between the latitudes of 40 degrees North - South of the equator to notice much variation in temperatures of their region outside of maybe greater and more intense storms that they may now experience.

I'm 56 years old and have lived all my life here in this region of Canada, Winnipeg, our claim to fame, being recognized as the coldest major city in the world, the normal temperature highs and lows for this time of the year are -12 C and -23 C respectively.

I mention that because we do enjoy four very distinct seasons in the year, it's quite common, or was common to suaver + 30 C temps during the summer solstice and shiver to - 30 C temps during the Winter solstice, with a nice smooth sine wave of temperatures between those solstices.

I mention that, because the weather forecast for New Years eve here in Winnipeg is for rain showers, I've yet to hold a snow shovel in my hands so far this Winter, the River Skate way that courses through downtown on the Red River has yet to open, there's still sections of open water on the river.

This is the trend in weather that I have noticed over the past 15 years, the winters have become less severe and shorter, the summers longer, hotter and drier, and yes we have had seasons that were quite out of the norm in the past, but that would only be for maybe a year, not the continuing trend that we've been experiencing for the past fifteen years.

Why I say it's too late, the Earth's population is now 7 billion, the acreage that feed the world will soon be desert, migration of millions to the shrinking Islands of sustainable living will be met with violence, you want to see man's inhumanity to man, stick around in the next fifteen years, you'll have a ringside seat.

[Simple Simon]

Bruce N, on 30 December 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:

Why I say it's too late, the Earth's population is now 7 billion, the acreage that feed the world will soon be desert, migration of millions to the shrinking Islands of sustainable living will be met with violence, you want to see man's inhumanity to man, stick around in the next fifteen years, you'll have a ringside seat.

Sadly, Bruce, I pretty much share your prognosis. I'm not sure about the 15 years exactly, but a simple extrapolation of trends over the last hundred years or so, doesn't lead to a particularly rosy picture of the future.

[fabkebab]

Simple Simon, on 30 December 2011 - 04:20 AM, said:

Bruce N, on 30 December 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:

Why I say it's too late, the Earth's population is now 7 billion, the acreage that feed the world will soon be desert, migration of millions to the shrinking Islands of sustainable living will be met with violence, you want to see man's inhumanity to man, stick around in the next fifteen years, you'll have a ringside seat.

Sadly, Bruce, I pretty much share your prognosis. I'm not sure about the 15 years exactly, but a simple extrapolation of trends over the last hundred years or so, doesn't lead to a particularly rosy picture of the future.

Me too -
I read a depressing book called "climate wars" that projects how things might turn out - Quite well for Siberia (shorter, milder winters) but awful for China and Pakistan (Glaciers feed most of thier water supply, and the glaciers will be gone)

[Maurreen]

Gordon, thanks for the history.

Fabkebab, thanks for the mentioning the book. I should read that.

[transmissiondown]

Gordon, Nice piece of writing! "In 1938, a guy by the name of Callendar – actually his name was Guy Callendar" .
I had to ad that, it made me laugh.

[Alistair S]

I came across this, which I found to be balanced and informative.

I hope it's helpful.

http://www.senseabou...therClimate.pdf

[Gordon]

I like this a lot, Alistair!

I collect and save and study things like this... it is a very good "layman's" terms on weather versus climate. I have downloaded this to my collection, thank you!

the other relevant analogy i've read ...

to those who believe weathermen can't predict the weather more than a week out at best, so how can the climate scientists allege that global average temperatures will be greater decades out...

offer a bet...

... say you'll bet them, 50-50, that the daily high temperature in Duluth, Minnesota, will be greater on August 1 of the next year than on January 1...

when they hem and haw and proclaim that's a completely ridiculous and unfair bet because January in Duluth is always cold and August is always hot... well, then you just tell them that they are pretty clever because they really understand the difference between weather and climate...

