Hurricanes, Global Warming, and other misinformation

[Rocketpig]

I found this short read very interesting and now I'm interested in finding more information with Katrina's ferocity being blamed on greenhouse gases and global warming in most media outlets.

You wonder how much human-induced global warming theory is simply false? The more I read studies performed by top scientists and experts in the field, the more I think we've been fed a line of BS the past 15 years.

Interesting to contemplate, no matter which side of the fence you sit on.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/images/graytranscript.htm

[colonel5]

yeah, people just want to point a finger somewhere

[Kool]

Read Michael Crichten's book "State of Fear.

[jimking]

The earth has had several ice ages, the last one was about 10-15 thousand years ago. We will have another one so everyone enjoy the warm weather! Beaver bones and trees etc have been dug up in the antarctic, does that mean it was warmer at a earlier time?

[morea]

^ most likely.

Did you ever hear that theory that all of the continents used to be one giant supercontinent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent) that was located near the equator?

[jimking]

^ most likely.

Did you ever hear that theory that all of the continents used to be one giant supercontinent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercontinent) that was located near the equator?
Yes, it was called Pangea.

[morea]

Pangea (http://www.palaeos.com/Earth/Geography/Pangea.htm), that's what I heard it called.

From the dark recesses of my brain, leftover from marine biology class many years ago.

[morea]

bah, you beat me! lol

[jimking]

Pangea existed tens of millions of years ago. The bones and vegetation that was unearthed was dated around 100 thousand years ago.

[Rocketpig]

There are many factors that have led to all sorts of animal bones being found in crazy places... The natural Earth cycle of warm/cold weather, the shifting of land masses, the fact that the Earth flips its axis every so often, etc...

My point is that it's rather arrogant of humans to think that they can inflict that much damage in the span of roughly 150 years.

[morea]

I've also heard theories that the entire earth was paradisaic and tropical until the great flood described in the Bible. An enormous amount of water (from what was essentially the atmosphere) supposedly fell as rain and caused enormous changes in climate.

It's interesting to think about.

[morea]

My point is that it's rather arrogant of humans to think that they can inflict that much damage in the span of roughly 150 years.

good point.

[jimking]

What was it about Earth over 65 million years ago that allowed animals to grow as tall as 6 story buildings. The gravity and air had to be different than it is today.

[G-Man79]

I'm certain that human output (whether pollution or otherwise) has some sort of impact on the Earth.

I've always had a vague theory about how far the planet and humans have actually progressed. I feel that we're about as well off now as we were in the ninth century. We essentially live in the same system, the system has just become more complex.

Oh well, back to my Poptart.

[DeleteYourself]

Read a little thing called Ishmael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29) and then get back to me.

[Rocketpig]

Read a little thing called Ishmael (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishmael_%28novel%29) and then get back to me.

To whom are you speaking?

[Mynock]

What's this crap about the earth being round?
The Flat-Earth Bible (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm)
The Flat-out Truth (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/fe-scidi.htm)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/enoch24.gif

[DeleteYourself]

To whom are you speaking?

To anyone who doesn't beleive global warming exists and is a direct result of human behavior since the dawn of agricultural and industrial "progression."

[Rocketpig]

To anyone who doesn't beleive global warming exists and is a direct result of human behavior since the dawn of agricultural and industrial "progression."

Dunno, I'll take the word of people like Dr. Gray and the former Harvard chair of Environmental Studies over a book that from all I can gather, bases most of its theory off a philosophical idea.

Not that Ishmael is a completely invalid source of information, but I'll take the word of people who have spent their entire lives studying the situation not to prove one over the other, but instead to find the truth using hard scientific data.

I'm not ignorant enough to claim that humans haven't damaged the Earth at all, but I think what we are seeing is more of a natural cycle and not human-induced.

[morea]

I believe that it has a lot to do with the actions of human beings... but it is not entirely because of them. There are natural factors, too.

[DeleteYourself]

Yeah, I'll agree that the hurricane situation is a natural occurance, but in your link Dr. Gray implies that global warming is a hoax. Maybe I just misunderstood.

[morea]

Oh, don't get me wrong - I definitely don't think it's a hoax either.

[Rocketpig]

Yeah, I'll agree that the hurricane situation is a natural occurance, but in your link Dr. Gray implies that global warming is a hoax. Maybe I just misunderstood.

Oh no, not at all. Global warming DOES exist.

Whether it's a natural Earth cycle or human-induced is entirely up for debate (though the more I read about it, the more I see top scientists leaning toward natural causes).

I find it very interesting since we've been fed the story that it's all due to greenhouse gases, when in fact that has not been proven in any way, shape, or form.

