Hurricane Activity Near Record Low

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 03:21 AM) [snapback]532802[/snapback]</div>

Very nice job. I am slightly disappointed that some true believer did not chime in with something along the lines.... "this is exactly what we would expect global warming to be responsible for" :lol: Did al gore comment on these facts yet? It is only a matter of time before he takes credit for turning around and curing the Earth of Global Warming :lol:

 

Global warming opens Arctic seabed to the search for oil and gas

30 Oct 2007 bbj.huAs the ice retreats, nations try to advance their undersea borders and resource claims.
Read more here. http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_32800_global+w...il+and+gas.html
Remember this is a global problem not a regional problem. There is no point picking one event in isolation, you need to look at the whole world. I'm not saying the arctic melt proves global warming, that would be making the same silly mistake you made but it does counter your argument based on the size of the Antarctic ice cap. I'll go with the opinion of the majority of climatologists. (did I spell that right?)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 31 2007, 08:50 AM) [snapback]532848[/snapback]</div>

I think 10 years might not even be enough - but fine.

Anyhow, how have you been? Did you ever get to try the Three Rings Shiraz?

Have a nice day.

David

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer @ Oct 31 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]532855[/snapback]</div>

Only when he wasn't juicing

Did you see how small he got since he retired!

Cant wait to see Barry Bonds in two or three years :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 03:21 AM) [snapback]532802[/snapback]</div>

This sounds like another attempt to say global warming isn't happening or that it's a natural phenomena.

It's interesting that there is virtual unanimity in the scientific communtiy that humans are driving global warming (hundreds of peer reviewed studies saying humans are driving it, zero saying we're not). And yet, many people believe it's not happening. Why? This speaks to how easily people can be misled. The average citizen doesn't have time to study complex issues. So they take the opinion of those they trust without thinking. This is called blind faith. It's also what we did in the dark ages. Religion and superstition came before science. People who said the Earth revolved around the sun were put to death.

Sadly, it seems we're slipping back to this irrational behavior. You don't simply dismiss the scientific community as being liberal if they say something you disagree with. That's childish, irrational behavior.

We must move beyond blind faith to make our world a better place not worse. That means thinking for ourselves. Putting aside the science, common sense is enough to figure out the logical position on global warming. We know we're pulling literally millions of years of carbon out of the ground and putting it in the sky as a known heat trapping atmospheric gas in a short period of time. Taking the default position that this is probably OK is an insult to logic. Assuming that it's OK to massively alter the system that keeps us alive is crazy and hugely irresponsible to our children.

Saying global warming is a natural phenomena is an illogical red herring that only a non-thinking person could buy into. Global warming opponents (ie: those that have been duped into believing the self-serving arguments of Exxon and others) say that warming and cooling cycles have always occurred. Therefore, today's warming is natural. That's insane. It's two separate issues. Of course warming and cooling cycles are natural. The separate issue is, are humans accelerating this natural trend. If we pull millions of years of carbon out of the ground and put it in the sky as CO2 in a short period of time, it is logical to assume we are.

Beyond that, the smartest people in the world on this issue say we are driving global warming.

It's time to end the insane, childish, stupid debate about whether or not global warming is happening. Only someone who is not using their mind could say it isn't happening. We need to move into decisive action to protect our children and do what's right for all of human society.

 

[attachmentid=12276]

The extent of the seasonal Antarctic sea ice. Ice which forms in winter and melts in summer. And the "record" high is so close to what it is every year as to be insignificant except as a normal fluctuation. And the chart only goes back 30 years.

Meanwhile, the extent of the overall ice sheet (as well as northern hemisphere ice) is decreasing.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(nyprius @ Oct 31 2007, 09:56 AM) [snapback]532874[/snapback]</div>

You frame the arguement if a very self-serving fashion. I along with lots of others including prominent climatologists do not believe man is responsible for global warming if that is indeed what is happening now.

and if you are correct... how do you fix it? how do you get india and china to go along especially since china is the # 1 producer of greenhouse gases now?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 31 2007, 10:37 AM) [snapback]532894[/snapback]</div>

Rather than self serving, I would call my approach human serving and logical. You say you don't believe climate change is happening. That means you think that removing carbon from the Earth's crust 10,000 times faster than it was placed there and placing up in the sky as a known heat trapping atmospheric gas won't have a negative impact. That's insane.

We know from ice core samples around the world that we have raised carbon levels to the highest level in at least 400,000 years. We also know human carbon emissions have raised atmospheric carbon by more than 30%. Further, we know that atmospheric carbon concentrations almost perfectly track average global temperature. When carbon goes down by 10% for example, we have a major ice age. We've raised it by 30% (ie: three times more than enough to cause the opposite of a major ice age). How can any logical person say that our default position should be that human carbon emissions won't cause a problem. Aren't you embarrased to take this postion?

Also, you say prominent climatologists say global warming isn't happening. They get their paychecks directly or indirectly from Exxon and others. Their paycheck is based on saying global warming isn't happening. Credible scientists laugh at them. Why is it that every single one of these "prominent climatologists" cannot get validation from their peers? Because they are obviously biased!

Please use your mind. Our children will look back on those like you in the same way we look back on those who opposed interracial marriage or ending slavery.

You're probably a republican and want to support your team. But you're a human being first and should support your children. In that sense, we are all on the same team. Let's start acting that way and do the right thing for our children.