(i've used this effectively a couple times now)

[Ian Ferrin]

Simple Simon, on 30 December 2011 - 01:20 AM, said:

Bruce N, on 30 December 2011 - 07:36 PM, said:

Why I say it's too late, the Earth's population is now 7 billion, the acreage that feed the world will soon be desert, migration of millions to the shrinking Islands of sustainable living will be met with violence, you want to see man's inhumanity to man, stick around in the next fifteen years, you'll have a ringside seat.

Sadly, Bruce, I pretty much share your prognosis. I'm not sure about the 15 years exactly, but a simple extrapolation of trends over the last hundred years or so, doesn't lead to a particularly rosy picture of the future.

I share your sentiments too guys, with one caveat. Basically, while humans can be really dumb, they can also be really smart. There's a LOT of incredible workarounds that I've seen talked about: large scale carbon sinks, ways to grow stuff in really dry places, and check out the 'artificial leaf' (cheap energy from H2O). From my POV, it could go either way. Somehow though, people, especially in the developing world need to stop having so many babies... that may be the hugest challenge IMO.

Peace,

Ian

[Jim Colyer]

I think Al Gore has "lost it."

[klo]

It's funny how people think that just because it's 80 degrees one day and 50 degrees the next, global warming is to blame. I say welcome to Georgia

Anyways, I thought global warming has been around since the end of the Ice Age but I would be mistaken.

[Gordon]

Well, sort of klo...

we basically peaked in temp at the end of the last ice age... now we are in a steady and predictable decline into the next ice age, based on the orbit of the earth, the angle of the tilt of our axis, and the precession (the direction it is tilting)...

All else being equal, we should be entering the next ice age in about 16,000 years, give or take a thousand or so... and then we'd linger in it, and eventually work our way back out, in another 80,000 years or so...

But, given the man-made increase in long-lived greenhouse gases... we are much more likely to swing global temperatures upward as much as the ice ages dipped down (6 or more degrees C), but within the next century... not over thousands of years...


here, temperature is in blue, time from right to left... carbon dioxide is in green...we hit our last peak around 12,000 years ago or so... and should be heading down into a new "ice age"... most of the last ice age was -4 to -8 deg C less than today...

carbon dioxide concentrations today are at about 390 ppm... the most it had reached in the last 650,000 years is 300 ppm, so we now know at the least that CO2 is greater than at any time in the history of civilization...

for more information, see here:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

[Jim Colyer]

I don't think global warming is real. Al Gore popularized it, and he is kind of weird.

[stewart alexander]

it's getting hot here...




or is it.. I just saw Klo posting





the world will cope.. even if it means we all need to go...



back to my Klo fantasy... not that one.. I don't know.. your minds!!


I'm beating her at Trivial Pursuit.. now, that is pushing it..

[bernabby]

1. Scientists Denounce NASA’s ‘Unproven Remarks’ on Global Warming

Fifty top scientists, astronauts, and engineers who have worked for NASA are attacking the space agency’s stance that manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for global climate change.

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

The letter begins: “We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that manmade carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

“With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

The signees charge NASA with advocating an “extreme position” on climate change “prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers.”

They conclude: “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

[bernabby]

bernabby, on 15 April 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

1. Scientists Denounce NASA’s ‘Unproven Remarks’ on Global Warming

Fifty top scientists, astronauts, and engineers who have worked for NASA are attacking the space agency’s stance that manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for global climate change.

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

The letter begins: “We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that manmade carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

“With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

The signees charge NASA with advocating an “extreme position” on climate change “prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers.”

They conclude: “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

7 Apollo astronauts and a deputy director of the space shuttle program questioning man made global warming are fairly reputable sources don't you agree, Gordon?

[transmissiondown]

bernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

bernabby, on 15 April 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

1. Scientists Denounce NASA’s ‘Unproven Remarks’ on Global Warming

Fifty top scientists, astronauts, and engineers who have worked for NASA are attacking the space agency’s stance that manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for global climate change.

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

The letter begins: “We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that manmade carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

“With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

The signees charge NASA with advocating an “extreme position” on climate change “prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers.”

