|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>majority thought.. that witches did not float
I recall that, according to MP, witches did float (and the innocent thus were drowned); did our heros have it backwards?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Bevedere: What else floats?
Villager 2: Small rocks!
According to NOAA research - balloon and satellite temperature readings over the past 20 years - there has been no measureable increase in the temperature of the troposphere (1 miles to 5 miles up) which is where the CO2 accumulates and which would have to heat up to be responsible for the apparent global warming we are experiencing. The conclusion is therefore inescapable that global warming due to your SUVs or CFCs in highly overrated. On the other hand, astronomers have shown an almost seamless fit between variability in the sun's output and major climatological events over the past 150 years.
It seems to me that the conclusion that the events we are seeing are actually naturally variability in climate is pretty hard to avoid.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Latest research, looking at ocean temperatures, indicates that global worming is happening. As to the beliefs of the majority, the majority of people believe that if you take a running leap off a high, sheer cliff you will fall to your death on the rocks below.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 2,788 |
Pfranz has expressed this far better than could I. There are several poor fellows at the University of Washington who have had the audacity to buck the political tide which insists that there is such a critter as human-induced global warning. They have apparently jeopardized their careers by saying the unpopular .. in terms very much like those which Capfka has shared here.
Me, I am not nearly bright enough to know the correct answer, but the panic of the herd seems to exceed its scientific warrant.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Faldo, nobody's arguing that there is no global warming. It's just that there appears to be little or no scientific evidence to use as a basis for the constant refrain that the CO2 that we've injected into the atmosphere is causing it. After all, global temperatures DECLINED between 1945 and 1979. The research I saw seemed to support a natural cyclical approach to climatic changes. I have similar doubts (but I've seen no research to support them) about the "causes" of the "hole in the ozone layer" over the Southern Ocean. CFCs? Well, if that's the case then why isn't the hole over the northern hemisphere? That, after all, is where the vast majority of CFCs have been released, isn't it? I can't buy the "they're heavy so they sink to the bottom" argument, in case anyone was thinking about advancing it!  It's all too emotive as far as I'm concerned. The political correctness thang seems to have taken over. The Padre is quite correct. If you are a scientist and you want grants for research into climatological change, you have to subscribe to the PC theories du jour. I've also seen varying sets of figures on what Kyoto would actually achieve. They all differ in detail, but the upshot is the same in each case. Countries who've signed up and who will try to be "honest brokers" and meet their commitments will potentially beggar themselves to defer the projected unregulated rate of warming for (and this is where the variability comes in) between 3 and 6 years. While I have very little time for the Bush administration, they're bang on about this one. To meet Kyoto would cost somewhere between $300 billion and $400 billion per annum for twenty years (from memory). This would cripple the US economy. Not just slow it down. And for what? Here's a short article which puts it into perspective: http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
Latest research... indicates that global worming is happening. ~Faldage
Yep. Everywhere except in Macs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757 |
> The conclusion is therefore inescapable
Come off it. That is a partial and tendencious view of that research at best. See the article in New Scientist a couple of weeks ago. See the latest edition of Nature.
The only completely undoubted and independently verifiable fact at the moment is this: the scientists involved in serious disputation of the overarching evidence of man-made global warming are funded by Exxon. I wonder why?
Apart from them there is a virtual unanimity view emerging. Could they all be wrong? Of course, it's the scientific method. But it is a methodical view; it's also mankind's best and most educated guess right now. If you want to jump off the cliff with the SUV brigade, go ahead... people will still be calling our gleefully "look, there's no problem..." even just before they hit the beach.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
...and this has exactly what to do with Q&A about words?
(I know, and y'all know of a perfectly fine forum for this sort of thing at another venue.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,624 |
Well, I guess it's escapable if you believe that NOAA is cooking its atmospheric temperature figures. Otherwise you have to believe that heat is passing through the troposphere at a "normal" rate and that global warming is caused by something else. Physics says that if the CO2 in the troposphere was blocking heat that the troposphere would heat up measurably. This hasn't happened according to NOAA.
As I said above I'm not trying to deny that we are experiencing a change in the global climate. I just don't necessarily buy the argument that it's due to CO2 in the atmosphere. If someone else comes up with data-driven (as opposed to theoretically modelled) proof that CO2 is doing it, I'd change my mind like a shot. But I've been reading this stuff up lately and while I started out believing that it was CO2 that was causing the change, I'm now much less than convinced.
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,331
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
|
