OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

It's a simple idea, but would be hell to implement...though probably easier than what will have to be done to reverse climate change conventionally. What's this idea, you ask?

Kinda like an SEIV sphereworld (see, I managed to make it so it isn't totally OT! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif ). Build a massive metallic framework around the entire world, out in space a couple hundred kilometers. Around this framework contruct a thin structure about 511,185,932 square kilometers in area, constructed to completely envelop the Earth. That way, you could block out sunlight in whatever amount* you want, reducing overall global temperatures without worrying as much about carbon emissions.

*A major problem would be to find a way to have this structure selectively eliminate the sunlight when you want. I suppose a system sorta like slats on a window blind might work.

Please feel free to show me the massive flaws in my logic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

It sounds good to me. Though I'd rather most, if not all, efforts be put towards curing aging; the most deadly of issues.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Slight problems:

1) Sunlight is what causes global warming. It's also what feeds plants. Cut down on the sunlight, and there's issues with little things like O2 production.

2) Space is kinda hostile. Millions of very small meteors hit the Earth regularly. Most simply burn up in the atmosphere. This thing would have to be outside the atmosphere - it would be liable to get cut to ribbons.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

More 'slight' problems:

3) Good God, do you realize how much time, energy, and money it would take to build such a thing? Even beyond the huge engineering problems of preventing the thing from falling apart from constant meteor and space-junk impacts, we still have barely progressed beyond Apollo-era space technology. And some would say we have regressed to pre-Apollo technology, by swamping everything in more complexity. And you're proposing to create something that massive?

4) As a corollary, the time, energy, and money that would need to be poured into such an endeavor would have a much bigger impact if put into, say, infrastructure to reduce current emissions of carbon dioxide, and/or methods of recapturing carbon, research into sustainable energy like fusion, and growing enough food to feed every person on Earth.

Also, I have to say that Jack's first objection isn't that big a deal if this is something that only partially blocks the sun's energy, either by turning "on and off", or by only blocking out a percentage. In either case, plants get the energy during daylight hours and store it in ATP, and then constantly use that stored ATP to convert carbon dioxide and water into sugars and oxygen, whether there is light or not. Reduce incoming energy enough to lower the global average temperature by a few degrees centigrade will not have a significant impact on the total energy the plants recieve to keep the rest of us breathin'.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Recently they have discovered that the tempreture of the water below the polar ice caps is heating up, not because of anything we humans have done, but because of underwater vulcan activity. This is a contributing factor to why the polar ice caps are now melting along with all of the man made crap. Also it is generally speculated that this is just the natural progression of mother nature and is a natural event as the planet ages. That is to say that the older the planet gets, the hotter it will become. While this theory is not widely viewed as acceptable, more and more evidence is mounting in favor of it.

Mother Earth is a living breathing thing and mommy anit happy with us.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

A better use for your lattice, instead of using it to cover the world and turn it into a one big snowball, would be to convert it into a series of solar power satellites; that way, you would be able to furnish the entire globe with nearly limitless power, and solve the root problem of both global warming and global dimming, that is the use of hydrocarbons to generate energy for the economies of the world.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

According to everything I can get my hands on and reading about Global warming:
The most likely cause is the Sun heating us up. The amount of green house gas that humans contribute in miniscule.
Carbon Dioxide is less that 3 percent of all green house gases and our contribution to that 3 percent is really small way less than 10 percent as I recall.
As far as the vulcanism in the artic I have not heard that one BUT The Greenlandic Ice cap has begun melting in the last 100 years and the trend is accelerating.
This in turn is causing the salinity of the water to become lower. Which in turn is causing less of the gulf stream to reach England and Europe lowering the temperature of the water up there which in turn can cause winters to be colder and longer. Since 1965 the amount of warm water moving north has been reduced by 30%
Some Scientist postulate that this could be a trigger into another ice Age.
The Space sun shade is a neat idea and it can be implemented fairly cheaply but I really think that our efforts should be concentrated in three areas.
1 Clean up our planet and research technologies that help recycle and cleanup our planet
2 Cheap energy
3 Get off this planet and have self-sufficient colonies other than this earth.
4 Promote a society that we are all in this together and we all own earth and everything we do affects everyone else.

