Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: Fade on May 25, 2004, 07:16:43 PM
-
Won't make the "Doom & Gloom crowd very happy.
But then are the Doom & Gloom crowd supposed to be happy? story (http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+%27Day+After+Tomorrow%27%3A+A+lot+of+hot+air&expire=&urlID=10526977&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F2004-05-24-michaels_x.htm&partnerID=1660)
Watch them come out of the woodwork on this.
-
Right Wing America vs. the World again on global warming. Why am I not surprised?
Anyway:
Fox spokesman Jeffrey Godsick says, "The real power of the movie is to raise consciousness on the issue of (global warming)."
Yeah, and my arse plays the harmonica.
It's a special effects movie to make money from cinema, DVD, and promotion. It could be about a giant lizard from Mars, it wouldn't matter - they just wanted scary and impressive effects. It's political and environmental values are exactly zero.
I think the anti-global warming crowd are just taking this opportunity to try to launch yet another publicity drive against a firmly supported theory held by tens of thousands of experts and scientists in 170 countries. Actually, I had expected the accusations to come from the other side first. Seems America's industrial ruling class and their pocket 'scientists' preempted it. Like Saddam's WMDs. :)
But of course, it's good publicity for the film, so many palms will be greased anyway.
-
@ KennyR
"It's political and environmental values are exactly zero."
------------------
Think so!
The Democrats are already jumping on this with both feet.
Quote from Al Gore yesterday.
"Gore said, "Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend asking the question: 'Could this really happen?' I think we need to answer that question."
But you can't put anything by KennyR!
-
Then the 'crats should pick a better movie. Using The Day After Tomorrow for environmental awareness is like using Braveheart to learn Scottish history. Both are Hollywood fluff with only tenuous links to fact.
-
@ KennyR
"Then the 'crats should pick a better movie."
-------------------
Oh they did once. They picked "The China Syndrome".
Guess what? They killed off every nuclear power plant that wasn't already on line, and there hasn't been a new one built in the US since. Think about the billions of dollars the energy companies paid to build those plants that will never go online. Who ends up paying for that cost? Yep, Joe consumer. But do the Democrats care?
On top of that, the "Dims" all want to send the nuclear waste from the NE US plants to New Mexico. Talk about your hypocrites.
-
Fade wrote:
@ KennyR
"It's political and environmental values are exactly zero."
------------------
Think so!
The Democrats are already jumping on this with both feet.
Quote from Al Gore yesterday.
"Gore said, "Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend asking the question: 'Could this really happen?' I think we need to answer that question."
But you can't put anything by KennyR!
:roll: politics
-
Well, that's human beings. Tell them that there is a near 100% certainty of a meteorite impact killing 30% or more of life on Earth's surface in the next 20 million years, and you'll get:
"Bah, what do scientists know?"
"It doesn't say it in the Bible, so it won't happen."
"They could be wrong."
But show them Armageddon with Bruce Willis and suddenly nuclear shelters are selling again and meteorite impacts are on everyone's minds. And Nostradamus predicted it all. And the Bible did too. That must be how Judgement Day will come, blah blah...
And don't politicians love it. But its not just the democrats who take advantage of popular myths - they all do. Yes, even the GOP.
-
KennyR wrote:
I think the anti-global warming crowd are just taking this opportunity to try to launch yet another publicity drive against a firmly supported theory held by tens of thousands of experts and scientists in 170 countries. Actually, I had expected the accusations to come from the other side first. Seems America's industrial ruling class and their pocket 'scientists' preempted it. Like Saddam's WMDs. :)
As usual, real scientists tell KennyR his most popular myth (actually Nessie is his most popular myth but we'll talk about that later) Global Warming isnt happening and he rants about the 1000's who believe in it. Tell you what Kenny over 1 Billion people believe in Noah and the Ark, that doesnt mean its a scientific fact. If you want to believe in Global Warming, thats great, if you want to talk science, then put some up, or just go away.
-Tig
-
You know what, Tigger? Your country is probably the only place in the world where one can find a scientist who will actively aoppose global warming theory. Isn't that a little strange to you? Doesn't it ever occur to you that it's you who might be the one who's believing in a myth?
Anyway, since the greater part of the scientific community (and it's excellence) are behind my argument, I can simply dismiss US claims, just like I can dismiss orgone or faith healing. You can believe in super carbon traps or Noah or Nessie all you like, it doesn't change the mountain of evidence.
-
Fade wrote:
Quote from Al Gore yesterday.
"Gore said, "Millions of people will be coming out of theaters on Memorial Day weekend asking the question: 'Could this really happen?'
That's probably true.
I think we need to answer that question."