[G-Man79]

I think my comment may have thrown a wrench in the works here as this thread pertains to geothermal conditions and my post was more in the socioeconomic realm.

My bad.

On one hand it would certainly seem like human pollution plays a role in the depletion of the ozone. But on the other hand, how does one explain pre-industrial geothermal occurances like the ice age, dinosaur extinction, etc?

[PrintDriver]

Big rocks from outer space, tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes...
We're just in a lull at the geological moment. Enjoy it.

[Magnus]

^ ^ What PD said.

If you guys want to get a good, 100% UNBIASED idea of what is happening to our earth, read a book called "A Short History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson.

The earth warms and cools in cycles...hence the ice ages we experience as previously mentioned. However, to think that mankind has not contributed a vast amount to the accelerated warming of this planet due to the massively increased green house gas emitions is pure ignorance. Humans have the complete and utter capability to induce a man-made ice age by unleashing it's entire nuclear arsenal. I'm sure you'e all heard the term "nuclear winter".

It is not arrogant to think we can't affect the temperature. Already UV levels have increased a hundred fold due to the introduction of PFP's into the atmosphere. PFP's were used in fuel among other things to reduce engine "knocking" in early automobiles. 1 kg of PFP is capable destroying over 10 thousand metric tons of Ozone.

Industries have no place in the natural cycle of this planet. Humans...have little place anymore in the natural cycle of this planet. Stop being ignorant of what's going on around you. That brown haze you see at about 7,000 feet above cities isn't clean air. And it sure as s**t wasn't there until we became industrialized, which HAS been in the last 150 years. Start looking at the bigger picture.

[Drorain]

I'm trying to be more concious of the greener products and energy, I for one would drive a hybrid car, I'd love it, but they are running way to expensive for something that is supposed to help the enivronment. I leave it to the automakers and world leaders to work with the scientists in developing better solutions. I'm just a willing designer

[Patrick Shannon]

Well, so long as their theories don't start inspiring more movies like Day After Tomorrow, god.....what an traffic wreck of a film....

[Drawing a Blank]

My point is that it's rather arrogant of humans to think that they can inflict that much damage in the span of roughly 150 years.

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/658/nuclearexplosion33nt.jpg
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/9660/nuclearexplosion12cr.jpg

I don't think it took 150 years.

[Magnus]

^ ^ thanks for illustrating my points exactly DAB.

[EC]

I'm trying to be more concious of the greener products and energy, I for one would drive a hybrid car, I'd love it, but they are running way to expensive for something that is supposed to help the enivronment. I leave it to the automakers and world leaders to work with the scientists in developing better solutions. I'm just a willing designer

I agree 100%. I am in the market for a new car, and my next one will be a hybrid. I heard that there is a huge waiting list, and I'd better throw my name in the hat NOW if I want one a year from now.

I am not sure we can reverse a lot of the damage we've done, but we can certainly slow it down. I won't count on the government to do it for us, INDUSTRY has to take the lead.

The degree to which the two are intertwined is another matter (and goes back to my theory that we need to take money out of politics!!) but I digress.

What is it going to take for automobile manufacturers, for example, to innovate? And develop an economically-viable AND environmentally responsible product?

The world would be a better place if we didn't burn up so much oil, environmental concerns are just one piece of that.

[Magnus]

"What is it going to take for automobile manufacturers, for example, to innovate? And develop an economically-viable AND environmentally responsible product?"

Likely every CEO of every automotive and oil company to be stricken with cancer that is undoubtedly a product of the environment which they created.

[Rocketpig]

http://img321.imageshack.us/img321/658/nuclearexplosion33nt.jpg
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/9660/nuclearexplosion12cr.jpg

I don't think it took 150 years.

I was speaking in terms of global warming being human-induced and nothing more.

And no matter how many pictures of nuclear destruction you Google, you still can't prove that man is causing the Earth to warm.

I don't remember saying that man hasn't damaged the Earth in other ways.

[EC]

Right, right.

But it's a serious question. Auto manufacturers will only innovate if they are forced to and/or if they can make a serious buck in doing so. This happens either by through policies and regulation (something capitalists loathe) or consumer demand.

The popularity of the hybrid cars is promising anyway.

[EC]

And no matter how many pictures of nuclear destruction you Google, you still can't prove that man is causing the Earth to warm.

Can you prove that it isn't? I mean, I know that you can't prove a negative, but still. I studied environmental policy in college and we could be here all day going down the list of various opinions of top-notch scientists. Personally, I'd prefer to play it safe and assume that we are playing a role in global warming. It ain't gonna kills us to change our practices, but it MIGHT kill us if we don't.