They conclude: “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

7 Apollo astronauts and a deputy director of the space shuttle program questioning man made global warming are fairly reputable sources don't you agree, Gordon?

Bernabby, I fail to see how their letter proves their point!

[bernabby]

transmissiondown, on 16 April 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

bernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

bernabby, on 15 April 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

1. Scientists Denounce NASA’s ‘Unproven Remarks’ on Global Warming

Fifty top scientists, astronauts, and engineers who have worked for NASA are attacking the space agency’s stance that manmade carbon dioxide is responsible for global climate change.

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

The letter begins: “We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS that manmade carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data.

“With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”

The signees charge NASA with advocating an “extreme position” on climate change “prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers.”

They conclude: “At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”

7 Apollo astronauts and a deputy director of the space shuttle program questioning man made global warming are fairly reputable sources don't you agree, Gordon?

Bernabby, I fail to see how their letter proves their point!

Did you read the letter?

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

First of all, the article describes these people as "experts". Experts in what, exactly? "Professional Experience" in what, exactly? Certainly not in meteorology or climate science. From the few background checks I have made, most of their scientific backgrounds are in various fields of physics. In other words, it's a little like "experts" in dentistry offering their opinions on open heart surgery.

Secondly, they are offering an opinion. Now, there is nothing wrong with having and opinion - we all do - but if we wish to argue that our opinion is more valid than that of someone else, we need to be able to offer evidence in the form of facts that support our opinion. These people offer nothing of the sort.

Thirdly, if they sincerely believe they have a strong scientific argument to make that is counter to the vast majority of scientists who specialise in the field, they should put that argument, along with supporting evidence, forward for peer review by the greater scientific community.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 16 April 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

bernabby, on 16 April 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.

First of all, the article describes these people as "experts". Experts in what, exactly? "Professional Experience" in what, exactly? Certainly not in meteorology or climate science. From the few background checks I have made, most of their scientific backgrounds are in various fields of physics. In other words, it's a little like "experts" in dentistry offering their opinions on open heart surgery.

Secondly, they are offering an opinion. Now, there is nothing wrong with having and opinion - we all do - but if we wish to argue that our opinion is more valid than that of someone else, we need to be able to offer evidence in the form of facts that support our opinion. These people offer nothing of the sort.

Thirdly, if they sincerely believe they have a strong scientific argument to make that is counter to the vast majority of scientists who specialise in the field, they should put that argument, along with supporting evidence, forward for peer review by the greater scientific community.

Oh, I suppose living in space, studying and knowing atmospheric conditions might be good resumes for speaking expertly about global warming. Looking down from space and observing climatic conditions might be more useful than the "what if" models scientists use for their opinions don't you agree? I'd say experiencing the moment with life in space is much more valid than experimental models that are programmed to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

[Ian Ferrin]

Simple Simon, on 16 April 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Thirdly, if they sincerely believe they have a strong scientific argument to make that is counter to the vast majority of scientists who specialise in the field, they should put that argument, along with supporting evidence, forward for peer review by the greater scientific community.

Bern's got a point Simon. This isn't an argument that can be won by peer review. Even if the scientific community is 80/20 or even 90/10 against climate deniers like bernabby, we can't win the argument with peer review. The preponderance of the evidence points to global warming, but it's not 100% conclusive.

IMO, it's kind of a PR battle that, unfortunately, the deniers are winning, or at least tying... giving the public, especially the American public, a skewed perspective. Very sad.

Peace,

Ian

[bernabby]

Ian Ferrin, on 16 April 2012 - 11:55 PM, said:

Simple Simon, on 16 April 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

Thirdly, if they sincerely believe they have a strong scientific argument to make that is counter to the vast majority of scientists who specialise in the field, they should put that argument, along with supporting evidence, forward for peer review by the greater scientific community.

Bern's got a point Simon. This isn't an argument that can be won by peer review. Even if the scientific community is 80/20 or even 90/10 against climate deniers like bernabby, we can't win the argument with peer review. The preponderance of the evidence points to global warming, but it's not 100% conclusive.

