Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

scruffypup

Senior member
Feb 3, 2006
371
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Cad, in science speak, what you have is best described as a hypothesis. Missing in action is anything to advance that hypothesis into a barely supported
theory.

But I love it anyway, lets see, if anti global warming folks can just generate enough hot air, global warming can be staved off forever, please try your next trick at the nearest
ocean you can find, stand by the seashore and will the tides not to come in or out for a extended period of time longer than 3 hrs.

If you can do that, I will sing your name and declare you the greatest scientist of all time.

Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What part of total denial do you not understand Cad?

You stated "it was just a theory" Your words not mine.

And then you come back with " Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior."

What part of the word theory do you not understand Mr. Crawfish?

That is the stupidest thing I have read tonight,... by definition of the word theory (one of which is "a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done") you can have a theory without doing data gathering and research, etc....

I can have an idea in which I speculate how something happens, has happened or will happen,... much like so called "scientists" of centuries ago had theories of how something happened and then went about trying to prove it,...

Now if you want to argue the "scientific method" or something,.. it outlines a series of steps and will then place "theory" at a certain stage,... however CAD was not debating the scientific method, nor trying to use it,...

I have a "theory" that lemon law is an idiot - that is a speculative idea of your IQ based on formulation of apparent relationships (ie your responses to posts),.. it may or may not be true,....

Definition of "theory"
1 - (Obsolete) a mental viewing; contemplation
2 - a speculative idea or plan as to how something might be done
3 - a systematic statement of principles involved the theory of equations in mathematics
4 - a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree
5 - that branch of an art or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to applied, science, etc.
6 - (popularly) a mere conjecture, or guess

Just because you are so insistent on using one definition does not mean the others do not exist,... and I have used or referred to 3 here in my post, where you repeatedly insist on the one,....
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry Cad, in science speak, what you have is best described as a hypothesis. Missing in action is anything to advance that hypothesis into a barely supported
theory.

But I love it anyway, lets see, if anti global warming folks can just generate enough hot air, global warming can be staved off forever, please try your next trick at the nearest
ocean you can find, stand by the seashore and will the tides not to come in or out for a extended period of time longer than 3 hrs.

If you can do that, I will sing your name and declare you the greatest scientist of all time.

Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What part of total denial do you not understand Cad?

You stated "it was just a theory" Your words not mine.

And then you come back with " Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior.
"

What part of total denial do you not understand Cad?

You stated "it was just a theory" Your words not mine.

And then you come back with " Do you not read? I did not state I had a scientific theory so try again junior."

What part of the word theory do you not understand Mr. Crawfish?[/quote]

What part of the definition of theory do YOU not understand? Do you not understand the difference between a theory and a scientific theory? Pull your head out of your ass for once... sheesh.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,268
126
As usual, we have another situation which has nothing to do with the topic at hand or about the quality of the source.

Instead we're treated to more ontological bullshit.

 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
Earth's climate is going to to something.

Focus first on reducing outright toxic pollutants. Maybe excess CO2 will do something bad. Maybe it won't.
Heavy metals, ozone depleting substances, and non-biodegradable toxins seem like good things to focus on.


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Global Warming = fresh water level in oceans rise = slowing of the North Atlantic Current = less heat to Europe = ice age.

Educate yourselves.

The day after tomorrow is not a documentary despite what Al gore may say.

Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water.

And so what if it does? Would you rather have a rise in sea levels or 2 miles of ice over a good % of the northern hemisphere?

Eventhough this article looks like bunk. I do think global warming is better than global freezing. The earth thrives when it is warmer and suffers when it is colder.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
they were saying we were about to have a ice ice even until the mid 80's or so. i remember my parents watching it on the news.


i don't think they really know what is going on.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

The problem is that government is making LAWS costing us MONEY based on these flawed studies. Scientists should be held held responsible for their incorrect findings if it costs this country billions of dollars.

Preach on brother!! i want my high flow toilet and incandescent bulbs back!!!
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: waggy
they were saying we were about to have a ice ice even until the mid 80's or so. i remember my parents watching it on the news.


i don't think they really know what is going on.

yip, my Jr High Earth Science text books had chapters dedicated to the next ice age.


my kids science text book makes no mention at all to a future ice age at all. but has chapters dedicated to global warming.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To a large extent, waggy is correct on saying, " i don't think they really know what is going on."

And the reason for that, is that truly understanding all factors in climate change and the way they interact is something that will never get to scientific certainty. And now after something like 15 years of intensive
research, we are now only scratching the surface and starting to get an understanding on how little we know about the way the various factors in climate change interact. But on a slightly brighter side, we have identified and isolated many many factors affecting climate change that were ill understood 15 years ago. And we now have an excellent understanding of how each individual factor behaves in a lab. Its the interactions that continue to be ill understood.

