Recently I had a discussion on a forum, with several conservative climate change denyers. Now, I don’t know exactly why people deny the science involved, other than it can get pretty hard to wrap your mind around in a few spots. Also There is a ton of misinformation out there that is being foised on people in the hopes of selling this or that “New and Improved” dohickey or whatchmacallit, in addition to the misinformation presented by those with a specific political agenda (like mega industrial companies and their lobbiest) Kind of the way people used to sell “Radiation Cleansing Soap” in the 1950’s or Haley’s comet Anti-cyanogen pills in the early 1900’s. Though mostly I think that it is a reaction to something that they fear may change (or force them to change) their way of life and standard of living (like Nature really cares about their standard of living or could do anything about it if it did). Now, I should probably preface this with the fact that I used to be one of those climate change denyers, so, I’ve already heard their arguments, and even used a few of them myself in the past. Though I dare say, I used much more “scientific” versions of them and my aguments were based as far as I knew in several established facts. Incidentally my facts still hold true, though their influance is not quite as strong as I understood them to be, something I learned while checking out data produced by extreamely “disreputable groups” such as NASA, NOAA, as well as Stanford University, and several other university websites and scientist’s peer reviewed papers. ~insert snark font~ Accordingly and faced with those facts, I changed my opinion…..hey it happens sometimes!
So without any more ado I though that I would post the conversation here .
~OP~ Forget Global Warming, It’s cycle 25 that we need to worry about. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
(name removed #1) It sounds like we might be heading for another Dalton or Maunder minimum. Brrrrrr.
Name removed#2)Based on what I have read and seen, global warming is a natural process that happens based on the life of any solar system and planet. To think that 1,000 years of human activity could drastically alter this natural cycle is doubtful to me, based on something I saw in college back in the early 1980s. The professor presented a chart that compressed the life of planet earth into 1 day, 25 hours. According to this chart, Jesus died 4 minutes ago! Compress 2,000 years info 4 minutes, and no one alive today will be alive in 10 seconds. So, why should anyone of any intelligence, believe that the earth is going to change it’s natural process by 10 or even 100 years, when it took the last ice age 10,000 years to happen. Based on the chart, modern day humans have accelerated the process by, um 3 or 4 seconds.
(name removed #3)The scientists of today have already had their theories proven wrong. The current administration need that global warming B/S to support their plans. They attempt to squash any and all proof but it’s out. Global Warming is pure BULL S****.
~ME~The problem with predicting future temperatures and weather patterns is the great number of variables. Sun spot activity, oxygen content, Co2 content, methane and sulfer dioxide content, Particle content in both the upper and lower atmospheres, Ocean currents, even continental drift has an impact. While we have a great deal of evidence as to the Earth’s past weather cycles (ice core samples, written records, tree rings both natural and fossilised, even asteroid impacts both here and on the moon) , we have only about two hundred years since we became a highly industrialised world. Corelating each variable with a specific definite result can be difficult at best. We have very little experiance with our own industrialised impact on the earth. The Earth has never quite been in the same situation before. In addition, weather patterns can change from latitude to latitude and even from altitude to altitude.
If human industry impacts the earth, and I think that it does in some way as there is ample evidence pointing towards that, just exactly what the outcome will be is still up for speculation~
(Name removed#4) Aren’t many of these same scientists the ones who keep saying that the Sun has little effect on the Earth’s temperature?
~ME~ @(Name Removed#4) I don’t know of any real scientist who would say that the sun has little effect on the Earth’s temperature. The entire cosmic microwave radiation would only account for enough energy to raise the temperature to 3 degrees Kelvin above absolute zero. Any temperature above that can only be accounted for by atomic fusion/fission (as occurs in stars, of which our sun is our closest). Without that atomic fusion/fission and the resulting radiation, all other forms of “heat” as well as other forms of radiation, quickly cease. Even the rotation of the earth as well as the heating of our core can be attributed to Sol. The fact that the earth exists as a planet is due to the gravitational effect of Sol. Our sun is what kept matter trapped within the relative near vicinity of our solar system.