IMO, it's kind of a PR battle that, unfortunately, the deniers are winning, or at least tying... giving the public, especially the American public, a skewed perspective. Very sad.

Peace,

Ian

I agree, Ian. Besides, who determines the peer group? Fortunately, we have a stalemate for now but the preponderance of evidence appears to be trending against global warming theory.

[Simple Simon]

Ian Ferrin, on 17 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Bern's got a point Simon. This isn't an argument that can be won by peer review. Even if the scientific community is 80/20 or even 90/10 against climate deniers like bernabby, we can't win the argument with peer review. The preponderance of the evidence points to global warming, but it's not 100% conclusive.

In many ways, Ian, I agree with you. I know there are a great many potential flaws with the peer review model, as well as with the academic model that informs it, but I see it a little like the justice system. Sure the law is an ass, but the legal system, for all its faults, is based on controls that are aimed at determining the truth, on, the balance of probability, about a given situation. Scientific method and theories have similarities.

Quote

IMO, it's kind of a PR battle that, unfortunately, the deniers are winning, or at least tying... giving the public, especially the American public, a skewed perspective. Very sad.

To be honest, I believe the idea of human-induced climate change is one of the least disturbing aspects of how we are destroying the worldly inheritance of our descendants, let alone our wanton destruction of myriad other life forms on this tiny planet of ours.

[transmissiondown]

bernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Besides, who determines the peer group? Fortunately, we have a stalemate for now but the preponderance of evidence appears to be trending against global warming theory.

Sadly Bernabby, an opinion is not evidence and yes I read the letter and what I saw was just an opinion, there was no evidence presented and therefore cannot be a preponderance against anything.
One other thing Bernabby, 49 signers is a mere drop in the bucket of the 17,000 plus people who work for NASA. They would be considered outliers and a very minuscule percentage at best -- also most of these signers are affiliated with the Heartland Institute which is funded mostly by the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobile, two of the greatest polluters of all time.

[bernabby]

transmissiondown, on 17 April 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

bernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Besides, who determines the peer group? Fortunately, we have a stalemate for now but the preponderance of evidence appears to be trending against global warming theory.

Sadly Bernabby, an opinion is not evidence and yes I read the letter and what I saw was just an opinion, there was no evidence presented and therefore cannot be a preponderance against anything.
One other thing Bernabby, 49 signers is a mere drop in the bucket of the 17,000 plus people who work for NASA. They would be considered outliers and a very minuscule percentage at best -- also most of these signers are affiliated with the Heartland Institute which is funded mostly by the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobile, two of the greatest polluters of all time.

I see, so those with expertise in space exploration are not entitled to express their conclusions based on their 1000 years of experience among them. I understand, if others express an opinion other than the one expressed by a body of scientists whom you embrace then those opinions do not count. I suppose those global warming scientists don't have a financial interest in keeping the global warming scare going.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 17 April 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

Ian Ferrin, on 17 April 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

Bern's got a point Simon. This isn't an argument that can be won by peer review. Even if the scientific community is 80/20 or even 90/10 against climate deniers like bernabby, we can't win the argument with peer review. The preponderance of the evidence points to global warming, but it's not 100% conclusive.

In many ways, Ian, I agree with you. I know there are a great many potential flaws with the peer review model, as well as with the academic model that informs it, but I see it a little like the justice system. Sure the law is an ass, but the legal system, for all its faults, is based on controls that are aimed at determining the truth, on, the balance of probability, about a given situation. Scientific method and theories have similarities.

Quote

IMO, it's kind of a PR battle that, unfortunately, the deniers are winning, or at least tying... giving the public, especially the American public, a skewed perspective. Very sad.

To be honest, I believe the idea of human-induced climate change is one of the least disturbing aspects of how we are destroying the worldly inheritance of our descendants, let alone our wanton destruction of myriad other life forms on this tiny planet of ours.