That is also true.
Two true sentences next to each other. Better than Bush can do.
-
Fade wrote:
Won't make the "Doom & Gloom crowd very happy.
This is just a movie review saying that the science in the movie is bad. That's completely normal for a movie. The only quote from the thing that seems to be from a scientist says:
Carl Wunsch, a professor of physical oceanography at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, knows more about ocean currents than most anyone. He thinks the nonsense in The Day After Tomorrow detracts from the seriousness of the global-warming issue.
Did you read that? detracts from the seriousness of the global-warming issue. Doesn't say he thinks global warming is nonsense, implies that it isn't but that this movie makes it look like nonsense.
As to the Atlantic Conveyor / Gulf Stream -
Historically it has shut down from time to time and when it does it does it on very short timescales and takes a while to get going again. It is quite dependant on Northern waters maintaining high salinity and that can easily be threatened by polar melting.
http://www.destinasjontromso.no/gulfstrmmens_historie_eng.htm (http://www.destinasjontromso.no/gulfstrmmens_historie_eng.htm)
http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html (http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html)
BTW, seems that Russia will now ratify Kyoto. Oh that devious Pooti-poot.
-
@ FluffyMcDeath
"BTW, seems that Russia will now ratify Kyoto."
---------------
Fluffy, do you really think Russia ratifying the treaty will make any difference in Russia?
They don't have enough money to buy next weeks bread much less clean up any pollution. Look at their nuclear fleet for example. When one sub. or ship breaks down they just take it to the ship graveyard and abandon it, nuclear waste and all.
Despite all the good intentions from Japan, Canada and the EU community on this, the rest of the signatories to this treaty are only in it for the money they might make by selling pollution credits to other countries. I think some day most of these poor countries will regret signing it when they have sold their excess credits and have to really do something about their own pollution.
-
KennyR wrote:
You know what, Tigger? Your country is probably the only place in the world where one can find a scientist who will actively aoppose global warming theory. Isn't that a little strange to you? Doesn't it ever occur to you that it's you who might be the one who's believing in a myth?
Thats funny Kenny, since I've quoted you lots of things from non-US scientists that say the same thing about the Global Warming Myth. We have the huge space conspiracy you believe in, where every nation with a weather balloon, satellite or astronaut is helping NASA fake the cooling effects that directly contradict the IPCC report you currently are in love with. You completely dont want to talk about how 20 years ago your alma mater taught global cooling with the same fervor they have not instilled in you about global warming, I know, I know, this time they are right, right??
-Tig
-
Fade wrote:
@ FluffyMcDeath
"BTW, seems that Russia will now ratify Kyoto."
---------------
Fluffy, do you really think Russia ratifying the treaty will make any difference in Russia?
Yes. Sure, but it will also make a difference in the rest of the world and could hurt the US (which would be part of the reason why Putin is doing it). He's doing it to get conscessions on joining the WTO, so now he'll be in the WTO with an edge. It also makes the US the bad guy in not ratifying. It isolates the US and gets Russia in cosy with the Euros. Now the US can't say that they won't ratify because the Russians won't as they will.
With China and Russia basically on board and most of the industrialised countries, they can start putting the screws to the US via the WTO.
-
Tigger wrote:
[...] where every nation with a weather balloon, satellite or astronaut is helping NASA fake the cooling effects that directly contradict the IPCC report you currently are in love with.
What NASA data shows cooling effects that directly contradict the IPCC. Are those the studies that show changing heat distribution in the atmosphere where some latitudes and altitudes show cooling? Or is this some data that shows that everything is cooling?
-
Last night I was typing up my youngest sisters homework - she wrote it all out in long hand and I typed it as she is slow and it had to be in this morning.
It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out. Thats two reasons to start taking a mature and adult response to the problems which we are brewing up. When the oil runs out we are screwed. You cant very well mine for Oil on the moon either - there is none there - infact there is no other planet yet discovered with the black stuff - and you'd use more fuel trying to retrieve it.
-
Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
Last night I was typing up my youngest sisters homework - she wrote it all out in long hand and I typed it as she is slow and it had to be in this morning.
It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out. Thats two reasons to start taking a mature and adult response to the problems which we are brewing up. When the oil runs out we are screwed. You cant very well mine for Oil on the moon either - there is none there - infact there is no other planet yet discovered with the black stuff - and you'd use more fuel trying to retrieve it.
She should do her homework herself...
-
glockspeel wrote:
She should do her homework herself...
she did. he's just being a good brother typing it for her.
nice...
-
I'm having to babysit her this week.. Drag her to school each morning etc.. To be late for work and get the grilling by those in charge. Yet they go off cos they need to take their cars to the garage etc..