And before you start saying something dumb like addressing climate change will hurt our economy, remember that we're talking about efficiency. Efficiency is a good thing. Doing more with less fossil fuel will help our economy, not hurt it. (but it might hurt Exxon's profits. So they pump lies out to the public that uninformed citizens buy into). More importantly, the economy is based on the environment. There is no economy without the environment since we'll be dead. Taking the position that degrading the environment is the best thing to do for the economy is also insane.

We must find ways to move beyond this childish, oil company-inspired, anti-global warming rhetoric, and move quickly into decisive action to protect our children.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 31 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]532894[/snapback]</div>

Really?

I suppose it comes down to how you choose to define "prominent" and how you choose to define "climatologist", but if you don't mind satisfying my curiosity could you please offer the names of 2 of these "prominent climatologists"?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Oct 31 2007, 11:10 AM) [snapback]532909[/snapback]</div>

actually a google of that question brings tons of them up

here is but one

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568

kind of the Flat Earther's a few hundred years ago who believed in their technology

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Oct 31 2007, 11:25 AM) [snapback]532915[/snapback]</div>

Thats true - but at least with lung cancer and smoking there are fewer variables than predicting weather on a 23,000 mile in diameter rock hurtling through space at some unGodly speed. The semiconductor industry has trouble predicting element traits in the smallest most controlled environments with the most advanced probes and computers - NASA just redid the weather calculations for the 1990's a month or two ago - why? they made an error?? Please, there is NO way mankind has any true sense of this planets weather patterns whether they be tomorrow or 100 years from now or 1000 years ago. it is complete idiocy or conceit to think we do.

Q? if you could dial the best temperature for planet earth, what would it be? that should be a relatively easy one for all these great scientists.

Q? if man is indeed responsible for GW - how do we fix it without having direct control over China, or India or other countries?

the best thing is to act responsibly and treat the planet and its resources with respect. and of course, drink some good red wine every now and then

 

Sure, what th' heck: science is imperfect, the world is big*, no one's in charge, nobody knows what will happen, and anyway most of us will be dead when the ice hits the sea. So eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow someone else or something else dies.

* BTW: that's 23,000 miles circumference, not diameter.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dbermanmd @ Oct 31 2007, 11:38 AM) [snapback]532929[/snapback]</div>

The main flaw in your thinking relates to your basic operating premise. You seem to be saying we don't have enough information to act. The key question is what level of certainty do we need to act to protect our children and society overall? For example, would you not make you child wear a seat belt unless you were 90% certain you were going to have an accident?

If every peer reviewed scientific study says humans are causing global warming, who are you or any other non-expert to question that? Use common sense. We know we're removing fossil fuel from the Earth's crust much faster than it was placed there. Why would we take the default position that massively altering the system that keeps us alive is safe?

Your two questions are easy to answer.

What's the best temperature for the Earth? Answer: Humans only know the tiniest fraction of all there is to know about the Earth. We know a lot. But compared to all there is to know, we know virtually nothing. We are alive because of the Earth. We are not smart enough to alter without consequence the massively complex system that keeps us alive. Therefore, what is the right temperature? Whatever the Earth selects without human interference! Our bias should be to not alter whatever temperature the Earth choses to give us. Why? Because it is infinetely smarter than we are. We are like children playing with loaded guns. Our power greatly exceeds our wisdom.

How do we fix GCC without control over China or India? Another massive red herring. This oil-company inspired argument is designed to maintain the status quo. Let's take a closer look at it. The foundational premise of this argument is that the US economy would be hurt if we used fossil fuels more effciently, but China and India didn't. Not logical. It also says US manufacturing costs would go up relative to those countries. Logical, but we outsource much of our manufacturing to them. So it's less relevant.

However, these are minor issues. The far larger issue involves stepping back and looking at the big picture. From this level, we see that opposition to addressing GCC on this basis essentially is saying, we must continue to destroy the environment that supports all life and the economy because it's too difficult or expensive to not destroy it. In other words, we must kill our children because it's too difficult and expensive to not kill them.

We lead the world in economic ingenuity. We drove the industrial age. Are you saying we are not smart enough to figure out how to build a strong economy and protect our children and then environment at the same time? If we can't do that, we deserve to go into decline. (BTW, we inevitably will go into decline if we can't find ways to align the economy with nature.)

We built our society on fossil fuel use. Is it fair to tell China and India they can't do the same? The answer to what can we do about India and China is, what can we do about ourselves. We can't tell them what to do. We need to act like the leader that we are and model sustainable behavior. Let's apply some of that famous American ingenuity to solving this problem, rather than crying about how hard it is.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Oct 31 2007, 02:21 AM) [snapback]532802[/snapback]</div>

It is worth noting that figures 2 and 3 were updated Oct 26th, two days before Hurricane Noel became the 14th named storm. That will surely bring the # cyclone days for the calender year above 1977. Still a relatively calm year, and I am glad the total cyclone energy was down below averages, even if the number of named storms was not. I don't like doom and gloom either, thanks for the news, but unfortunately this doesn't change the overall GW picture.

Other positive news - demand for gasoline has not increased from this time last year, last week it was -0.5%, this week +0.3%. Again, this shows economic growth doesn't require growth in petroleum usage.

 

Every single article on the subject of global warming published in a peer-reviewed journal says that GW is real, and that human activities contribute to it.

You have to look to the popular press to find anything opposing that view. The popular press, BTW, is about evenly divided.

Conclusion: Every real scientist in the field is on the same side of the fence, and only the quacks and industry stooges are on the other. Interesting that the d-man, who claims to be a doctor, stands opposed to every peer-reviewed journal to have published on the subject. Interesting also, that he vouches for a man who still claims that smoking does not cause lung disease.