Are my eyes playing games with me or am I reading that you don't buy into that global warming agenda?

[transmissiondown]

bernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

transmissiondown, on 17 April 2012 - 06:46 AM, said:

bernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Besides, who determines the peer group? Fortunately, we have a stalemate for now but the preponderance of evidence appears to be trending against global warming theory.

Sadly Bernabby, an opinion is not evidence and yes I read the letter and what I saw was just an opinion, there was no evidence presented and therefore cannot be a preponderance against anything.
One other thing Bernabby, 49 signers is a mere drop in the bucket of the 17,000 plus people who work for NASA. They would be considered outliers and a very minuscule percentage at best -- also most of these signers are affiliated with the Heartland Institute which is funded mostly by the Koch brothers and Exxon Mobile, two of the greatest polluters of all time.

I see, so those with expertise in space exploration are not entitled to express their conclusions based on their 1000 years of experience among them. I understand, if others express an opinion other than the one expressed by a body of scientists whom you embrace then those opinions do not count. I suppose those global warming scientists don't have a financial interest in keeping the global warming scare going.

Bernabby, it is obvious that you have selective reading skills! Gordon posted some graphs and links to work done by scientists who work in the field of climate science. You can blather all you want about the 49 scientists who have 1000 years of experience between them but if their field of expertise lies somewhere else I am not going to find them to be as credible as someone whose field of expertise is in climate science.
You also keep bringing up the 1000 yrs. of expertise those 49 people have, please tell me why the other 17000 plus people who work for NASA who have about 255,000 yrs. experience between them did not sign with the 49?

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 18 April 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

Are my eyes playing games with me or am I reading that you don't buy into that global warming agenda?

As usual, Bernabby, you will read into what is written whatever you feel you need to read into it that might help and support your pre-existing beliefs and opinions - Transmissiondown correctly refers to this as "selective reading".

[Simple Simon]

On a lighter note......

[jonie]

bernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.


Oh, I suppose living in space, studying and knowing atmospheric conditions might be good resumes for speaking expertly about global warming. Looking down from space and observing climatic conditions might be more useful than the "what if" models scientists use for their opinions don't you agree? I'd say experiencing the moment with life in space is much more valid than experimental models that are programmed to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

When they're looking down, what might their explanation be for the abundance of devastating tornadoes the US has experienced over the last 5 years? Tornadoes which have been increasingly destructive even within this 5 yr time period.

What might they attribute the relatively rapid, almost overnight overheating of the atmosphere to? (relative in terms of decades vs normal atmospheric changes which occur slowly and progressively over centuries or millenia?

A natural atmospheric pattern? How do they know unless they've historically studied weather patterns as climatologists and meteorologists have.

They have an "opinion", as you and I do. In fact, the letter appears to neither promote nor refute the issue and those behind it seem more upset with NASA for taking a stance on an issue they feel is still scientifically unresolved.

Nowhere in the body of their letter do they appear to be putting themselves out there as experts.

The scientific evidence weighs heavily on the side of Co2 emission as a cause for global warming. There's also a great deal of weighty denial which, unfortunately, fails to provide the same level of evidence to suggest it is all naturally occurring.

A letter from astronauts and ex-NASA employees does not constitute itself as evidence.

[bernabby]

jonie, on 17 April 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

bernabby, on 17 April 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Seven Apollo astronauts and the deputy director of the space shuttle program are among the experts — with more than 1,000 years of combined professional experience — who have signed a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden.


Oh, I suppose living in space, studying and knowing atmospheric conditions might be good resumes for speaking expertly about global warming. Looking down from space and observing climatic conditions might be more useful than the "what if" models scientists use for their opinions don't you agree? I'd say experiencing the moment with life in space is much more valid than experimental models that are programmed to reach a pre-determined conclusion.

When they're looking down, what might their explanation be for the abundance of devastating tornadoes the US has experienced over the last 5 years? Tornadoes which have been increasingly destructive even within this 5 yr time period.