If we don't then there will never be a human space empire

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Actually, the Sphereworld is (or least seems to be) based on the concept of a Dyson Sphere. The 'metal shell' encompasses at least one planet and the sun. The idea is that all of the sun's energy will be trapped by the 'shell' and be availible for use by the planet(s).

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

As Will mentioned above, this can be averted by having a system that is only blocking sunlight part of the time; I was thinking blocking say half an hour of sunlight per day around the world. On a side note, I bet that that half hour of darkness would be absolutely pitch black. Probably couldn't see an inch in front of your face without other lights!
Now this I hadn't thought of, and it'd be a little tough to get around. Though now that I think about it, how does the ISS avoid micrometeorite punctures? Sure, you can map those in Earth orbit, but what about those that come in from elsewhere? Not sure of a solution to this one.
Well, I'm not saying it would be easy or cheap! Though it may be cheaper than all that will be necessary to prevent further climate change and to effect a reversal, I'm not sure. There would definitely be absolutely massive engineering challenges, but I don't think it would entail anything fundamentally beyond our technology level.
I'm not sure if the money would be better spent funding other methods of halting and reversing climate change (which I'm not sure is even possible), since the shield would essentially do the same thing that all the environmental efforts are aimed at.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Gozra: the sun hasn't increased its output noticably. And while the amount of CO2 we've added is small in proportion to the entire atmosphere, that doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect. All we've done is strengthen the already existing greenhouse effect by a few degrees- a very small part of the overall effect, more or less in proportion to the amount of gas we've added.

Problem is that few degrees can have fairly major implications.

And yeah, global warming probably will lead to a mini ice age for Europe. Climate's weird like that.

AT: from everything I've read the planet should get *colder* internally as it gets older, eventually ceasing tectonic activity altogether (though by the time that happens the human race will likely be long extinct).

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

When I was a kid we used to have snow each winter, at least 4 ft for a week or two each year. When my mother was young, some 45 years ago, the Columbia river would often freeze during winter and the average snow fall was about 6 feet. The last time we had any snow here was in 96 and it was only about a foot or so deep. We have had a couple of nasty ice stormes though, all of which crept up on us without warning.

It used to rain all summer, now we get record temps each year, this year even a couple over 100 degrees which until 77 was very rare. Since 77 I can honestly say that the weather here has changed dramatically. Thats just about 30 years. If the weather has changed so much in 30 years, image what it will be like in another 30 years.

Many people feel that there is something happening, something that we don't yet understand and I fear we will not until its way too late.

The world is changing, fast, and the question is, are we to blame, or is this mother nature. Hell could this even be end of days or notice of Gods return? I don't want to speculate but the evidence is clear, our world is changing, its getting hotter in areas, glaciers are melting and the season are out of phase as summer starts later, last longer, and winters are either colder or warmer depending upon where you live. Somthing is definately happening and its happening very fast.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

An article that summarizes global temperature changes, from 1977 to 2002.

http://www.objectivescience.com/articles/Image48.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Yes the sun has an 11 year cycle and the geological record indicates thatour temps have been hotter and colder and the last sunspot cycle has been the greatest output we have measured and the upcoming cycle is promising to be even bigger. globa warming is not a man induced problem it is a man exercabated(sic) problem. And it is just one alarm bell amoung many that we need to think about. Jared diamond's book 'Collapse' indicates the problems we really need to think about. For the forseeable future climate change is going to be with mankind. Learning to deal with it in a scientific manner would be in everyones best interest. The sun shade artifact is a possible place to start it does two things gets u into space in a big way and possibly gives us a simple mechanical sloution to a growing problem and if we start turning into an icecube it will allow us to have a sloution in place to help that also. Current information that I have found indicates that the output of the sun and disturbences in the High altitude ice crystals seem to have had the greatest impact on global warming. The geological record indicates that large amounts of carbon dioxide appear after the warming has occured whichis consistant with current findings showing the methane and co2 trapped in artic bogs is being released in greater amounts as we speak and what followed was a horrific Ice ages. Us putting Co2 in the atmosphere may modify this effect. And all this can happen in one decade. We live in interesting times.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

No one is disputing we have a warming trend. The earth has been cold for most of it's history. We are at the tail end of one of the picnic times. That is why it is important that we act for future generations. Or climate change can knock us back to the stoneage technologically.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

We're too preoccupied with our human-created problems to worry about anything so abstract as global warming, though.