[Rocketpig]

Right, right.

But it's a serious question. Auto manufacturers will only innovate if they are forced to and/or if they can make a serious buck in doing so. This happens either by through policies and regulation (something capitalists loathe) or consumer demand.

The popularity of the hybrid cars is promising anyway.

It is. If the popularity rises enough, auto makers might actually start producing them in numbers, driving the price down.

It's not as if this all is going to happen overnight. It took 20 years just for auto makers to release a real alternative to internal combustion engines because the price of gas was simply too low and people didn't want a more expensive, lower powered automobile.

Now that is changing. Gas is sky-high and people are starting to demand something that eases the financial burden of driving.

It all comes down to consumer's pocketbooks. Up until this point, only a fraction of the population would have even considered an alternative automobile. Now that they're gaining steam, it becomes more financially viable for auto makers to mass produce them.

[Rocketpig]

Can you prove that it isn't? I mean, I know that you can't prove a negative, but still. I studied environmental policy in college and we could be here all day going down the list of various opinions of top-notch scientists. Personally, I'd prefer to play it safe and assume that we are playing a role in global warming. It ain't gonna kills us to change our practices, but it MIGHT kill us if we don't.

I haven't ruled it out that man has played a part in rising surface temperatures.

But far too many people assume it as fact when it isn't.

And why have we had it shoved down our throats as fact for the past 20 years?

[DeleteYourself]

Now it just seems like you're just looking for an excuse to drive around a Hummerzine while assualting the ozone with aerosals 2 at a time just for fun.

EC is right. Whether we've done the damage or not (and I'm pretty sure we did), there's no reason not be cleaner. It literally, can't hurt.

For the record, my next car is going to be a hybrid, too. And the demand is there. Many car manufacturers are already pledging more hybrids in the works:
Check this (http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B4529DF62-43E2-437D-AAE8-79EAB66EEC3F%7D&) out. Toyota even launched a new campaign to focus on their Hybrid Synergy Drive (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-21-2005/0004112569&EDATE=). Progress is being made, allbeit slowly.

. . .

For some reason the first link isn't working, just copy and paste:
http://www.marke****ch.com/news/story.asp?guid=%7B4529DF62-43E2-437D-AAE8-79EAB66EEC3F%7D&

. . .

It keeps adding astericks automatically. It should say: marke****ch.com

. . .

This is hilarious. The content censor is not letting it type: tw@t (replace @ with a)
AHAHAHAHAHAA

[Drawing a Blank]

I was speaking in terms of global warming being human-induced and nothing more.

And no matter how many pictures of nuclear destruction you Google, you still can't prove that man is causing the Earth to warm.

I don't remember saying that man hasn't damaged the Earth in other ways.

Actually what you said was; "My point is that it's rather arrogant of humans to think that they can inflict that much damage in the span of roughly 150 years."
I think the pictures refute your statement rather effectively even if I did just "Google a few pictures of nuclear destruction".

I can't prove a lot of things I believe in which is why I leave an open mind.

[Rocketpig]

Now it just seems like you're just looking for an excuse to drive around a Hummerzine while assualting the ozone with aerosals 2 at a time just for fun.

Heh, it has crossed my mind.

Actually, I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here. Why isn't anyone upset over having something presented as fact for 20 years when in fact there is little data to support its existence? Why is it okay to assume that something is inflicted by man and to push that theory upon the public, possibly wasting millions of dollars chasing a red herring when the money could have been better spent pursuing other scientific avenues?

It's a valid question.

Anyway, I also believe that we need to clean up the environment, if only to maintain the current pollution level admidst a growing population. Just China alone is going to pose an enormous problem over the next 25 years.

[Rocketpig]

Actually what you said was; "My point is that it's rather arrogant of humans to think that they can inflict that much damage in the span of roughly 150 years."
I think the pictures refute your statement rather effectively even if I did just "Google a few pictures of nuclear destruction".

I can't prove a lot of things I believe in which is why I leave an open mind.

I thought it was implied that I was only speaking in reference to global warming.

Besides that, nuclear testing doesn't do nearly the damage a decent sized meteor would do and neither one can be considered "natural" to the Earth's environment.

Not that that makes nuclear testing OK in my book.

[Drawing a Blank]

Heh, it has crossed my mind.

Actually, I'm only playing Devil's Advocate here. Why isn't anyone upset over having something presented as fact for 20 years when in fact there is little data to support its existence? Why is it okay to assume that something is inflicted by man and to push that theory upon the public, possibly wasting millions of dollars chasing a red herring when the money could have been better spent pursuing other scientific avenues?


