Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Angel Heart, May 5, 2008.
Why must they twist the facts? The ice is back and sounds like it's going to be sticking around more for the next few years. Better start stocking up on blankets.
You presume that the Telegraph hasn't politicized the issue???
it's a conservative paper and takes the conservative line on the issue which is... awwwwwwwww... it doesn't exist, and if it does, well, it's not bad...and if it's bad...well, its not our fault...
yadda yadda yadda yadda....(not you; the issue).
This whole issue isn't about whether we are warming or not. Glaciers have been receding since we started watching them, which is not been very long, maybe 100 years, tops. Tree trunks, that have been covered and preserved for thousands of years, are coming to the surface in Canada, ect. which does indicate that things are warming up but also that we've been here before. Geology has shown that the cooling and warming cyles are reoccurring and that we are presently in a warming cyle. The fact that we are warming is all based on pretty sound science.
What the issue is about is whether we, being the human race, are accelerating the process. Not whether it is happening, it is but are we unnecessarily pushing it along.
We can't say much of anything for certain because we just don't have much data and it's complicated by the fact that natures processes typically follow an accellerated path of their own once they begin. In other words, natural processes are typically exponential they don't follow straight line behavior. So chances are we're trying to measure the speed of an accellerating process. It makes common sense to think that all we do could be contributing but there is no proof of it and we may not get any unless some really bright person figures a way around the mess.
So, the issue is a serious concern but not one anyone should be going off the deep end about, yet, because we just don't know.
But we do know.... we know we're a contributing and accellerating factor. We know we have control over the means of curbing that accelleration.
Only the "junk science" says otherwise... and, unfortunately, it's muddied the water for some people (although for the life of me, I don't understand how).
Maybe it is YOU who better heed your own Springsteen quote.
I don't for a minute doubt that the greenhouse effect is real. Increased CO2 does not accelerate warming though - in fact, there's a diminishing return relationship between increased atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature increase. CO2 can only absorb select frequencies of infrared radation.
The catastrophe theories are based on the assumption that positive feedback mechanisms in the climate system amplify the relatively small effect of CO2. But although CO2's slight warming effect is settled science, how that effect resonates in an extremely chaotic (but long-term stable) climate system is not.
Any other field of science will assume strong negative feedbacks when presented with a long term stable system, but not climate forecasting. The fact that the Earth has oscillated in and out of Ice Ages and Warm Periods before suggests that there are negative feedbacks at work, keeping the Earth in a natural range of temperature variability.
The need to "do something" seems a little whack to me. It's kinda like being stuck in a hot, dark room with no access to a thermostat, and someone yelling at you to blow out the candle you're burning. After all, candles produce heat and are surely adding to the room's temperature. But blowing out the candle won't really cool the room's temperature significantly, because unfortunately, we don't control the Earth's thermostat! And personally, I'd prefer not to be sitting in the dark.
or perhaps you should, or pick your sources better.
I don't believe in catastrophe theories. I don't think my island of manhattan is going to be sucked up by a tidal wave emanating from the melting of the polar ice caps anytime soon. I do, however, think all of the reliable evidence points to a need for energy conservation; alternative energies and a need to wean from fossil fuels for both environmental and sociological reasons.
I am appalled by the fact that people have really politicized this in such a silly way. There are real, common sense ways of dealing with these issues. For one, we know that even if we wanted to, fossil fuels are not infinte. Second, we know that our reliance on fossil fuels has allowed us to keep bankrolling countries that fund terrorist organizations. I also believe that funding R&D in the area of alternative energy would do wonders for our economy and perhaps bring home some of the tech jobs we've lost to off-shoring, in addition to bringing us environmental benefits.
Just my feeling on the subject.
I agree with everything you wrote above. But I do feel that predicting catastrophe tends to undermine the more legitmate reasons for concern. There are plenty of good reasons to preserve our natural resources as you've pointed out.
Similarly, I also feel that the religion is right to encourage us to love and help others. We should be doing those things, but we shouldn't be doing them simply to avoid the fires and brimstone of hell.
Separate names with a comma.