Its quite funny. I knocked on her bedroom door at 6.00am - she didnt get up till 7.30.. I ironed her shirt for School - it was perfect. Even burnt myself doing it. She grabbed her breakfast and ate it in the car en route to her School. As soon as I dropped her off - she gave me a totally blank look, didnt say goodbye or anything. She Untucked her shirt, tucked her tie in between the third and forth button. Messed her hair up - and ignoring me did this weird walk through the main doors.
Its hard to describe the walk. It was kinda like a cross between MC Hammer and Micheal Jackson - had a sort of skip, drag thing to it..
Ah the joys of trying to be cool.. hehe :-D
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
With China and Russia basically on board and most of the industrialised countries, they can start putting the screws to the US via the WTO.
First of all Russia hasnt ratified the treaty and until they do (and 4 others by my count) the speculation is silly. Secondly, since Kyoto gives China a pass on everything, of course China ratified it. There are no restrictions on China made by Kyoto, despite being the #2 producer (and gaining) of the problem at hand, plus china runs at a net gain for the world of CO2, yet they are treated as a developing nation and have no restrictions placed on them. Its the #1 complaint of Kyoto.
-Tig
-
Hum,
Yes and no...
OK, it should be widely accepted that humans have raised the global temperature (0.2 degrees this century), this is a fact. The ice sheets are melting and the sea levels are rising...
But, it should be noted that there are large scale cyclic patterns that may confuse the outcome..
It's been about 10,000 years since the last iceage, we should be due for the next one at any minute: hum, perhaps in next one hundred years or so...
We should be painfully aware, that if (when) it happens, that upto 99% of all northern living creatures will perish in the frozen wastes, nothing will escape the big freeze that may hit us...Anywhere...
This fact taken with the latest satellite observations show that we are living at one of the warmest periods of earths history, and that a runaway greenhouse scenario may raise the temperature even higher. But eventually this will be `buffered` by the planet and that eventually the world will get cooler , a lot cooler, dude...
:-?
-
Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
.
It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out.
I appreciate you proving my point Robert. Over 70% of the temperature increase in the 20th century happened by 1954. Most of the CO2 increase of the 20th century happened post 1954. Do you now see that blaming the CO2 increase for the small temperature increase post 1954 and saying the big pre-1954 increase was a natural phenomena (ie what the IPCC consolidated report says) is bad science?? And you are right, about the last 10K years, grapes for wine were grown in parts of England which wont support them now (too cold), the Viking settlements in Greenland are now under ice, I'm pretty sure they didnt build them that way.
-Tig
-
Blobrana wrote:
This fact taken with the latest satellite observations show that we are living at one of the warmest periods of earths history, and that a runaway greenhouse scenario may raise the temperature even higher. But eventually this will be `buffered` by the planet and that eventually the world will get cooler , a lot cooler, dude...
The Earth does 'sink' excess CO2 in the atmosphere, and that sinking does increase in speed by the warmer the seas get. Fossil fuels are one of these natural sinks, storing biological carbon since the Carboniferous, when the climate was a lot warmer than it is now. Limestone has been storing it for even longer.
But as you know, that carbon doesn't stay trapped forever. Volcanism will release it eventually. It will be stored again, of course. But this takes time - if the volcanism is too extensive, it will release CO2 faster than the biosphere can store it. And you also know, from the fossil record, that periods of intense volcanism also match periods of very rapid climate warming, mass extinction, and desertification.
What the burning of fossil fuels is doing now is simulating intense volcanism. We push billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere which is not being recycled and which is streaming out faster than the biosphere can store it. The last decade has not only been the hottest on record, its temperature has increased faster than at any other time in the fossil record, barring mass extinction events.
Mass extinction is already occuring due to climate change. The environment is warming. This pattern is too familar in Earth's history to simply be ignored or dismissed. Every year digs up more evidence from now and from fossils.
-
Tigger wrote:
And you are right, about the last 10K years, grapes for wine were grown in parts of England which wont support them now (too cold), the Viking settlements in Greenland are now under ice, I'm pretty sure they didnt build them that way.
And 10K years ago the Sahara wasn't a desert. The rising of the Himalayas starved it of moist winds from the east. If you say that large scale geological events could have happened unnoticed in the last 50 years and still be causing the average global temperature to rise geometrically, you're the one with bad science. Even the Gulf Stream cycles (which made Greenland's coast livable for a time) aren't so short.
And as for the IPCC - you keep saying this like I read a report once and formulated all my opinions from that. I remind you once again that environmental chemistry was an integral part of my honours degree, and I do know the science, and none of it was ever taught to me as political or even as data in doubt or in controversy.