Isn't much of the problem more that we're cutting down all the forests and such( i.e. the instruments of the removal of CO2), rather than the amount of CO2 we're releasing?

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I haven't read every word in this thread, but one thing I didn't see mentioned was the huge amount of building materials that such a project would require. I think we'd be hard put to come up with enough.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Cutting forests dosen't help, but the billions of tons of hydrocarbons we dig and pump out of the ground to burn is the big thing.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Possible that there is no global warming? One theory is that it's just a regular up-down cycle of the earth, and that the warming is normal.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

That's the thing, we just don't have enough data to know whether or not it's natural or if it's caused by humanity.

From what I recall reading somewhere, there's two possible ways the future will go. One, we keep heating up and heating up until we have massive and radical climatic shifts. Two, we heat up until we reach a certain point, at which a sudden and sharp reversal begins. I think there's some geological evidence supporting both sides. Personally, I tend to favor number two. The Earth has a very delicately balanced set of climate parameters. If one of these parameters messes up too badly, the others often compensate. I bet the Earth has some mechanism for cooling down the Earth when it gets too hot (ie: another ice age if we get too hot) and a mechanism for heating up if we get too cold.

From what I can remember, summer's have been hotter, and winters haven't had as much snow in recent times where I live. However, two years ago, we had the coldest day I've ever seen and I think it was the coldest day my parents had ever seen as well. It was -49°C when I got up one morning. Previously, the coldest I'd experienced was about -44°C a few years before that.

Who really knows what's happening? It's all just speculation based upon unprovable initial assumptions.

As for deforestation, well there's some other factors as well. Where I live, in Central BC, almost all the pine trees have been killed by a massive infestation of the Mountain Pine Beetle, a bug that eats the layer of a tree just beneath the bark, killing it. We have hundreds of thousands of acres of dead, lifeless, red trees. In essence, it isn't just mankind who causes deforestation; nature does it once in a while as well.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Well if we advance technologically far enough then we can move the planet away from the sun like the Pupputeer civilization did in the Ringworld series by Larry Niven.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I don't recall where I read or even heard this, but it was speculated that we are causing the planets core and mantel to heat up by drilling and removing such things as natural gas, oil, and methane. ????? I don't see how this would matter, but thought I would post the info any ways in hopes that someone may have more info.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I do admit I get a kick out of people saying mankind will be long extinct as if it will happen some time in the next few years or something.

No offense people but Mankind has been believing it will go extinct within the next few years or few decades or yadda yadda. Yeah for the first time in our history that we KNOW of mankind is capable of making it's self go extinct on a massive scale but for the most part MOST humans are to smart to do anything to completely exterminate ourselves....except for the Iranians who seem to want to bring an end to the world but if they even TRY it iran will be the only glowing crater in this world.

Now if we can get our collective heads together and start working on a space program for the entire civilized world (mideast/africa are not likely to get anywhere) we can easily set up colonies on Mars, Luna, and several of Titan's moons from what I've read not to mention Io.

Yeah they'd be harsh places to live for a while but so was every colony man has ever established even on Earth.


Then again if you listen to some very interesting theories that I've heard Mankind did not originate on Earth at all but are likely the survivors of a colony from God knows where.

Heck I've even heard people use this as an explanation FOR evolution (i.e the reason there is no missing link is because our ancestors had nothing to do with the previous "species" of man but instead were transplanted here.)

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I think I'm the only person that's made that reference, and it was refering to the time when the earth's geological activity stops.