Quote

Those are weather patterns where man has no influence.

What might they attribute the relatively rapid, almost overnight overheating of the atmosphere to? (relative in terms of decades vs normal atmospheric changes which occur slowly and progressively over centuries or millenia?

Quote

Where is the atmosphere overheating? It was pouring rain and freezing in my part of the world last week.

A natural atmospheric pattern? How do they know unless they've historically studied weather patterns as climatologists and meteorologists have.

Quote

1000 years of cumulative experience. I believe there are a few years of studying among those years

.

They have an "opinion", as you and I do. In fact, the letter appears to neither promote nor refute the issue and those behind it seem more upset with NASA for taking a stance on an issue they feel is still scientifically unresolved.

Quote

If the matter is unresolved the default position is not to promote global warming.

Nowhere in the body of their letter do they appear to be putting themselves out there as experts.

Quote

They are putting themselves out there to condemn NASA for pushing global warming. They are staking their reputations with this action so I don't think they are speaking from a position of novices.

The scientific evidence weighs heavily on the side of Co2 emission as a cause for global warming. There's also a great deal of weighty denial which, unfortunately, fails to provide the same level of evidence to suggest it is all naturally occurring.

Quote

So, let's hold our fire, pro or con, until more reliable data and objective testing are completed.

A letter from astronauts and ex-NASA employees does not constitute itself as evidence.

Quote

But you can't discount them as quacks like some on this forum. Can I get a little more respect and some love.

What they see is the power and wonder of Mother Nature. What they don't see is man made global warming. Man vs Nature is no contest.

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 20 April 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Man vs Nature is no contest.

Can you please clarify what you mean by that, Bernabby?

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 19 April 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

bernabby, on 20 April 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Man vs Nature is no contest.

Can you please clarify what you mean by that, Bernabby?

Sure, natural disasters are exponentially more damaging than what scientists claim the damage that man can do on earth. It's like an elephant facing off against an ant. The elephant will always win, always.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

well I was outside earlier on, looked up at the sky and couldn't see any greenhouse gases about so we probably have to admit Bernabby and the NASA guys are right as they couldn't see anything wrong when they had a look from space. I plan to increase my oil burning this year in celebration.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 17 April 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

bernabby, on 18 April 2012 - 06:16 AM, said:

Are my eyes playing games with me or am I reading that you don't buy into that global warming agenda?

As usual, Bernabby, you will read into what is written whatever you feel you need to read into it that might help and support your pre-existing beliefs and opinions - Transmissiondown correctly refers to this as "selective reading".

Quote

To be honest, I believe the idea of human-induced climate change is one of the least disturbing aspects of how we are destroying the worldly inheritance of our descendants, let alone our wanton destruction of myriad other life forms on this tiny planet of ours.

Have I quoted you exactly, Simon? Can you explain my selective reading of your quote?

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 21 April 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Sure, natural disasters are exponentially more damaging than what scientists claim the damage that man can do on earth. It's like an elephant facing off against an ant. The elephant will always win, always.

Well, Bernabby, given that mankind now has the ability and the tools to eliminate pretty much all life of any kind on Earth, I would respectfully suggest that you are incorrect.

[bernabby]

Simple Simon, on 20 April 2012 - 05:06 PM, said:

bernabby, on 21 April 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Sure, natural disasters are exponentially more damaging than what scientists claim the damage that man can do on earth. It's like an elephant facing off against an ant. The elephant will always win, always.

Well, Bernabby, given that mankind now has the ability and the tools to eliminate pretty much all life of any kind on Earth, I would respectfully suggest that you are incorrect.

Man can never eliminate roaches. Nature, on the other hand, can. But, did I quote you exactly?

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 21 April 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Man can never eliminate roaches. Nature, on the other hand, can. But, did I quote you exactly?

I had a feeling you might mention roaches. Oh well.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

I saw a really good film last night about global warming called 'The Island President' if you ever get to see it.