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
What NASA data shows cooling effects that directly contradict the IPCC. Are those the studies that show changing heat distribution in the atmosphere where some latitudes and altitudes show cooling? Or is this some data that shows that everything is cooling?
The NOAA MSU satellite data, you know the same data we talk about every time this topic comes up, at which point invariably it becomes a NASA/US government conspiracy and gets silly, if someone is on a role, the illuminati get blamed as well.
-Tig
-
KennyR wrote:
If you say that large scale geological events could have happened unnoticed in the last 50 years and still be causing the average global temperature to rise geometrically, you're the one with bad science.
Kenny, do you even know what the phrase rise geometrically means?? DO you honestly believe that the temperature has risen geometrically in the last 50 years?? Can you explain why it rose more in the 50 years before that with your theory?? Wouldnt by mathematical default that preclude the recent rise being geometric??
And as for the IPCC - you keep saying this like I read a report once and formulated all my opinions from that. I remind you once again that environmental chemistry was an integral part of my honours degree, and I do know the science, and none of it was ever taught to me as political or even as data in doubt or in controversy.
Gee you have a whole bachelor degree (new in the box and never used), and yet still aren't arguing the points here. Why is the temperature increase of the first 50 years of the 20th century larger then the increase for the second 50 years, given the CO2 increase of the second 50 is by far the largest?? Does it really make sense to you to blame CO2 for the smaller increase??
-Tig
-
blobrana wrote:
Hum,
Yes and no...
OK, it should be widely accepted that humans have raised the global temperature (0.2 degrees this century), this is a fact. The ice sheets are melting and the sea levels are rising...
Some ice sheets are melting, some are growing, we talk about this every time on this topic. Since technically we are still in the Holocene retreat, this fact isnt terribly interesting or important.
This fact taken with the latest satellite observations show that we are living at one of the warmest periods of earths history, and that a runaway greenhouse scenario may raise the temperature even higher. But eventually this will be `buffered` by the planet and that eventually the world will get cooler , a lot cooler, dude...
Actually the satellite doesnt show that, it shows a cooling trend for the last 25 years. As for warmest period in earths history, as we have talked about before 20th century is the 4th or 5th warmest century of the last 20, thats surely not one of the warmest periods in earths history.
-Tig
-
Tigger wrote:
Can you explain why it rose more in the 50 years before that with your theory?? Wouldnt by mathematical default that preclude the recent rise being geometric??
Can you explain why these graphs from you buddies at NASA seem to disagree with that statement?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.pdf (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.pdf)
-
Tigger wrote:
Actually the satellite doesnt show that, it shows a cooling trend for the last 25 years.
Make fun of the climatologists in the 70's for saying a new ice age is on the way by saying that climatologists today expect warming.
Make fun of the climatologists today for expecting warming by pointing to a 25 year cooling trend.
(As revealed by "the satellite". Which one is that Bill? What's wrong with the other ones? Wrong numbers?)
-
Actually as you well know, the sentence was supposed to say "the satellite data". Thanks for playing again Fluffy. As usual instead of a discussion on actual facts we you playing confuse the issue. As for the GISS site, the data as well as your beloved IPCC report agrees that the majority of the temperature change in the 20th century occurred by the 1950s. I'm using your source, your data, you can't explain the answer they are given with there data, so are throwing more data at it.
Make fun of the climatologists in the 70's for saying a new ice age is on the way by saying that climatologists today expect warming.
Not sure what your point is here, but you are missing at least part of it. I am making fun of the same scientists who claimed the ice age was coming for claiming global warming was coming 25 years later. I also think it funny that KennyR believes its right because thats what they teach him in school, completely disregarding that they taught new ice age in those very same schools years ago.
Make fun of the climatologists today for expecting warming by pointing to a 25 year cooling trend.
Again, not sure what this is about. My issue is that the satellite data verified by balloon data do not show the trends in either the troposphere or stratosphere to support the current IPCC Global Warming theory. A theory that predicted dire circumstances over 10 years ago and which by the time of the 3rd report had to revise its numbers down hugely (for the 2nd time) because the data of the last 10 years dont really support the theory.
-
Tigger wrote:
Actually as you well know, the sentence was supposed to say "the satellite data". Thanks for playing again Fluffy.
You're welcome.
As for the GISS site, the data as well as your beloved IPCC report agrees that the majority of the temperature change in the 20th century occurred by the 1950s. I'm using your source, your data, you can't explain the answer they are given with there data, so are throwing more data at it.
up .4 C from 1900 to 1950, another .5 C from 1950 to 2000 ?