In order for us to be around at that point we'd have to survive longer than ANY species in the history of the entire planet. I don't see that as likely. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Our desendants will be around then but just not in our current form. Maybe if these "Grays" are real (probably not) then they are us traveling back in time to study their primitive ancestors; the same as biologists today travel and study our way. Maybe the Earth in their time is not the same or even none existant.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

That chart is marked in .1 of a degree. Not exactly a large change.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

It doesn't take all that much to start melting the poles, though, and the temperature doesn't appear to stop rising anytime soon.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Averaged over an entire planet, that's a lot.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

While it can be argued many ways with carbon dioxide, if it has a significant impact on warming, or insignificant, or even no impact, the cutting of forests does have some impact (at least locally; it would be harder to prove global impact). If you have a large area of trees, they are taking the incoming energy to convert to sugars, and reflecting some back out, but there is little re-radiation as heat. If you have clear-cut land, there is no conversion of energy to create sugars, and a lot more is re-radiated as heat. You can see the effects of things like this by watching a local weather report; temperatures inside a city will consistently be higher than surrounding areas, because all the concrete and non-green land area is turning sunlight into more heat energy than there would be in more "natural" settings.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

It also affects weather patterns. For example, as I mentioned below, my area has a hundreds of thousands of acres of dead trees. This has changed our weather in a few ways. For example, we no longer get thunderstorms. Up until even a few years ago, we got thunderstorms all the time. I blame this on the dead trees. Think about it; when you have millions of live trees around, on hot days a whole lot of water will evaporate from these trees, helping to create thunderstorms on hot days. When you have dead trees, the water is instead absorbed deeper underground, and less water is evaporated on hot days, since there isn't as much as easily available. Result: no thunderstorms. At least, that's my theory.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Thunderstorms...Florida has a whole lot of thunder storms, and they say it's because it's a sand bar that tosses up wet salty silicon dust into the air.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

What's needed is scientific studies. Right now we have speculation.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

We've got studies. People just like to ignore them, or in the case of the Bush administration, censor them.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Which sides' studies?

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

If you're doing science properly there's no such thing.

Sadly that almost never happens. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif In this case the "global warming exists, here's the proof" studies.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Exactly!

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Often, I am literally physically sickened when I see people making important decisions based on their self-interest, ideologies, or dogma, rather than facts and scientific methods. In my line of work, I see it a lot, and it puts people's lives at risk. I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe.

You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

The fact of the matter is: there is NO debate on global warming. The only debate that exists is in the eyes of politicians, economists, and political pundits - all of whom have a vested or personal interest in stating that global warming is a hoax, or not a big deal.

The VAST majority of scientists who have studied the various facets of this issue have all come to the same conclusion: the globe is warming, and humans are largely responsible, in one fashion or another. Exactly HOW human activity causes global warming is a legitimate topic for debate, but WHETHER OR NOT humans greatly contribute to global warming is NOT. Sorry if this is inconvienent for some people to hear, but frankly, that's life. Being able to change one's opinion in the face of evidence is a sign of maturity.

But if you're not willing to honestly listen to the experts, then I'll tell you what: go and spend years to get a PhD in atmospheric sciences, physics, chemistry, biology, or some other related field, and THEN spend a decade studying global warming. THEN, and ONLY THEN do you have the right to spout off on this issue. Until then, shut the heck up. You're just making yourself look foolish and helping to doom the planet with shortsighted biases.

If you want to take the time to actually have an informed opinion (and not just an opinion that reinforces what you WANT to believe), then here are some places to start:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/
A bunch of wiki pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change
Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

You want to talk about the temperature record? Go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satelli...erature_record
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histori...erature_record

Are the EXACT links between human activity and global warming known? Not per se - the causal link between human activity and global warming is clear, but exactly how human activity transmits to higher temperatures is a very complex matter. But reality is complex, and there is no more complex a system then the planet's climate. And, you will almost never find, in any scientific field, a direct link between cause and effect. It's just the way science works (look up Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Carl Hempel etc...if you want to know more)

But just because it is a complex issue doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist, no matter how much people whinge and cry. Sorry.

But, hey, don't really worry about it. It's not like we're talking about the future of the entire planet or anything. I mean, I can understand why people don't want to pay a bit more in taxes to save the planet. Makes sense to me. Probably too late anyways, so why even worry about it. After all, probably some conspiracy by those pesky scientists. Not like they're interested in the truth. I'd much rather rely on the opinions of the extremely well informed voting public or the news-radio hosts - they're ALWAYS more objective.

