Global warming? When did it start?

[Travis Munday]

One thing you almost never read about with this whole global warming debate is how the growing season is longer in some growing regions, meaning more crops. Of course, on the flipside, some other crops are getting burned, but usually something else will still grow.



Longer growing seasons, more growing areas, and more diverse crops. All....bad?

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing and it will probably become a problem

and this is based on what exactly? Anytime that something gets out of kilter, the earth has historically responded to bring balance. If you're a true believe in Evolution you would know that back when humans were a part of the primordial ooze the levels of CO2 were astronomically higher than they are now.



If you look back at the 1920's-40's, how can anyone in their right mind say that the atmosphere is dirtier in the US especially now than it was then?



Global warming is a political hotbutton with very little accurate and non-biased science behind it. Follow the money. Al Gore is raking in millions everytime he opens his trap. His purchases of "Carbon Offsets" are to a company that he is majority owner of.



Here's something for ya "carbon offset" crowd. I'm opening a buisiness in selling "meat offsets". I'll pay $20 per oz or meat that you don't want to eat and I'll resell it for $40 to the meat eaters so they don't feel so bad about eating meat. I'll do the same with the bottled water crowd. How about ice cream?



Rediculous. If Al Gore, Etheridge, et al spent as much time planting tree as telling people to plant tree, it may make a .000001% difference.



As for me and My House, we will do what is best for us and our future. Thanks.

 

[Chris H 3]

It's a gauge. Like a thermometer. It measures CO2. If I told you the thermometer on my back patio read 103 deg F, would you tell me that the temperature was inaccurate or biased?



I completely agree that there is a mess of miss information revolving around the 'political' issue of global warming. I carefully said "probably" because the 'scientific' models are probably not constructed with all of the pertinent data. Al Gore is a salesman and is likely doing well toward his retirement to some temperate climate. The bird flu will probably get you before global warming will anyway.



Concerning the ability of the earth to balance itself? What if it balances into a place that makes it inhospitable for our current populations of humans? How fast can you evolve? If 90% of humans died who would clean the debris off the roads?

 

[Bill V]

If 90% of humans died who would clean the debris off the roads?

True--but it would be a whole lot easier to find a parking spot downtown. So there would be definite perks...

 

[Tom Schindler]

It's a gauge. Like a thermometer. It measures CO2. If I told you the thermometer on my back patio read 103 deg F, would you tell me that the temperature was inaccurate or biased?

If youn are just as hot with it at 103 deg F as it would be at 60 deg F, why would it matter? Just because CO2 levels are up does not mean it is a cause for concern, nor does it mean it is impacting the earth or will ever impact the earth.



There are so many things out there that are dangerous to the earth, man, animals, etc. it isn't funny. At the same time, it is a necessary evil that is a fact of life. CO2, like O2, is required for this earth to support life.



One could say rising CO2 levels is beneficial for life because it supports plant life, therefore supporting animals that eat plants, and lastly us humans that eat the animals that eat the plant life. We pay the plants back by giving them more CO2.



Sorry, you can take any study and skew the results to support your agenda however you want it. MAC vs. PC, Domestic vs. Imports, meat vs. veggies. It is just who wants to see it make them the most money.



We have tailpipe testing in NE Ohio. We are not cleaning up the air by doing it. We are only giving the state credits to sell to companies that pollute the air so they can continue to do it. Up until recently, we had to pay $19.95 to give the state credits to sell to make money. We are not cleaning the air, but simply selling companies the right to pollute the air.





Tom

 

[Rich Stern]

If I told you the thermometer on my back patio read 103 deg F, would you tell me that the temperature was inaccurate or biased?

Yes, I would.



At what height is it mounted? Are there any concrete or other heat absorbing surfaces nearby? What color are those materials? What is the wind pattern on your back patio? Does the structure of your home or anything nearby interfere with convection patterns? Are there any nearby sources of heat or cooling, such as appliance or HVAC exhausts? Is the thermometer exposed to normal local precipitation? When was the last time the thermometer was calibrated and tested for accuracy in a controlled environment?



I just gave you more than a half dozen unaccounted for variables for one temperature reading location. Now, given what I just described, you can state with 90% confidence that your thermometer is accurate to within 0.6 degrees centigrade? That's how much the earth has supposedly warmed during the last century. 90% is how sure the UN is that this disaster is happening.