For the same reason that people aren't upset that their President lied to them about why we were going to war. I mean look at the simalarities to what you said "little data to support the facts". The lemmings just accept another reason when the first one is proven wrong a year after the war has started. Were not talking millions of dollars for that we are talking hundreds of BILLIONS.

[Rocketpig]

For the same reason that people aren't upset that their President lied to them about why we were going to war. The lemmings just accept another reason when the first one is proven wrong a year after the war has started. Were not talking millions of dollars for that we are talking hundreds of BILLIONS.

True, I guess in the end everything comes down to society's complacency and stupidity.

[Drawing a Blank]

I thought it was implied that I was only speaking in reference to global warming.

Besides that, nuclear testing doesn't do nearly the damage a decent sized meteor would do and neither one can be considered "natural" to the Earth's environment.

Not that that makes nuclear testing OK in my book.

I don't know if I agree with you about the testing, but I bet a lot of Japanese people could tell you how much damage a certain two nuclear bombs did.

[Rocketpig]

I don't know if I agree with you about the testing, but I bet a lot of Japanese people could tell you how much damage a certain two nuclear bombs did.

And I bet a lot of dinosaurs could tell you how much damage a certain meteor did. :D

[EC]

It all goes back to critical thinking.

Global warming is and has always been a theory. Confusing theory with "shoved down our throats as fact" (and no offense to you rocketpig) is just another example of lazy thinking. I don't know how to say that nicely.

Look at the evidence on all sides and decide for yourself, and then if you want to, and if you're so inclined, do something about it. It's just that simple. Don't be angry with scientists and policy-makers that have drawn certain conclusions and then decide to take a position and do something about it.

[jimking]

And I bet a lot of dinosaurs could tell you how much damage a certain meteor did. :D
Now that is hotly contested now also.:eek:

[Drawing a Blank]

True.
Of course that is just a theory and some groups want it to say that in textbooks... I won't go there

[Rocketpig]

It all goes back to critical thinking.

Global warming is and has always been a theory. Confusing theory with "shoved down our throats as fact" (and no offense to you rocketpig) is just another example of lazy thinking. I don't know how to say that nicely.

Look at the evidence on all sides and decide for yourself, and then if you want to, and if you're so inclined, do something about it. It's just that simple. Don't be angry with scientists and policy-makers that have drawn certain conclusions and then decide to take a position and do something about it.

To be honest, I've been skeptical about it ever since I was old to enough to start reading studies and draw conclusions for myself. And then I continued to learn more and more about the lack of facts supporting global warming throughout several of my college classes (interestingly enough, it was never from the teacher... I had to find the books myself).

But when people like the Environmental Minister of Germany stand up and blame the ferocity of Katrina on America's environmental policies, I think it's time to start talking about the subject again.

edit: I'd like to point out that when I said "shoved down our throats as fact", I was speaking from the position that as a child in elementary school / middle school, it was not presented as theory.

[uncle carbunkle]

... when people like the Environmental Minister of Germany stand up and blame the ferocity of Katrina on America's environmental policies, I think it's time to start talking about the subject again ...

i don't know about what the german environmental minister said about america's environmental policies, but i DO know that your smog has been raining on my province for quite some time now.

just what IS so wrong with the kyoto accord, anyways? hmmm?

[EC]

I'd like to point out that when I said "shoved down our throats as fact", I was speaking from the position that as a child in elementary school / middle school, it was not presented as theory.

They don't teach critical thinking *much* at that level, which is unfortunate, but that's why it's important to pursue higher education.

[Rocketpig]

just what IS so wrong with the kyoto accord, anyways? hmmm?

In my opinion, several things.

I don't like the fact that the US would be financially bound to pay penalties due to our high level of industrialization per capita.

I particularly don't like the fact that countries like Russia joined simply so they can sell their credits to other countries that don't meet their pollution requirements. Russia is "clean" by the Kyoto Protocol and therefore can sell their "cleanliness" to other countries in the EU who aren't.

It will put a strain on an economy that already has enough instability as it is.

It does nothing about countries like China. Absolutely nothing and soon they'll be the worst polluter of all. In fact, it doesn't only do nothing, it gives them a free pass.

It would require the US to give money to developing countries. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, but I still don't like another entity telling the United States government what it can and cannot do with its own money. Call me a cowboy or whatever, but at least I have a vote as to who becomes President. The same cannot be said about the head of the UN.

And finally, the Kyoto Protocol was entirely based on the theory that Greenhouse gases are causing global warming and that is why it targeted specific restrictions on certain pollutants. Which brings me back to the beginning of this thread...