It's a documentary following the (ex) president of The Maldives trying to make sure that his entire nation (1000 island or so in the Indian Ocean) doesn't disappear from rising sea levels caused by climate change. The highest point on any of these islands is 5ft so they risk loosing their entire nation if we don't do something about carbon emissions....

[bernabby]

Jackie Chan said:

I saw a really good film last night about global warming called 'The Island President' if you ever get to see it.

It's a documentary following the (ex) president of The Maldives trying to make sure that his entire nation (1000 island or so in the Indian Ocean) doesn't disappear from rising sea levels caused by climate change. The highest point on any of these islands is 5ft so they risk loosing their entire nation if we don't do something about carbon emissions....

What should we do then about these emissions? Should the rest of the 7 billion people stop breathing to save 1000 people who choose to live on a tiny island 5 feet above sea level? Even if the rest of us sacrificed ourselves for these 1000 do you think the waves would stop, there would be no earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters?

[Simple Simon]

bernabby, on 29 April 2012 - 08:42 PM, said:

What should we do then about these emissions? Should the rest of the 7 billion people stop breathing to save 1000 people who choose to live on a tiny island 5 feet above sea level? Even if the rest of us sacrificed ourselves for these 1000 do you think the waves would stop, there would be no earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters?

It's hard to know where to start. So I won't.

[transmissiondown]

bernabby, on 29 April 2012 - 12:42 AM, said:

Jackie Chan said:

I saw a really good film last night about global warming called 'The Island President' if you ever get to see it.

It's a documentary following the (ex) president of The Maldives trying to make sure that his entire nation (1000 island or so in the Indian Ocean) doesn't disappear from rising sea levels caused by climate change. The highest point on any of these islands is 5ft so they risk loosing their entire nation if we don't do something about carbon emissions....

What should we do then about these emissions? Should the rest of the 7 billion people stop breathing to save 1000 people who choose to live on a tiny island 5 feet above sea level? Even if the rest of us sacrificed ourselves for these 1000 do you think the waves would stop, there would be no earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters?

"Bernabby Jones as Jesus Christ" ...screw those people on the tiny islands, if they're so dumb as to "choose" to live there they deserve what they get...

[jonie]

bernabby, on 20 April 2012 - 04:08 PM, said:

Simple Simon, on 19 April 2012 - 11:32 PM, said:

bernabby, on 20 April 2012 - 02:39 PM, said:

Man vs Nature is no contest.

Can you please clarify what you mean by that, Bernabby?

Sure, natural disasters are exponentially more damaging than what scientists claim the damage that man can do on earth. It's like an elephant facing off against an ant. The elephant will always win, always.

Just because we call them "natural" disasters doesn't mean that we can't or don't influence nature by our behavior. We can start a fire by rubbing two sticks together. A fire that would not have occurred without our intervention. We can turn water into gas by setting it atop a burner we constructed and wired electricity to.

We have manipulated nature to do our bidding. If nature were some sort of uncontrollable beast, how is we've been able to both tame it and unleash it to our own benefit? By manipulating nature, we have the capability of destroying far more effectively than nature itself , left to it's own devices.(short of meteor or comet striking the earth) If Hiroshima and Nagasaki didn't prove that, I don't know what could.

If we had put half the effort into directing nature towards the goal of sustaining us rather than manipulating it for our own selfish and violent inclinations, there'd be no controversy.

I will agree that our capabilities are not without limitations. We've spent so much time developing sciences which, though beneficial to us, are detrimental to nature, we are now scrambling to understand the sciences which might reverse or stem the damage we've done.

But I think this is beyond your scope of understanding, bernabby.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Quote

What should we do then about these emissions? Should the rest of the 7 billion people stop breathing to save 1000 people who choose to live on a tiny island 5 feet above sea level? Even if the rest of us sacrificed ourselves for these 1000 do you think the waves would stop, there would be no earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters?