Are you looking at the same graph I'm looking at?
Make fun of the climatologists in the 70's for saying a new ice age is on the way by saying that climatologists today expect warming.
Not sure what your point is here,
That's because you can't read two sentences in a row. Splitting the two up looses the point. Oh, but you really knew that, that's why you split them up in your reply.
I also think it funny that KennyR believes its right because thats what they teach him in school, completely disregarding that they taught new ice age in those very same schools years ago.
Back in the 50's the continents didn't move around.
My issue is that the satellite data verified by balloon data do not show the trends in either the troposphere or stratosphere to support the current IPCC Global Warming theory. A theory that predicted dire circumstances over 10 years ago and which by the time of the 3rd report had to revise its numbers down hugely (for the 2nd time) because the data of the last 10 years dont really support the theory.
Science gets revised. Perhaps you are confusing it with religion.
Anyway, the ground temperatures suggest warming. The atmospheric temperatures are all over the map suggesting increased movement, consistant with increased energy.
You complain that the model doesn't model the data well, and that's true, but that is no reason to revise the data.
-
Tigger wrote:
Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
.
It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out.
I appreciate you proving my point Robert. Over 70% of the temperature increase in the 20th century happened by 1954. Most of the CO2 increase of the 20th century happened post 1954. Do you now see that blaming the CO2 increase for the small temperature increase post 1954 and saying the big pre-1954 increase was a natural phenomena (ie what the IPCC consolidated report says) is bad science?? And you are right, about the last 10K years, grapes for wine were grown in parts of England which wont support them now (too cold), the Viking settlements in Greenland are now under ice, I'm pretty sure they didnt build them that way.
-Tig
Sorry, the point I was trying to make was that regardless of whether MAN MADE global warming is fact or fiction, the climate is changing. We are also polluting this planet - you cant dispute that, and in time the oil will run out - so we should start to look at alternatives ASAP. If the planet gets very cold in places, those places may need more energy - and where is it gonna come from. Its finite.
-
@ Bobsonsirjonny
"If the planet gets very cold in places, those places may need more energy - and where is it gonna come from."
------------------
It's harder to clean up, but coal!
-
Fade wrote:
@ Bobsonsirjonny
"If the planet gets very cold in places, those places may need more energy - and where is it gonna come from."
------------------
It's harder to clean up, but coal!
.. which is finite.
Ok, so if we go down the coal route - and we in the UK have plenty of coal left sitting in the hills (particularly in south wales) we will have to start using the energy more efficiently. Also the cost of Coal may very well go through the roof. It wasn't the cheapest thing to extract in the firts place. I often think did they close the mines so that in the future they have access to all this lovely coal which will then be worth a fortune.
As for the clean up - you look at the south wales valleys 20 years ago and they were horrible dirty places. Now they have been allowed to turn back to their natural beauty. However, due to the lack of jobs now in these areas (mining was a major employer) the valleys have become full of greedy, scabby Charvers..
-
blobrana wrote:
OK, it should be widely accepted that humans have raised the global temperature (0.2 degrees this century), this is a fact.
No, the temperature rising 0.2 degrees this century is a fact. Stating it's because of humans is a guess.
(Anyways everyone knows it's because of the Sun!) ;-)
Anyway, if most of the worlds oil has already been burned, and it's only made a difference of 0.2, f*** it, the little oil we have left shouldn't be a problem, burn it all! :lol:
-
0.2 in global terms is huge. 1% increase and thats a whole load of life and eco systems {bleep}ted.
We do have an impact on this planet. Its a FACT. Whether global warming is partly or entrely man made is still TBA - but we are chopping up the rain forests - the earths lungs. We are releasing untold amounts of {bleep} into the air. We are filling the place up with land fill. You wouldnt piss in your bath water before you wash..
-
Sorry T_Bone, this decade's warming could be from CO2 we released in the 50s. The worse is yet to come, and the longer we keep flinging out CO2, the worse it will get.
-
Kill any keyboards lately? ;-)
Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
0.2 in global terms is huge. 1% increase and thats a whole load of life and eco systems {bleep}ted.
How is 0.02 on a Global scale huge? It is fact that the 20th century was not the hottest in the last 2,000 years. Asit was pointed out, it was MUCH hotter in the middle ages, much more than a 0.02 degree.
If that's the case and it was say a staggering 5 or so degrees hotter, wouldn't have all these doom and gloom predictions have already happened? Wouldn't we have never been born because the human race should no longer exist? The ice caps should be history, and North America should have long been under water. We'll that's not the case. American Indians, or Native Americans (whatever you prefer) have lived here for thousands of years. Right here in Florida there is at least 1200 years of history with mumified remains and historical artifacts. Florida is supposed to be the first under water, and it isn't.
