OT: I know how to solve global warming

[Hunpecked]

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

[narf poit chez BOOM]

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

[Hunpecked]

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?

[Renegade 13]

Hunpecked said:
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

Shows how little I know!

[Hunpecked]

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.

[AMF]

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.

[Renegade 13]

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:

"Expanded uncertainties prevent decisive conclusions for the period prior to AD 1400...more widespread high-resolution data are needed before more confident conclusions can be reached."
Thus the theory that the 1990s have been the warmest decade of the last 1000 years can no longer be supported at present state of scientific knowledge.

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]

[AngleWyrm]

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..."

[AMF]

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.

[dogscoff]

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.