Nor have we yet gotten to even the brass standard of science, having a climate model where we can plug in recently recorded inputs and get results that match what actually happened a few years later.
So far we have gotten close to predicting the raw amount of overall global warming, but all of the existing models predict the areas warmed will be far closer to the equator, and instead, the main areas actually most warmed are very close to both the North and South Poles.

So clearly one of the new dimensions of study has to focus on how the climate of earth distributes heat, at least we can see and measure air movements in three dimension, but when it comes to understanding the main heat distribution method, namely ocean current, we now more about the surface features of the dark side of the moon than we know about deep ocean currents.

In terms of how many more years of extensive scientific work it will take to get even models that predict anything reliable is a very good question, but short answer, not anytime soon. But what we do know is that many totally unprecedented in the past million year events are now happening, nothing dangerous yet, but the horror story fears is that we will reach a non reversible tipping point, and one or more ocean currents
will either stop, or totally go off in some radical new directions. Or that deep sea methane hydrates will suddenly go from the solid phase to a gas phase, something that has happened in the geological past, and as a greenhouse gas, methane is something on the order of 17x more effective than CO2. And while we know we can survive in the climate we have, we do not know about the climate we may get.

So we have a big uncertainty here, do we proceed on the best knowledge we have now, or wait too late, and get a possibly disastrous tipping point, or maybe do nothing and it will all work out OK?

At least we can all agree that its a gamble now and none of us knows for sure.
 

2Xtreme21

Diamond Member
Jun 13, 2004
7,044
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Global Warming = fresh water level in oceans rise = slowing of the North Atlantic Current = less heat to Europe = ice age.

Educate yourselves.

The day after tomorrow is not a documentary despite what Al gore may say.

Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water.

And so what if it does? Would you rather have a rise in sea levels or 2 miles of ice over a good % of the northern hemisphere?

Eventhough this article looks like bunk. I do think global warming is better than global freezing. The earth thrives when it is warmer and suffers when it is colder.

You don't get it. Let me put it in a way you might understand:

Step 1) Global Warming
Step 2) Ice Melts
Step 3) Large influx of fresh water stops N.A. Current
Step 4) 2 miles of ice over a good % of the northern hemisphere

GLOBAL WARMING => ICE AGE

Q.E.D.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Global Warming = fresh water level in oceans rise = slowing of the North Atlantic Current = less heat to Europe = ice age.

Educate yourselves.

The day after tomorrow is not a documentary despite what Al gore may say.

Right, because heating ice actually doesn't create liquid water.

And so what if it does? Would you rather have a rise in sea levels or 2 miles of ice over a good % of the northern hemisphere?

Eventhough this article looks like bunk. I do think global warming is better than global freezing. The earth thrives when it is warmer and suffers when it is colder.

You don't get it. Let me put it in a way you might understand:

Step 1) Global Warming
Step 2) Ice Melts
Step 3) Large influx of fresh water stops N.A. Current
Step 4) 2 miles of ice over a good % of the northern hemisphere

GLOBAL WARMING => ICE AGE

Q.E.D.

I understand that perfectly. But that is one theory and one that was used in a movie.

One instance of this actually happened was during the last major ice age when it is theorized damned up water that was trickling down what became the mississippi from glacier ice broke free and headed east down the st lawrence and into the atlantic sending temperatures plumetting for a few years. This was a result of a major influx of cold fresh water into the atlantic, not the result of hundreds of years of glacier melt.
 

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
For those who may be interested this compelling piece of journalism was published in PRAVDA.Ru and appears to be written by a guy from Portland, Oregon who voluntarily surrendered his license ""for failing to conform to the essential standards of acceptable nursing practice"" in July of 2008.


From Portland? That's all I need to hear to know its communist bullshit. ;)
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
The naive assumption is somewhat contained in, "Eventhough this article looks like bunk. I do think global warming is better than global freezing. The earth thrives when it is warmer and suffers when it is colder."

Many things are ignored here, to site one possible example, it may be wondrous to be nice and warm, but not if your country goes from productive farmland and becomes the next Shara desert, while the Shara desert may then receive the blessing of ample rain fall. And even if that climate then persists, its going to take thousands of years to build up the soil cover, that permits the Shara desert to become productive farmland.

In short, if we reach a tipping point, no one can predict what will then happen. It could be an overall plus, somewhat neutral even though some benefit and others lose, or it can be an unmitigated disaster for everyone. All we know is that we can survive in the climate we have, still no guarantee when Ma Nature periodically reshuffles the deck, but possibly human stupidity if we do it to ourselves.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The naive assumption is somewhat contained in, "Eventhough this article looks like bunk. I do think global warming is better than global freezing. The earth thrives when it is warmer and suffers when it is colder."