I gotta call bullsh&t on the whole thing. It's scare tactics used by liberal politicians to control their sheep.
-
BTW, this subject is brought up because of a liberal propoganda film about global warming. That reminds me, there were liberal propoganda films in the ~70's about the next ice age. Anyone remember the names of these films? I'd just LOVE to watch them now :lol:
-
And if you think Hollywood summer blockbuster movies can be any kind of serious propaganda, I understand better why you're a Republican, Red.
-
@KennyR
Let's see. Al Gore, the liberal democrat who was almost elected president in 2000 is touting it as science fact. The makers of the film say they made it "To raise awareness of global warming". etc etc. Go to the movies tomorrow and listen to people as they walk out.
-
:-?
I wonder if there's a hero, who saves the world, in the movie? Because if there's no happy end, I don't wanna see it.
-
@ KennyR
"And if you think Hollywood summer blockbuster movies can be any kind of serious propaganda, I understand better why you're a Republican, Red."
-------------
Are you really going to ignore the perfect example of "the China Syndrome" movie that they have already used, and I previously pointed out to you.
-
No Fade, but if you forgive me for saying so, the US was never a country where in general people had any great knowledge outside the movies. For instance, I guess now most Americans think it was Americans who captured the Enygma machine, that William Wallace spoke English and did it all for a woman called Murren, or that cowboys were all white men who had draw gunfights a lot.
It may suck, but politicians know how to tap into popular myths. That's why they're politicians. Look at Bush - he managed to capitalise on the misconception that the 9/11 attack was somehow linked to Saddam.
-
Fade wrote:
@ KennyR
"And if you think Hollywood summer blockbuster movies can be any kind of serious propaganda, I understand better why you're a Republican, Red."
-------------
Are you really going to ignore the perfect example of "the China Syndrome" movie that they have already used, and I previously pointed out to you.
And was pointed out to you by the article you posted.
-
No Fade, but if you forgive me for saying so, the US was never a country where in general people had any great knowledge outside the movies.
Oh boy, here we go with the "stupid Americans" line again.
For instance, I guess now most Americans think it was Americans who captured the Enygma machine, that William Wallace spoke English and did it all for a woman called Murren, or that cowboys were all white men who had draw gunfights a lot.
Let's see you learned that where? Ih yeah, your local news, uni and Jerry Springer. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People should think for themselves, and not accept blingly the propoganda they are being fed.
-
Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
Last night I was typing up my youngest sisters homework - she wrote it all out in long hand and I typed it as she is slow and it had to be in this morning.
It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out. Thats two reasons to start taking a mature and adult response to the problems which we are brewing up. When the oil runs out we are screwed. You cant very well mine for Oil on the moon either - there is none there - infact there is no other planet yet discovered with the black stuff - and you'd use more fuel trying to retrieve it.
Thing is there's an awful lot of controversy about it. We've buggered around with all sorts of things in the past few thousand years and we aren't 100% sure what the consequences will be. Now I don't claim to be a scientist but six billion people must be making an impact of sorts. An area the size of Wales disappearing weekly from southern America's rain forests surely cannot go unnoticed? We're taking a helluva risk here so let's please be sure about what we're doing.
-
redrumloa wrote:
No Fade, but if you forgive me for saying so, the US was never a country where in general people had any great knowledge outside the movies.
Oh boy, here we go with the "stupid Americans" line again.
yeah, i think some people forget that america is quite a large country.
there are more people living in New York city (all of NY city, not just manhatten) than in all of Scotland (to use the first place that comes to my mind).
so, we have complete f'ing morons and unbelievably brilliant people. And a whole bunch inbetween.
I've traveled across this country and i've seen a great variety. trust me.
-
I recently heard that The Last Samurai was being accused of being liberal propaganda too. I think that says all that that we need to know on this subject and the people who think such things...
-
Hum,
The latest data (from traces of deuterium isotope, preserved in tiny bubbles, in Antarctic ice cores) show that the Earth's current climate may last for at least another 15,000 years...
Er, barring any effects from human intervention, according to a new study of Antarctic ice published in the latest issue of the journal Nature.