AMF

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

It could be argued that even such things as warming up our homes, heat from factories, cars, etc., is all contributing to the world's temperature rise( obviously the heat doesn't just disappear). We're converting more and more of the world's resources into energy/warmth, much helped by our technology advances that let's us exploit nuclear power, for instance.

If the world's temperature is rising, that must mean wind activity is as well?

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

People don't think it will affect them. They don't stop, or worse, don't care to think that their legacy of greed and self importance will leave their childrens holding the bag. And I don't know if any of you have noticed this, but the children of today are not as able or capable as the children of yestarday. (being polite) - they are one step away from grade a morons. Most just don't care, would rather lay around watching spung bob, eating chips and drinking pop. Most think that McDonalds is the dinner room, and that all they need do to get whatever they want is throw a temper tantrum. Gone are the days where parents actually had skill and could and would use disipline, replaced by partents that don't have a clue, are drug addicts, or worse, brain dead retards who just happened to breed by accident and the State is so over whelmed by the influx of BDR babies that they cannot help everyone.

My cusins kids, two girls, are on drugs for depression, hypertension, mood swings, uppers, downers, and god only knows what else and they are only 12 and 10. WTF! They have no respect for their mother, who I might add is a BDR herself. (We are talking white trash, Jerry Springer time here) Yet my cusin loves them, despite wanting nothing to do with them, he does the right thing and tries to take care of them but is forbidden by the state to use any form of disipline other than time outs, talking to them, and professional theropy... one of whom recommened using a belt.

They try their games with me and I won't put up with them. They mind me and when they stay at my mothers, they mind her as well. She is a no hold bard old school women.

There seem to be fewer smart, caring, and well balanced kids than there were in my generation, and I am not that old at 37, than there are today. Of course that could simply be because I only see the punk, smart ***, drug selling, using, trailer white trash, looser lower income, or yuppie 'I get whatever I want' rich punk 'I don't care, I do what I want' teenagers living around this area. (And beyond.)

While there are some great kids to be found, most are like their parents now, "its not my problem, lets do what we want, let someone else deal with it," kind of people.

And knowing that those kind of people seem to be in the majority scares the hell out of me. The last eight or so generations made the problem, and it will be up to the next eight or so generations to live or die by it.

God help them, because we sure as hell won't be.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I'd say you're looking at the past like most do, with nostaligia. I highly doubt today's generation is a whole lot worse than the previous generation. After all, I'm somewhat familiar with today's generation of young people (being one of them), and I'd say that it's pretty much the same as my parent's generation. Then again, I don't really know, since I wasn't around 30 or 40 years ago.

Alarikf, there is doubt about the cause of global warming. Though human-activity is the popular belief at the moment, it is also postulated that it is part of a natural cycle that has been accelerated somewhat by mankind's activities. The problem with measuring climate changes is the fact that there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago. As you no doubt know, a couple hundred years is merely a blink in geological timescales. Note that I'm not denying that global warming exists, nor am I stating absolutely that it isn't caused by mankind. I'm merely saying that it isn't the only theory out there with scientific support.

Things that should be done to help halt global warming should be done even if global warming was non-existant. Think of the health aspects of burning coal to create electricity. That alone should encourage coal burning to be phased out. The incidence of asthma among younger people has absolutely skyrocketed, most likely due to poorer air quality. Whether or not global warming exists, the steps that would be required to reverse global warming should be done anyways, simply from a health aspect.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Renegade, read an acticle recently. had to with providing a sun screen. But un like your idea this is far practical.
First it has to do with, the fact theres to components to the global warming story. One is the obvious increased CO2, but a large part of the source of CO2 also emits large quatites of parcticlate matter. (which affects ice and water drop formation in the atmosphere)The CO2 increases the amount of heat trapped, but the parciclates reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. the US and Europe have made some good progress on partciacale ruduction, but china and india have currenlty offset it. the later 2 countries now starting to take steps to clean up in that area too.
This is where the Sun screen comes in as the parcticle pollution is cleaned up more solar engery ill reach the surface and the CO2 issue will reaaly make itself felt. So the This guy propose making around 10 million (can't remeber exact size but not huge) refecltor satlites place in the Earth Sun lagrange point. using nothing more than high quaalty glass (are something simialr that want darken to quickly) to block about 2 to 3% of the light reaching earth, the idea being to buy time to fix the co2 problem.
he refered the the Co2 nad particulate issue as a Faustian deal.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Renegade, it's difficult to correlate the rising prevalence of asthma in the US with rising pollution because air pollution has in fact been decreasing for some 30-odd years:

