terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Alarmists should cool off: Scientists have news on warming

▼

Alarmists should cool off: Scientists have news on warming

From Washington Times: Little chance Earth will see even 11-degree rise

from JoeUser Forums
For all of the alamists out there, and all of the Chicken Littles like Al Bore, I mean Gore, and his friends that are screaming that President Bush has gagged NASA scientists, and is preventing news on the dangers of global warming from getting out to the public, it seems that perhaps some folks really should be taking some major chill pills.

Check the following snippet from the Washington Times, or better yet, check the original article by clicking on the headline which is linked.




Scientists cool outlook on global warming

By Jennifer Harper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
April 21, 2006


Global warming may not be as dramatic as some scientists have predicted.
Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions."
Supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation, the Duke researchers noted that some observational studies predicted that the Earth's temperature could rise as much as 16 degrees in this century because of an increase in carbon dioxide or other so-called greenhouse gases.
The Duke estimates show the chances that the planet's temperature will rise even by 11 degrees is only 5 percent, which falls in line with previous, less-alarming predictions that meteorologists made almost three decades ago.
In recent years, much academic research has indicated otherwise, often in colorful terms and citing the United States as the biggest contributor to global warming. This month, a University of Toronto scientist predicted that a quarter of the planet's plants and animals would be extinct by 2050 because of rising temperatures. On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases.


... more at linked article

EMPHASIS ADDED
3,175 views 35 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
The temperature on earth doesn’t have to change 11 degrees for us to feel the effects. It only needs to change a few degrees plus or minus. These few degree changes will affect different portions of the earth differently. Some places will go into prolonged droughts while others experience unusually large amount of rain fall. Scientists are always asked what the worst that can happen is. The "Worst" is almost never going to come true. This is why people doubt the information they receive from studies. The media is always reporting the worst case sceneries. The Earth doesn't function in worst case sceneries, it functions in averages. Global warming will not kill of the human race. Global warming will not change or destroy the fabric of our society. We are not killing the Earth. The only thing Global warming will do is change how we live in certain parts of the world. Some will be improved while other places will become worse.
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top

could go on for hours if i had time. your perception of nature's tenaciousness is as wildly overoptimistic as it is horribly short-sighted.

Or it is dead on.  Since nature has a habit of proving me right.  Dont get me wrong, we can destroy an are with a concerted effort.  but nature compensates elsewhere.  And introducing a new species inevitably brings a new balance as a new predator will spring up, or the population will stabilize at a manageable level that becomes part of the eco system.

Dont forget Pangea.

Siege of Centauri
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
Eventually nature will say "enough is enough!" and kill us all.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Whatever the consequences may be it cannot be denied we are having a substantial effect on the global climate.

Sure it can. I don't see any definitive evidence that we're having any significant impact on global climate.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since nature has a habit of proving me right


prior to your birth, did nature habitually prove someone else right? or is this a unique occurence billions of years in the making?

introducing a new species inevitably brings a new balance as a new predator will spring up, or the population will stabilize at a manageable level that becomes part of the eco system


in an amazingly short span of time, man has damn near wiped out all the top-level predators on this planet. the only new one to spring up in the past 10,000 years is the dreaded chupacabra.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Don’t so anything because we might be wrong? Since when do we know for sure the consequences of any of the actions we take? All we can do is act on the best facts we can get. When trying to predict climate change you can’t start factoring in what ifs, you have to assume conditions will remain stable and not try to factor in remote possibilities like meteorites, massive solar flares, the magnetic poles flipping and the second coming of Christ. What an absurd argument. That’s like saying we shouldn’t fight terrorism because we don’t know for sure that fighting it wont make it worse.


Hey, stub -

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say, "Don't do anything." I did say, in so many words, "Don't bet the farm on mitigating global warming." I'm not a short-term fatalist, but the notion that we can control weather and thereby control our destiny is another example of the hubris unique to humans. The law of unintended consequences will not give us a pass just because we're dealing with global climate, no matter how noble the intent.

And it's tough to negate a triple negative, but I don't see an analogy to the war on terror at all. My mental gymnastics tell me that is exactly the argument many use against the war on terror - that we'll just make it worse by doing "something."
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say, "Don't do anything." I did say, in so many words, "Don't bet the farm on mitigating global warming." I'm not a short-term fatalist, but the notion that we can control weather and thereby control our destiny is another example of the hubris unique to humans. The law of unintended consequences will not give us a pass just because we're dealing with global climate, no matter how noble the intent.


You said “ Unless we back the wrong horse” which means any action would be a gamble does it not? Then you went on to describe an unlikely scenario in which we might need those extra green house gasses to offset an ice age. How is that not suggesting doing nothing is an option?

Thing is we don’t need to try and predict anything when deciding on an action, just use logic. The earth survived and was able to support life for millions of years before we arrived. Dinosaur farts don’t even come close to what mankind is capable of doing to the environment. If we use care and do not change anything to drastically there is no reason to believe it won’t continue to be able to support life. We are the ones gambling that our activities won’t harm the global climate and with currency we can’t afford to lose.

Since particles that we put into the air are responsible for reducing the solar energy reaching the surface by as much as 30% in some areas and the “pan evaporation rate” has dropped as much as 25% I would say that’s a big YES to the question of whether or not we can effect the climate.
Link

This is a good article on how the medias attempt to offer balance when presenting science has made it appear there is a great debate raging on global warming, there is not. Link
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

prior to your birth, did nature habitually prove someone else right? or is this a unique occurence billions of years in the making?

I noticed you ignored Pangea.  Does not fit your short term panic zone?

I gave you Millions, and you give me less than 100.  Oh well, panic merchants abound.

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
stub -

Guess I'll have to be more explicit about what I'm suggesting & what I'm not. "Betting on the wrong horse" implies placing a bet on some horse. And any action is a gamble. Again, I never said we should do nothing, just be realistic about what we are doing and what we can realistically accomplish, given the context of geologic time and the knowledge that this little rock will be incinerated one day.

Further, the scenario I described is anything but unlikely - the earth has "wobbled" thousands of times, ice ages have come & gone, including the mini-ice age of the 1700's, which if I'm not mistaken was contributed to by neither dinosaur farts nor Escalades.

The earth survived and was able to support life for millions of years before we arrived.


And it survived catastrophes far bigger than any damage we've done since we've been here. It's also highly likely that we wouldn't be here having this discussion were it not for one or two of those catastrophes. Without them, dinosaurs might still be the most highly evolved creatures on the planet.

Man is not Earth's only hope, and not Earth's only threat. We can and should be logical, but the laws of logic won't prevent us from being wrong, nor will they prevent the Earth from surviving all we can throw at it.
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
I noticed you ignored Pangea. Does not fit your short term panic zone?


hell, i never got to the pangea part (not that it woulda made much difference due to irrelevance). i kept tryin but every time i came to this part:

Since nature has a habit of proving me right.


i'd just lose it entirely.

I gave you Millions


you shonuff did...millions of laffs, i mean. okay, i'm really only in the mid 100,000s now, but they're addin up fast, and every time i think about nature's habit of proving you right, i rack up a couple thou more. no end in sight neither!