Many things are ignored here, to site one possible example, it may be wondrous to be nice and warm, but not if your country goes from productive farmland and becomes the next Shara desert, while the Shara desert may then receive the blessing of ample rain fall. And even if that climate then persists, its going to take thousands of years to build up the soil cover, that permits the Shara desert to become productive farmland.

In short, if we reach a tipping point, no one can predict what will then happen. It could be an overall plus, somewhat neutral even though some benefit and others lose, or it can be an unmitigated disaster for everyone. All we know is that we can survive in the climate we have, still no guarantee when Ma Nature periodically reshuffles the deck, but possibly human stupidity if we do it to ourselves.

Show us a time in history where the earth thrived when frozen. It isnt naive, it is looking back the geological history of the earth. The dinosaurs didnt die from a warm atmosphere, they died off from a mass extinction brought on by a cooling of the earth. Most likely a meteor impact that blanketed out of the sun. But there is a evidence they were dieing off before that due to a cooling of the earth from massive volcanic eruptions.

More recently(within 1000 years) the mini-ice age sent the vikings packing from Greenland and helped bring in the black plague in Europe and with it war. When a warming trend returned in the 1700's so did relative peace and expansion.

You are correct in saying a warming trend could turn fertile land into desert. But it could also turn desert land into fertile land. And with our technology we can overcome many of those obstacles. We cant however overcome a mass extinction of plants and animals from an ice age.
 

Grabo

Senior member
Apr 5, 2005
252
56
101
Originally posted by: Genx87


You are correct in saying a warming trend could turn fertile land into desert. But it could also turn desert land into fertile land. And with our technology we can overcome many of those obstacles. We cant however overcome a mass extinction of plants and animals from an ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event :

We are currently in an accelerating extinction event (and have been for some time)

"The glaciation cycles of the current ice age are believed to have had only a very mild impact on biodiversity, so the mere existence of a significant cooling is not sufficient on its own to explain a mass extinction."

So how deep frozen would you expect the earth to become anytime soon?

However; "Global warming as a cause of mass extinction is supported by a 2007 study by the Royal Society".

This blind faith in technology to the rescue is irrational: while technology has recently made grand contributions to the environment and will most likely continue to do so, at the rate we are consuming it won't magically whisk us as away to lalaland. Moderation is key.

So if you really do care about the extinction of animals and plants, do something against deforestation, increased human population, or increased temperatures.

Edit. And why the hell must every climate change 'sceptic' mention Al Gore? Al Gore != climate change, at least for everyone outside of the U.S.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Genx is only somewhat correct in asking, "Show us a time in history where the earth thrived when frozen." Thereby implying its better to be hot than cold.

But Genx has only a bare surface understanding of global warming dangers by assuming warm to hot or vice versa that is a smooth continuum. Just vary the heat and things warm up or cool down like a pot of water on a stove single variable problem.

And that can be very wrong, as has been already pointed out in this thread, because paradoxically, too much warming can equal an ice age if ocean currents that distribute heat from the equator to the poles suddenly stop. The common cited example is the gulf stream, and if that stops, Europe would freeze. Conceivably parts of the United States could bake, and thick clouds of water vapor might conceivably block the sunlight taking vegetative growth down also, not just in the USA, but in lower latitudes all over the world. But in that latter cloud type hypothesis, I am getting way ahead of any known science, its my understanding that we really do not know what causes ice ages, but earth has been stuck in an alternating glacial to interglacial periods for a very long time. And from past data, it looks like the earth can go to warm to glacial in time periods as short as a 100 years. And its precisely that short time period which adds credibility to a tipping point type hypothesis as a root cause explanation. And once in an ice age, earth seems to take a very long time to get out of it and into a period of sustained warming.
 

0marTheZealot

Golden Member
Apr 5, 2004
1,692
0
0
Originally posted by: EndGame
LOL! This is what was being taught in US schools in the early/mid 70's........then everything went to "Man Made Global Warming"! Please decide on one or the other!

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age
11.01.2009

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth?s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth?s ?wobble?, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth?s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

Elements of the astronomical theory of Ice Age causation were first presented by the French mathematician Joseph Adhemar in 1842, it was developed further by the English prodigy Joseph Croll in 1875, and the theory was established in its present form by the Czech mathematician Milutin Milankovich in the 1920s and 30s. In 1976 the prestigious journal ?Science? published a landmark paper by John Imbrie, James Hays, and Nicholas Shackleton entitled ?Variations in the Earth's orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages,? which described the correlation which the trio of scientist/authors had found between the climate data obtained from ocean sediment cores and the patterns of the astronomical Milankovich cycles. Since the late 1970s, the Milankovich theory has remained the predominant theory to account for Ice Age causation among climate scientists, and hence the Milankovich theory is always described in textbooks of climatology and in encyclopaedia articles about the Ice Ages.