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/highlights.html

While its pathophysiology is extremely complicated, at least part of the increase in asthma may, surprisingly, be due to improved hygiene:

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

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

People! Hydrogen engines, hybred engines, capacitator research - People *Are* doing things to fix pollution.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

alarikf, even if there were a "consensus" on anthropogenic global warming and its impact (sorry, there isn't), consider that about three decades ago there was a similar "consensus" on global cooling:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/coolingworld.pdf

If you read the article, you'll find uncanny echoes of today's climate hysteria.

BTW, if you're serious about

"I can't help but get angry when people make important decisions based not on facts but on what they WANT to believe."

then you must be absolutely livid at Al "ManBearPig" Gore:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052406F

Right? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif Shows how little I know!

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

As ToddT has hinted, if you want to decrease solar radiation reaching the earth, increased emission of aerosols is a lot easier and cheaper than building orbital sunscreens. Recall that the explosion of Krakatoa in 1883 lowered global temperatures for years. The "year without a summer" in 1816 was caused by a series of volcanic eruptions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

However, I wouldn't recommend such drastic action (or any action) to counter hypothetical catastrophes predicted by a field as immature and uncertain as climate science--especially when the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects (quite the opposite, in fact) on human civilization.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

This may sound harsh, but, well, too bad: Don't be a fool.

Let's have a basic lesson here on how scientific progress works, shall we?

Science moves forward by deriving theories that explain the world, and comparing them to existing theories.

A new theory is progressive if and only if

1) it explains more than prior theories
2) it makes predictions that are later corroborated
3) it explains anomalies in prevailing theories

The mere presence of anomalies in a theory doesn't actually prove or disprove anything - progress only happens when competing theories are compared in terms of their explanatory power.

Anomalies will ALWAYS exist in theories - because no theory can ever fully explain the complexity of the real world. That is why it is a theory (a theory is a simplification of reality).

The classic example is newton-einstein-quantum mechanics. Newtown came up with the theory of gravity. But his work wasn't completely satisfying, since while it explained almost everything, it still had a few anomalies. So then einstein came along, and realized, hey, Newton was almost entirely correct, but here's a modification of his work. Ok, great, but Einstein was later supplanted and modified by quantum theory.

So, for example, when people claim that global warming is false simply by pointing to one anomaly ("the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects ...on human civilization.") then I say: it is completely irrelevant.

What is relevant is a theory that contrasts with current theories of global warming, explains everything they do and more, makes predictions that we can test, and explains existing anomalies.

In all the decades of study, NO ONE has been able to do that. Instead, everyone just says things like "oh, it's just natural that the globe is warming" - there is no theory there, only a knee-jerk rebuttal.

So, prior theories such as 'global cooling' have been supplanted by global warming theories which explain more, explain anomalies, and make predictions.

And it is just plain stupid and shortsighted to say things like "I wouldn't recommend...drastic action (or any action) to counter hypothetical catastrophes predicted by a field as immature and uncertain as climate science" - climate science is NOT immature, much as hunpecked wants to believe it is. It's been around as long as physics.

Hell, hunpecked quotes some climatalogist to attempt to refute Al Gore (failing at it by the way), but then claims that climate science is immature? Can't have it both ways.

And, most importantly of all: this is a big issue, and affects all of us. Our children, and our childrens' children will be living with the decisions our generation makes (or fails to make) regaring climate change. To say that we shouldn't do anything is selfish in the extreme.

Sorry if I sound harsh, or insulting, but it really burns me when people make decisions based upon what they WANT to believe, rather than accepting the overwhelming prepoderance of evidence, scientifically arrived at. Being unable or unwilling to change one's mind in the face of disconfirming evidence is what animals do, not humans.