-
Using "The days after tomorrow" as a source for facts is rediculos. It's hard to belive that Americans aren't stupid morons, who belive everything they see in the movies, when posts like this are made. :roll:
The fact is that the Golf stream is a very sensitive mechanism. Bad things happen when/if it shuts down. Just ask the Danes about that extremely cold winter in 1658! :-D
-
whabang wrote:
Using "The days after tomorrow" as a source for facts is rediculos. It's hard to belive that Americans aren't stupid morons, who belive everything they see in the movies, when posts like this are made. :roll:
The fact is that the Golf stream is a very sensitive mechanism. Bad things happen when/if it shuts down. Just ask the Danes about that extremely cold winter in 1658! :-D
So... how about that extremely cold winter in 1658? :lol:
-
T_Bone wrote:
whabang wrote:
Using "The days after tomorrow" as a source for facts is rediculos. It's hard to belive that Americans aren't stupid morons, who belive everything they see in the movies, when posts like this are made. :roll:
The fact is that the Golf stream is a very sensitive mechanism. Bad things happen when/if it shuts down. Just ask the Danes about that extremely cold winter in 1658! :-D
So... how about that extremely cold winter in 1658? :lol:
Twas the short 'ice-age', back then. The famous Dutch painters have painted paintings about it.
-
Hum,
1658...Twas the best of times, the worst of times...
It seems as if the 17th century solar dip that is linked to Europe's Little Ice Age and to global climate change, becomes even more of an enigma as a result of new observations by University of California, Berkeley, astronomers.
From 1645 until 1714, early astronomers reported almost no sunspot activity. The number of sunspots (er, cooler areas on the sun that appear dark against the brighter surroundings ) dropped a thousandfold.
Though activity on the sun ebbs and flows today in an 11-year cycle, it has not been that quiet since.
"Star surveys typically find that 10 to 15 percent of all sun-like stars are in an inactive state like the Maunder minimum, which would indicate that the sun spends about 10 percent of its time in this state."
I imagine that the `Golf/gulf stream` was affected by that dip in solar output, but luckily something stopped it cascading into a "full-blown ice age."
-
T_Bone wrote:
So... how about that extremely cold winter in 1658? :lol:
Well,
Sweden and Denmark was at war then. The Swedish king took advantage of the cold weather and walked straight across the frozen sea with an entire army behind him. The Danes were completely surprised and had to surrender large areas of land, among them Scania (Skåne) where I live. :-)
-
blobrana wrote:
It's been about 10,000 years since the last iceage, we should be due for the next one at any minute: hum, perhaps in next one hundred years or so...
With the interglacials being about 10k years and the current one having lasted 10k years, there was an expectation among climatologists that we should start heading into a new ice age in the next few thousand years. This is probably what Tig is always refering to when he tries to make fun of those silly scientists.
But those silly scientists seem to have found that not all interglacials are created equal and it looks like ours (if history and astronomical cycles can be counted on) should last almost 30k years.
More info on epica (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3792209.stm) (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica). Also, seems that our current atmospheric carbon load is at a 440k year max.
A paper can be found here (pdf) (http://www.esf.org/articles/85/nature02599.pdf).
-
I would just like to point out to all of you that the expected high in Chicago for tomorrow is 74 degrees farenheit!!!!!!!!!!
Glad to be of help to your arguments.
:-D
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
With the interglacials being about 10k years and the current one having lasted 10k years, there was an expectation among climatologists that we should start heading into a new ice age in the next few thousand years. This is probably what Tig is always refering to when he tries to make fun of those silly scientists.
But those silly scientists seem to have found that not all interglacials are created equal and it looks like ours (if history and astronomical cycles can be counted on) should last almost 30k years.
I go away for 3 weeks, and the warming kids come out to play I see. As I have explained to you before Fluffy, I make fun of the scientists who in the late 60's and early 70's told us that the new ice age was going to be freezing us out by the turn of the century (the land based thermometers cooling trend from 1954 got that started) and 20 years later the same scientists are part of the IPCC telling us that global warming is occuring. I also laugh at scientists (ie the IPCC gang who funds most of your global warming studies) who are busy deleting the Little Ice age and the Medieval warming as climatic events from history so the can make statements like "warmest century in 10K years" or fastest temperature increase in 20K years. If you have a global warming theory that doesnt have to delete known climatic events, thats great lets talk about that, but Kyoto and its IPCC backers are using bad science, and I refuse to sit around and act like its ok to delete climatic events just to make there theory make sense. I just got back from seeing 27 glaciers that were formed as part of a climatic event that the IPCC says didnt happen, our friend Whabang is talking about that very event above, its very important in his countries history, according to current Global Warming theory (IPCC) it NEVER happened.