Now, step back from the thermometer in your backyard and imagine the complexity of accurately determining worldwide global average temperature, before we even begin to contemplate the near infinitely variable process of driving that temperature through things like solar radiation, reflection, cosmic radiation, absorption, water vapor, methane, CO2, etc.



Some very smart scientists from outside the climatology field will tell you that the computer forecasting models do a very good job on some of the key variables. They will also tell you that some other key variables are either imprecisely modeled, plugged with assumptions, or simply not represented. If you cannot define the entire equation, you cannot predict climate.



It's b.s.

 

[Chris H 3]

What makes the accuracy of the thermometer on my porch important? (It probably wasn't calibrated in Greenwich or wherever.) But last year, hypothetically, it read 102.99, 10 years before that 102.5, 20 years before that 102.35. Relative to the last reading, it is up. Do we agree that gauges are useful for establishing trends?



Remember we are really talking about CO2 readings. Maybe I should have picked a different sort of gauge to use as my example. A thermometer blurs the discussion because warming is a temperature thing. As Cayman points out, we have not established that there is any link between CO2 and global warming. Maybe we should consider the pressure gauge on my pool filter. It reads about 10-20 psi regardless of the weather.

 

[Bill V]

Yes, I would.



At what height is it mounted? Are there any concrete or other heat absorbing surfaces nearby? What color are those materials? What is the wind pattern on your back patio? Does the structure of your home or anything nearby interfere with convection patterns? Are there any nearby sources of heat or cooling, such as appliance or HVAC exhausts? Is the thermometer exposed to normal local precipitation? When was the last time the thermometer was calibrated and tested for accuracy in a controlled environment?



I just gave you more than a half dozen unaccounted for variables for one temperature reading location. Now, given what I just described, you can state with 90% confidence that your thermometer is accurate to within 0.6 degrees centigrade? That's how much the earth has supposedly warmed during the last century. 90% is how sure the UN is that this disaster is happening.



Now, step back from the thermometer in your backyard and imagine the complexity of accurately determining worldwide global average temperature, before we even begin to contemplate the near infinitely variable process of driving that temperature through things like solar radiation, reflection, cosmic radiation, absorption, water vapor, methane, CO2, etc.



Some very smart scientists from outside the climatology field will tell you that the computer forecasting models do a very good job on some of the key variables. They will also tell you that some other key variables are either imprecisely modeled, plugged with assumptions, or simply not represented. If you cannot define the entire equation, you cannot predict climate.



It's b.s.

Rich, you were completely accurate in that entire statement, until the last two sentences.



To predict something scientifically, you do not necessarily need to have the entire equation fully defined. You just need to realistically factor the potential effect of the undefined portion into the potential accuracy of the prediction. As an example, think of genetics. If I take sperm from a male rabbit, and fertilize the egg of a female rabbit, am I able to predict what the offspring will be? Yes and no. There are some things about how genetic traits interact during the feritilization process that science either simply has not yet understood or possibly will never understand. But the fact that I can't fully define the entire process doesn't mean that I can't make scientifically accurate predictions regarding the results based on what I do know. For example, I can predict with scientific accuracy that the offspring won't be a kangaroo. I can also predict, based on knowledge of breed characteristics, dominant/recessive traits, etc., what the offspring will likely look like--and based on that knowledge, and on whatever knowledge I have about the bloodlines of the parents, I can even express scientifically accurate predictions on the likelihood of those characteristics. For example, not knowing anything about the specific male sperm involved, I can't tell you whether this offspring will be male or female--but from knowledge of mammal reproduction in general, I can tell you that the odds of each gender are roughly 50%. If I have two rabbits that are both supposedly purebred New Zealand rabbits (all white, with pink/red eyes), I can predict within a scientifically determinable certainty that the offspring will be white with pink/red eyes. The accuracy isn't 100%, because we can't fully know the purity of the bloodlines, nor can we know there won't be a genetic mutution--but those facts don't mean that the scientific basis of the prediction is somehow invalid.