[DeleteYourself]

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but one more article on hybrids:
Toyota to go 100% hybrid in the future (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/09/toyota_to_go_10.php)

[Rocketpig]

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but one more article on hybrids:
Toyota to go 100% hybrid in the future (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/09/toyota_to_go_10.php)

Since they're not giving any kind of deadline, it seems like lip service to me.

I doubt they are going to throw all their eggs into one basket like that either, especially with the ever-tempting hydrogen car slowly becoming more viable as another alternative power source.

In any case, it is good to see a major player like Toyota step up and publicly say that. Maybe Detroit will start trying a little harder now.

[Magnus]

Hey Rocket...the only problem I can see about your argument that the human contribution to global warming might be a bit weak is the time frame it's been happening on. Considering all cycles on the earth take hundreds and more often thousands of years (the poles reversing, ice ages, shifting ocean currents, plate movements) then the massive changes we've experienced in the last 20 alone should be evidence enough that something un-natural is speeding up such changes. Average temperatures around the world are changing by 1 degree or more which is a HUGE difference, not to mention the dramatic changes in our seasons.

It's something to consider...if you're able to take in both sides of the argument, then use your powers of judgement to come to your own conclusions. But take a close look at our environment and what's been happening to it in the last few decades, you'll see that given the trends observed by geologists and climatologists in the last 100 thousand years, you'll see something is gravely amiss. (They've been checking ice core samples from the Artic and Antarctic as well as rock from all over the world to study the weather dating back to thousands of millennia.)

[Rocketpig]

Hey Rocket...the only problem I can see about your argument that the human contribution to global warming might be a bit weak is the time frame it's been happening on. Considering all cycles on the earth take hundreds and more often thousands of years (the poles reversing, ice ages, shifting ocean currents, plate movements) then the massive changes we've experienced in the last 20 alone should be evidence enough that something un-natural is speeding up such changes. Average temperatures around the world are changing by 1 degree or more which is a HUGE difference, not to mention the dramatic changes in our seasons.

It's something to consider...if you're able to take in both sides of the argument, then use your powers of judgement to come to your own conclusions. But take a close look at our environment and what's been happening to it in the last few decades, you'll see that given the trends observed by geologists and climatologists in the last 100 thousand years, you'll see something is gravely amiss. (They've been checking ice core samples from the Artic and Antarctic as well as rock from all over the world to study the weather dating back to thousands of millennia.)

Yes, it does seem accelerated compared to how in the past we've estimated the Earth changes its climates. But there's also a chance that we were wrong before and the Earth heats up and cools down a lot more rapidly than we thought.

Or, it could be human-induced. It's not as if I'm completely ruling out that humans have damaged the environment, causing a rise in temperature. But there isn't a lot of data to suggest that is the case.

Anyway, the Earth is warming. But how much? Satellites say between .08 and .25 degrees in the past decade. Which is true? And what has the overall increase been in the past century? How can we tell for sure? Any estimations would be shaky at best since no real readings were performed before the satellite age.

And that's not mentioning that there are many scientists who argue the validity of those satellite readings in the first place...

All in all, it's an extremely convoluted subject. But it makes for an interesting discussion.

[Magnus]

Yeah...that's for sure. Now, as long as Yellowstone national park doesn't erupt, we'll be ok.

[rickself]

A enviro-physicist (a title something like that) on the news last night said that over the past couple of decades, the temperature of the water in the Gulf of Mexico has risen 1 degree...just 1 degree. The occurance of deadly hurricanes has doubled over the same period. Before the end of the century, the water temperature is sposed to climb another 3-5 degrees. I don't think I'm gonna miss the 2090's. My poor grandkids, tho. By that time, the Pacific Inland Northwest will be oceanfront property anyways.

[Rocketpig]

A enviro-physicist (a title something like that) on the news last night said that over the past couple of decades, the temperature of the water in the Gulf of Mexico has risen 1 degree...just 1 degree. The occurance of deadly hurricanes has doubled over the same period. Before the end of the century, the water temperature is sposed to climb another 3-5 degrees. I don't think I'm gonna miss the 2090's. My poor grandkids, tho. By that time, the Pacific Inland Northwest will be oceanfront property anyways.

Which brings us back to Dr. Gray's interview, where he said that everything is cyclical... Hurricanes are up in the gulf now, down in the rest of the world. 15 years ago, the opposite was true.

BTW, that is also using 100 years of data, not 20-30.

Since he's considered the granddaddy of hurricane prediction and his journal on prediction is widely read every year by other scientists in the field, I tend to take his word for it over a talking head on the television.