Here's what I propose to all of ya: provide me with a testable supposition that would convince you that you were wrong. What criteria would need to be met for you to change your mind? Tell me that, and then I'll go and test it. And answer me this: if I meet your criteria, then will you change your mind? If I take whatever reasonable test you propose, and meet it, then do you think it possible to change your mind?

Again, I apologize for sounding harsh and/or insulting. But human civilizations have been practicing and refining science and scpetiicism for thousands of years, and improving our lives and understanding the world through it. Yet this discussion makes it clear that we are still so clearly enslaved to our passions and instincts that I feel I have to face this issue head on. The world is a tough place that may not conform to your belief system about what it should be like. Sorry. But reality is reality. Don’t drag the rest of us down simply because you believe in a reality that doesn't exist.

Thanks,

AMF

PS: Oh, RE: "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."

This is a false statement, made by someone ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, and sounds based on wishful thinking, as usual.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years

Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

So, for example, when people claim that global warming is false simply by pointing to one anomaly ("the earth is known to have been warmer than today with no ill effects ...on human civilization.") then I say: it is completely irrelevant.


You have conveniently failed to mention a crucial fact; many theories have, over the centuries, fallen by the wayside as the "anomalies" you mention have not been able to be reconciled to fit with the theory. Saying that it is completely irrelevant that the Earth has been known to be warmer than today in the recent past (geologically speaking), is totally and utterly foolish. If a scientific theory can not explain anomalies that are proven to exist, then that theory must be examined very carefully, to determine whether or not it should be considered a valid theory anymore.

The fact that the Earth has been warmer in the past can not be casually dismissed. This data and the current theories (yes, theories, there is more than the one you are promoting) must be reconciled, or else the current theories must be modified. That is the scientific process.

PS: Oh, RE: "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."

This is a false statement, made by someone ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, and sounds based on wishful thinking, as usual.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempera...ast_1000_years

Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures.


Now excuse my language, but this statement really pisses me off, and I'm not someone prone to anger. I am not ignorant of the actual facts of the matter and the science involved, as you said. I have done a significant amount of reading into the matters, and have found none of the theories to be satisfactory, and the amount of freaking out that some people do about "global warming" to be completely out of proportion. It seems to me as though the proponants of global warming are the ones who have blinded themselves to the existance of other possibilities, such as natural cycles of warming and cooling. It would seem you are ignoring all but what you want to see.

Oh, and perhaps you should be taking a look at that link of yours, not just looking at the pretty pictures. In particular, take a look at the subheading "Uncertainties and Limitations" and "Criticisms". Just in case you don't take the time to take a look, here's a quote:

Now, I would appreciate it if you would refrain from any further personal attacks. Calling someone ignorant when you have absolutely no reason to do so, and have no idea of how much they do or do not know, is completely uncalled for. I have deleted the personal attacks from what I was going to post, and I suggest you do the same to your post, in the interests of civilized conversation.

PS: Am I to gather that you consider climatologists who do not believe the popular theory of global warming are ignorant as well? I guarantee you, they are much better versed in the matter than either you or I. Yet they have their reservations...how can this be? Perhaps they're scientists, and have noticed that the theory of global warming has some gaping holes in it? Could it be? [/sarcasm]

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

I recall seeing pictures of a "hole" in the ozone layer, where the sunshine was threatening to pound the tip of South America.

My favorite part of the wiki article on Ozone Depletion:

"Because it is this same UV radiation that creates ozone in the ozone layer from O2 (regular oxygen) in the first place, a reduction in stratospheric ozone would actually tend to increase photochemical production of ozone..."

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

Sorry, it is wrong to state that:

"theories have, over the centuries, fallen by the wayside as the "anomalies" you mention have not been able to be reconciled to fit with the theory"

Theories are never disproven UNTIL a better theory replaces them.

Again, every theory always has anomalies - the mere existence of anamolies does nothing to disprove a theory unless and until a different theory explains those anomalies, and more. We could get into the philosophy of science reasoning behind this, but it's just the way science works.

In essence, what you are saying is analagous to saying that "Global warming isn't true because it doesn’t account for the anomaly that my town is colder this year than it was last year"

Well, duh. But no theory will ever be able to explain all anamolies. A theory that did so would not be a theory it would be the universe.