-Tig
-
Tigger wrote:
I also laugh at scientists (ie the IPCC gang who funds most of your global warming studies) who are busy deleting the Little Ice age and the Medieval warming as climatic events from history so the can make statements like "warmest century in 10K years" or fastest temperature increase in 20K years. If you have a global warming theory that doesnt have to delete known climatic events, thats great lets talk about that, but Kyoto and its IPCC backers are using bad science, and I refuse to sit around and act like its ok to delete climatic events just to make there theory make sense. I just got back from seeing 27 glaciers that were formed as part of a climatic event that the IPCC says didnt happen, our friend Whabang is talking about that very event above, its very important in his countries history, according to current Global Warming theory (IPCC) it NEVER happened.
-Tig
Well, while we're covering old ground, I already pointed out to you that your assertion is in error. I'm not sure if you've read the IPCC material, but they do point out that, while those events did occur, they were local phenomena, not global. The trees in North America seem to have completely missed them, if you can trust their rings (which I suppose you can't because they're a bunch of liberal eco-freaks that want you to live in the stone-age).
-
FluffyMcDeath wrote:
Well, while we're covering old ground, I already pointed out to you that your assertion is in error. I'm not sure if you've read the IPCC material, but they do point out that, while those events did occur, they were local phenomena, not global.
And as I pointed out earlier your supposition is incorrect, I've read all 3 reports cover to cover, I'm virtually sure you have not. Saying an event that occurred thoughout both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and effected all 7 continents to be a local phenomena is both ludicrous and deceitful.
The trees in North America seem to have completely missed them, if you can trust their rings (which I suppose you can't because they're a bunch of liberal eco-freaks that want you to live in the stone-age).
Not sure where you got that crazy belief, North America (which included all those glaciers I was just visiting) was definitely effected by the Little Ice Age, the biggest proof of the Little Ice Age (ie Greenland) is part of North America, so you are really running like a bull in the china shop with no clear direction in mind.
-Tig
-
Hum,
Why not see (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/technology/3827461.stm) for yourself?
Download and run a climate model software package to see what may happen this century...
And test to see how predictions may change if the behaviour of the Gulf Stream.
Anyone wanting to join the experiment can download (http://www.climateprediction.net/index.php) a secure software package, including a version of the Met Office's state-of-the-art climate model, from the climateprediction.net site.
-
I doubt he'd accept the results, probably calling them liberal propaganda or flawed IPCC science or something again. He'd be doing that still when his house is underwater, I think. :)
-
KennyR wrote:
I doubt he'd accept the results, probably calling them liberal propaganda or flawed IPCC science or something again. He'd be doing that still when his house is underwater, I think. :)
KennyR,
This is just getting silly. We have a computer simulation based on the IPCC climate model (it says so) and you are acting like those of us who want a climate model that actually fits the historical data are silly. Once again explain to me why we should use a climate model that requires deletion of two global climatic events (LIA & MWP) and throwing out the most independently verified temperature profile of the last 25 years for it to correct. Dont you think maybe we should come up with a model that actually fits the known data instead of altering or throwing out the data that doesnt fit the model??
-Tig
-
Hey fellas,
If anyone else reading this scratches their head and thinks "what on Earth is all this about?" like I did, I found an article which has many links to sources about IPCC, LIA, MWP and other confusing acronyms.
I think it explains it all pretty well. And you have the option to follow the links and get really in-depth.
Climate Science Introduction (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Science.html)
And
Contrarians (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html#Contrarians)
I dunno how up-to-date these are. Early 2004 I believe. Has anything new come to light since?
Anyway, I'm still reading. Normally I'd read everything before posting a link, but this is massive and I wanna go to bed soon, but I also wanna know what other people think. There's more to it than just the links I have posted, but those seem most relevant.
TC,
-zudo
-
Tigger wrote:
And as I pointed out earlier your supposition is incorrect, I've read all 3 reports cover to cover, I'm virtually sure you have not.
Perhaps I am confusing the reports with an ancilliary document. If I get the time, I'll do a search.
Saying an event that occurred thoughout both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and effected all 7 continents to be a local phenomena is both ludicrous and deceitful.
Indeed, and so is saying that something that was local effected all 7 continents and both Norhern and Southern hemispheres.
The left leaning wanna-be-eco-cavemen-freaks at Science Daily disagree. (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/10/031020055353.htm) But that's just the liberal gibberish you can expect from university and NOAA types!! (spit)
edit --
OK, I took a quick look, and it was actually ridiculously easy to find. In IPCC Third Assessment Report: Climate Change 2001. It's section 2.3.3 "Was there a “Little Ice Age” and a “Medieval Warm Period”?"
Here's a link (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm).
-
Hum,
i just came across some figures...
This time last year, the whole of Europe was baking with record-breaking temperatures...
The death toll was estimated to have been 25-30 thousand, the majority of which 14 thousand occurred in France as a direct result from a two week heatwave...