This is one of the biggest problem I have with some of the global warming deniers--many of them try to claim that because we don't know every detail of how the climatic universe works, it's impossible to make any objective, scientifically-based predictions regarding what is going to happen. An

 

[Bill Ellis]

I'm guessing that no one here is a recognized, trained climatologist. We've all read articles about global warming and it's probable causes. Most of those are not written as unbiased accounts of unbiased scientific study. There is a lot of money being funneled into such studies as long as those studies support the man-made theory. Little to no money is going to those who would like to pursue unbiased studies.



As a population we tend to believe what we read, see and hear from those who are supposed to be telling us unbiased truth. Problem is, unbiased truth is hard to come by these days. Just remember, not that long ago, the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Dragons existed as well as sea monsters. Disease and hard times were often attributed to witchcraft. All natural disasters were the act of a vengeful god. Everbody believed it because they were told it was true. The truth-tellers were leaders of various religions...why would they lie.

 

[Bill V]

Just remember, not that long ago,....Disease and hard times were often attributed to witchcraft. All natural disasters were the act of a vengeful god.

Huh? What do you mean by "not that long ago"? That still goes on in this country at alarming frequency!

 

[Bill Ellis]

Very true, many still attribute natural disasters to the gods; but, I don't believe that is the general belief throughout the USA population. Some now would say god caused an earthquake but most would call it a natural act even though insurance companies still refer to such things as "An act of god". {not capitalizing god here because I'm not referring to god of any religion}.

 

[Mark Grumpy]

After reading this I stepped outside - it's warmer today than yesterday. Crap.

...0.6 degrees centigrade? That's how much the earth has supposedly warmed during the last century.

Holy crap That's a whopping 1.08 degrees fahrenheit. In a 100 years.

Here's why I think it's changed - we have better tools now to measure it (whatver IT is). When IT was measured 100 years ago, the calibration was a hair off, say, 1.09, therefore, we are actually cooling.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

So since God is causing global warming, and global warming is melting the ice caps, should we get SST to print us up a bunch of: "God Hates Baby Seals" bumper sticker?







TJR

 

[Dingo]

If you're dyslexic, do you blame it on dog?

 

[Rich Stern]

To predict something scientifically, you do not necessarily need to have the entire equation fully defined.

That's bad phrasing. Better to put it this way: To predict something, you don't need to have the entire equation fully defined. But the prediction is just that: A prediction, which may have a highly variable outcome, somehow related to the nature and scope of the unknown or poorly understood variables in the equation that determines the outcome.



To state something is a scientific fact, indisputable, based on the natural laws of the universe, you do, in fact, need to have the entire equation fully defined. A belief in the outcome of an unscientifically defined prediction is a matter of faith.

But the fact that I can't fully define the entire process doesn't mean that I can't make scientifically accurate predictions regarding the results based on what I do know.

Again, bad word choice. You might make accurate predictions, but they won't be based on scientific method. There is an important difference.

For example, I can predict with scientific accuracy that the offspring won't be a kangaroo.

You are inventing phrases to lend the credibility of scientific method to prediction. "Scientific accuracy" is a meaningless term. The kind of term the media invents to misapply the label of science to matters that are less defined than science.

I can also predict, based on knowledge of breed characteristics, dominant/recessive traits, etc., what the offspring will likely look like--and based on that knowledge, and on whatever knowledge I have about the bloodlines of the parents, I can even express scientifically accurate predictions on the likelihood of those characteristics.

When you can define all of the inputs and precisely state the output for all of the traits you listed, and do it repeatedly in controlled circumstances, that is a scientifically validated outcome. Educated guesses don't count. You are confusing hypothesis and theory. You are making a hypothesis. If you can repeatedly show it happens with 100% certain by demostrating it in a controlled way, you have a valid scientific theory.

This is one of the biggest problem I have with some of the global warming deniers--many of them try to claim that because we don't know every detail of how the climatic universe works, it's impossible to make any objective, scientifically-based predictions regarding what is going to happen. And this simply isn't true.

There is a huge gulf between making educated guesses and proving something by scientific method. Anthropogenic global warming is a hypothesis, and any objective scientist, when presented with all available data and potential unknowns, will identify the problem as dramatically under defined. There are enormous unkowns and contradictory data.



Bill, take a look at the track record of long term prediction throughout history. Horribly inaccurate.