Anomalies serve a prime purpose though: by examining existing anomalies new theories arise.

But until a new theory arrives, then the old theories are the forefront of scientific progress and knowledge. To believe otherwise is essentially finding a way to allow yourself to believe in anything you want to (ie: to base one's reality only on dogma, ideology, etc).

Now, as to your wiki quote: True, the VERY SAME authors of the study that examines temparture records for the past 1000 years state said that. They also said: "We focus not just on the reconstructions, but on the uncertainties therein, and important caveats"

And that is exactly why they are good scientists - they weigh all the available evidence and anticipate and address counter-theories, and come to a conclusion that is well supported.

And that conclusion remains, to wit: "Presently available proxy evidence indicates that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than during any period of comparable length since A.D. 900."

Note hwoever that the same authors do indeed state that "Less confidence can be placed in large-scale surface temperature reconstructions for the period from A.D. 900 to 1600"

That is why said that it was wrong to claim that "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago." ie: Today it is 2006 AD. We have detailed and accurate ways of measuring temps up until 1600, and less confidence back to 900 AD. So, I stand by my claim that you are incorrect when you say "there are no detailed and accurate ways of measuring temperatures beyond a couple hundred years ago."

As to a "past warming period" see the following articles which make the case that "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over the [European Medieval period], and the conventional terms of “Little Ice Age” and “Medieval Warm Period” appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and...n_IPCC_reports

There are similar articles on the little ice age.

And, no, I absolutely do not dimsiss the claims of climatologists who "do not believe the popular theory of global warming" - in fact, their opinions are the one's I relish the most. This is because they are the one's who will indeed put theories to the test, gather testable data, and, perhaps, come up with a better theory to replace current global warming ones. But, again, UNTIL a better theory comes along, that explains the anomalies, makes predictions, and explains more than the current theories, we have to go with global warming.

Sorry if I upset you, but I have reached the point in life where I can no longer sit back and watch while people make decisions that affect everyone, and perhaps the whole world, based on what appears to me their wishful thinking, selfish desire to avoid higher taxes, or some misguided relgiious belief. (eg: Ann Coulter saying "The lower species are here for our use. God said so: Go forth, be fruitful, multiply, and rape the planet--it's yours. That's our job: drilling, mining and stripping. Sweaters are the anti-Biblical view. Big gas-guzzling cars with phones and CD players and wet bars -- that's the Biblical view." see "Oil Good; Democrats bad" dated October 12, 2000.)

We all live on this planet. I have sat by for decades and assumed that Mankind will continue to make progress because we are rational and reasonable and trust in science and enlightenment, not solely faith or dogma. However, that seems to be a thing of the past -our leaders and voters make decisions based not on facts but on 30-second sound bites, and intolerance and 'instinct' and I won't sit idly by and watch it any longer. So I take these things head on. I'm sorry, therefore, if you were upset by what I wrote, but I am not sorry about what I said.

I await the arrival of a better theory than global warming.

AMF

EDIT: Actually, I do apologize for saying "Read it all, don't just look at the pretty pictures. " - that WAS gratuituous, unwarranted, uncalled for, and just plain uncool. Sorry.

Re: OT: I know how to solve global warming
 

1: I thought global warming was due to the global decrease in pirates? http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

2: The Earth is bound to get warmer over time, surely. After all, lots of energy is being sucked up and stored by plants all the time. That energy might get locked up in fossil fuels for a few million years, or it might get turned into heat by the animals that eat the plants, but how much of it ever escapes the Earth's atmosphere? We should be digging up coal and blasting it into space...

That doesn't mean I don't believe in man-made global warming mind you, just that in the grand scale of things the total amount of energy within the earth's atmosphere is bound to rise and rise.

3: The human race is perfectly capable of extincting itself through its own short-sightedness. As long as people put their own short-term comfort over longer-term goals that benefit everyone, there is nothing to stop us disappearing up our own emissions forever. Sure, hydrogen cars and solar panels and whatnot are available, but the truth is they'd be the norm rather than the niche by now if it weren't for certain industries protecting their own interests at the expense of the environment. What's more, you can be sure that if not for the campaigning of environmentalists, those technologies would never have gotten as far as they have.