In their 1976 paper Imbrie, Hays, and Shackleton wrote that their own climate forecasts, which were based on sea-sediment cores and the Milankovich cycles, "? must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted... the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate."

During the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ?greenhouse gasses? such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming. Since the 1970s the theory of ?anthropogenic global warming? (AGW) has gradually become accepted as fact by most of the academic establishment, and their acceptance of AGW has inspired a global movement to encourage governments to make pivotal changes to prevent the worsening of AGW.

The central piece of evidence that is cited in support of the AGW theory is the famous ?hockey stick? graph which was presented by Al Gore in his 2006 film ?An Inconvenient Truth.? The ?hockey stick? graph shows an acute upward spike in global temperatures which began during the 1970s and continued through the winter of 2006/07. However, this warming trend was interrupted when the winter of 2007/8 delivered the deepest snow cover to the Northern Hemisphere since 1966 and the coldest temperatures since 2001. It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures.

The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials.

In 1999 the British journal ?Nature? published the results of data derived from glacial ice cores collected at the Russia ?s Vostok station in Antarctica during the 1990s. The Vostok ice core data includes a record of global atmospheric temperatures, atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, and airborne particulates starting from 420,000 years ago and continuing through history up to our present time.

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ?fizz?, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth?s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth?s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world?s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ?big picture? of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.



Okay, you fail at understanding the time intervals here.

Global warming is an immediate threat, in the sense that it will happen in the next 30-40 years and impact us negatively.

Another Ice Age is "imminent" on a geological time scale. Remember, on a geological time scale, a million years is short. So to say that we are on the brink of another Ice Age does not falsify global warming (should really be called global climate change btw). So, paradoxically, both of these theories are absolutely correct.
 

JSt0rm

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
27,399
3,948
126
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room,
especially if there is no cat."
Confucius

 

miniMUNCH

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2000
4,159
0
0
Okay... global warming is not necessarily an immediate threat.... the data and models include tremendous inherent numerical inaccuracies. The climate research community is largely inbred and politicized. Their science is old and they consistently witch hunt against new ideas and better approaches that invalidate some of their past claims.

What is incredibly alarming is that we are poisoning the ocean with trash (google 'pacific trash patch') and industrial, agricultural, and storm run-off. We literally are putting millions of tons of plastic, nitrates, phosphates, etc. into the ocean every year... not to mention all kinds of other crap. We are killing whole populations of oceanic coral and plant/phyto life at entirely unknown risk to the oceanic oxygen cycle.

I'm a PhD chemical engineer... i work on green energy research of various types and am all for protection of environment and total 'green' engineering.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
I certainly do not defend the Al Gore version of global warming, his understanding is basically so yesteryear, and now horribly outdated,

But I do do defend Al Gore getting a co-winner Nobel peace prize. Because he raised awareness even if his knowledge is not now state of the arts.

Issac Newton's knowledge of Physics and Mathematics would now barely get him out of high school, but his place in the annals of science is secure as that pioneer in current understanding. And his statement that I stand on the shoulders of giants is equally true for any of us today.

Sadly many global warming deniers assert the right to stand in the shadow of opinionated pygmies, with all the substance of a shadow.
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Obviously man has changed his ways and thus staved off GW for a couple more decades...

Hey... it's just a theory... ;)

But Al Gore needs to sell his carbon credits!
 

winnar111

Banned
Mar 10, 2008
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: smack Down
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Every time I see a sentence like this, "Make up your mind already....", I get the strong feeling that we need to do a better job teaching science in schools. Changing theories to fit new facts or new ideas is the hallmark of GOOD science...it's only political tools with an agenda that demand and present absolute certainty in all situations. I think climate scientists should "make up their mind" when they have the facts and evidence to support it, NOT because people who want to argue politics are unable to deal with issues that aren't black and white.

Scientist should also have the smarts to look at the data and see that they don't have enough data to come to a conclusion.

That IS what they are doing. You're using the current debate to judge the scientists studying the issue, but the problem is that our current debate really doesn't involve many scientists. It's Al Gore and Bill O'Reilly screaming at each other, and while Al Gore is closer than old Bill to having a scientific perspective, don't confuse EITHER of them with actual climate scientists.

If people were listening, what they'd see is scientists studying the data and saying "...BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW RIGHT NOW, this is the issue as we see it." Science doesn't wait for absolute certainty, because there IS no such thing. And that would be fine if both sides of the debate didn't treat science like it SHOULD BE (or already is) at that point.

All the more reason, I'd think, not to sign a ridiculous Kyoto treaty 9 years ago, when they didnt even have the insufficient data that we do now.