So, if some self aclaimed “scientist” says that our sun has little effect on the Earth’s temperature, tell him he is an idiot who needs to back and retake his elementary school science class!~
(Name Removed #4)”My earlier comment was somewhat facetious (sorry, many of you don’t know me very well yet). I do hate it when scientists get so lost in their political agenda that they lose sight of the obvious (also an example is the recent declaration by the EU that water doesn’t cure dehydration).
@ME Ask any of the “global warming” scientists that question then 🙂 … oh wait… I should say “climate change” because they are coming to grips that without complete manipulation of their data, that the planet isn’t catastrophically warming.
@(Name Removed #4)on the referance that you cited, ~though the Sun may play some small role, “it is nevertheless much smaller than the estimated radiative forcing due to anthropogenic changes.” That is, human activities are the primary factor in global climate change.~
Basically means that while solar radiation has increased somewhat, it is the increase of greenhouse gasses , trapping solar radiation in the Earth’s atmosphere, instead of allowing reflected radiation to escape, that is the significant reason for increase in temperature. Human activities, such as industrialisation, and increases in population are the major reason for the increase of greenhouse gasses. It is an unfortunate truth that humans by our very industrial nature DO increase greenhouse gasses. Industrial processes release gasses that while already present on Earth, are currently trapped in coal and oil deposits, we combine elements to create new chemicals which have other chemicals that are greenhouse gasses as byproducts. ect. While nature itself does some of this on it’s own, and living creatures of all varieties do this as part of the naural processes of living, we have taken it a step farther and do it in in our persuit of a betterment of our lifestyle and to a previously unseen scale in any time in Earth’s past. The major problem is not the volume, but the volume created/released over such a short period of time.
A good example would be found in your own home garbage can. On any given day you are going to throw things away, it’s a given. Then a few times a week, you take it out to the trash can and the trash is hauled away. Now imagine that you hold a party with 20 or so people, your trash increases. Imagine that that part keeps continuing, and not only continuing on into the next day, and the day after that ect, but actually begins to grow in the number of people as time goes on. Your trash man only comes on certain days (ie there is a limit to the amount that he can haul away in any given period of time) At some point in time friends start inviting more friends and the party , already grown quite a bit, begins to grow exponentially. It takes on a life of it’s own (the industrial era) . Pretty soon the amount of garbage created, surpasses the garbage mans ability to haul it away, and it begins to build up. The only solutions are to either stop the party and hope that eventually he can catch up, living with the stench as he does so; try and recycle some of the garbage, thus decreasing the amount in the que for him to haul off; or find away to haul it off yourself.
I think that a great deal of the vitrol in this situation is caused by “the greenies” themselves. You see, while the scientist may be correct, the “solutions” presented to us as “Green” are often tantamount to a drop in the ocean. It simply won’t make that big of a differance. As well, most of them are simply untenable for the long term and the betterment of mankind as a species. We cannot go back to Pre-Industrial Age living, it simply can’t be done, nor do I think that it should be attemped. While there HAVE been significant advances in solutions, we don’t call them “Green” we call them, TECHNOLOGY. Listed as such, they very seldom recieve much fanfare. They simply become new technology. A good example of this is the fuel cells which were recently installed at the google main office headquarters. They basically run off of AIR and an electrochemical reaction, are fairy cheap to produce, are made out of compressed sand in the form of ceramics, have air as a byproduct and install straight into an existing power grid. While currently in trial period, they could very well replace your local utility company in the future. All without bulky solar panels, noisy windmills (the fuel cells make almost no noise whatsoever), toxic emissions, smelly methane tanks, huge banks of batteries, …ect in short, very viable for our current standard of living.
In short, it is not a “Green solution” it is simply a solution to multiple problems….ie technology.
Or rather it is a solution that happens to be enviromentally sound