I think you've got muddled somewhere.... There are more than 1000 islands and on some of these very low islands live 300,000 or more people...
They have lived on their islands for much longer than the USA has been in existence and they know all about tsunamis. So they've through tsunamis and stuff.
Has anyone else seen pictures of it's capital city? It looks like the coolest capital city in the world...


By the way, the ex President points out that much of Manhattan lies lower than the Maldives do.

[jonie]

Jackie Chan said:

Quote

What should we do then about these emissions? Should the rest of the 7 billion people stop breathing to save 1000 people who choose to live on a tiny island 5 feet above sea level? Even if the rest of us sacrificed ourselves for these 1000 do you think the waves would stop, there would be no earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis and other natural disasters?

I think you've got muddled somewhere.... There are more than 1000 islands and on some of these very low islands live 300,000 or more people...
They have lived on their islands for much longer than the USA has been in existence and they know all about tsunamis. So they've through tsunamis and stuff.
Has anyone else seen pictures of it's capital city? It looks like the coolest capital city in the world...


By the way, the ex President points out that much of Manhattan lies lower than the Maldives do.

Not to mention his continuous muddling of the fact that human Co2 exhalation is not a problem and never has been. But he knows that. The man is not stupid, you know. He just plays ignorant for our benefit. He will stick solidly to any point, no matter how nonsensical, as long as it serves to justify his right to fill up his pickups and SUV's with cheap gas, regardless of the consequences.

It's the right wing, conservative way. It's all about "them" and their individual rights. The rest of the world can go sh1t in a hat.

[Alistair S]

It does look cool, doesn't it?

Maybe over-populated? All these tourists depleting their freshwater aquifers - but contributing 90% of government income.

I wouldn't mind a holiday in the Maldives, though.

[Jackie Chan's Wee Gran]

Alistair S, on 29 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

It does look cool, doesn't it?

Maybe over-populated? All these tourists depleting their freshwater aquifers - but contributing 90% of government income.

I wouldn't mind a holiday in the Maldives, though.

it looks really cool on the big screen.
I'm not sure what they think about tourism if carbon levels/global warming really is threatening their country...do they still want people to fly in on their planes as tourists? I'm guessing that they do as it contributes so much to the economy....but that's the sort of thing that is causing the problem.

[Bruce N]

Jackie Chan said:

Alistair S, on 29 April 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

It does look cool, doesn't it?

Maybe over-populated? All these tourists depleting their freshwater aquifers - but contributing 90% of government income.

I wouldn't mind a holiday in the Maldives, though.

it looks really cool on the big screen.
I'm not sure what they think about tourism if carbon levels/global warming really is threatening their country...do they still want people to fly in on their planes as tourists? I'm guessing that they do as it contributes so much to the economy....but that's the sort of thing that is causing the problem.

I was curious about their electrical power requirements, a search turned up this: http://www.sari-ener...ergy_detail.asp

It seems they are heavily reliant on diesel fuel oil (DFO) for their steam plants and for running their sea water desalination plant, with the majority of the fresh water being used in the steam plant, while many of the smaller Islands rely on direct diesel electrical generation.

It also seems they are very reliant on tourism with some 61,000 beds available throughout the Islands, with plans to double that number (beds) over the next ten years.

A good many of the Islands are run as private resorts.

They are also concerned about the reliance on DFO and the contribution they themselves are making to Co2 pollution and climate change, and are investing in green renewable energy sources. Although that now only accounts for less then 3% of their current energy use.

Not sure why they don't look into wind turbines, a couple of them could supply all their energy needs on Malé. I know they're ugly to look at, but still, they'd probably pay for themselves in about 15 years.

All in all, I'd say they're an microcosm of what is happening now, and where this planet may be headed for in terms of sustainability.

And yes, I am putting the Maldives on my bucket list. You should check out the Maldives on Google Earth.

[jonie]

Foolish Maldivians!

Don't listen to the Global Warming crowd. The sea waters aren't rising.

It's obvious you've accumulated too much stuff which is weighing the island down.

You're welcome.

Signed,


Concerned Americans Against Global Sinking.