Slashdot Mirror
Humanity's Contribution To "Global Warming"
jellisky writes: "In a recent climate modeling experiment, researchers have attempted to calculate the effect humanity has had on our climate. The results and article suggest that humanity is mainly to blame for a few recent warming periods, but also suggests that there are many other effects that might be just as important at times, including an oceanic oscillation and a mysterious "residual effect". Anyone else curious about this "residual effect"? How much trust should we put into these models when people cannot classify what's happening in them? Most importantly, though, what have we learned?"
Any environmentalist who tells you that the human race is responsible for global warming, is doing nothing more than pushing a personal agenda.
Personally, I say that Global Warming is totally false because of Fargo, North Dakota, or more specifically Fargo's landscape. It's EXTREMELY flat. (There is only about a foot of elevation change ever mile.) This may sound kinda stange, but bear with me for a minute.
Why is Fargo flat? Well, because there was a huge covering the entire Red River Valley (where Fargo is at).
Where did all that water come from? It came for the large glacier that covered a large portion of the northern hemisphere.
When I was golfing last weekend in Fargo it was about 85 degrees out. Now that isn't very hot at all, unless you're a giant sheet of ice. Glaciers don't take well to 85 degree heat. (Even if it is only for 3 months.) So it seems to me, that it's a pretty good bet that at some point in the past the earth as colder. If it was colder then than it is now, it seems to follow pretty logically that there was some sort of warming that was in now way caused by cars, factories or people in general.
For the people who say we are just speeding it up, can you isolate all of the variables involved in gobal climate change? Is the energy output of the sun constant? Has there been slight deviation in the orbit of the earth? Those are just two variables that I can think of off the top of my head. And they would be damn hard to test.
provolt
provolt@provolt.net
But i don't really think thats the case. I think it just didn't show up in the normal lineup.
There was an interesting theory proposed by Larry Niven in "Fallen Angels" (and I think I've seen it elsewhere) that proposed that we are approaching the end of an interglacial period. Several supporting pieces of evidence were provided. One of these was that scientists have detected far fewer neutrinos from the sun than they expected. He suggested that this is because the sun has stopped fusing -- that the reason for ice ages is that the sun periodically loses too much heat to continue the fusion process and that there is a period of sun contraction and cooling before the sun contracts enough to begin fusion again. This is supported by the relatively low sunspot occurrence compared to past history (geologically speaking.) According to the book, the only thing preventing glaciers from sweeping back over the planet is the adjustments to climate begun in the Middle Ages, with current levels of smog and pollution providing "seeds" for rain to form around. Deforestation and the increased albedo of human development adds to this, I seem to remember a past article about cities having their own weather due to the heat absorbed by pavement. It was pretty entertaining, since it made a strong case for ignoring the Greens and polluting to your heart's content -- it's the only thing preventing you from freezing to death! ;)
Global warming has been used as a political issue by both the left and right to further their agendas. Al "don't confuse me with the facts" Gore has hopped on this as "his" issue. This has corrupted science. Researchers who discover or publicize "politically incorrect" results are likely to have problems with funding.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I find it facinating on how emotionaly charged the whole subject is.
For instance @ work we were discussing the subject. Somebody said that if the temprature @ the south pole was raised 1 degree it would all melt and the world would flood.
When I pointed out that the avrage Summer temperture was about -25C (I had found that out on a PBS or TVO spcial the week before) they got really offended. bizzare.
Other things that are really Odd.
Have you ever noticed that on a hot day everyone talks about "Global Warming" but on a cool day everybody forgets about it.
When the great lakes were low everybody said that it was global warming. Then it rained a lot and we had a really cool summer, every body forgot that The great Lakes were being emptyed by Global Warming.
There is a guy out in Winnipeg who went through old Hudsons Bay Jouranals and got the weather readings from the last 200-300 years (i forget wich), and he claims this is just part of a 100 - 150 year cycle.
My perosonal opinion is that Global Warming is a scam by "green" conmen ("greenpeace" comes to mind here) so they don't need to get real jobs, and can screw high school girls
But I am known as something of a cynic
Yes I can not spell...Wait....for a second there I almost cared.
One thing I've found quite interesting is that in the US, global warming is treated as a political issue, whereas in the rest of the world, it's a scientific issue. In other words, a substantial % of high profile coverage of global warming in the media is from political and business analysts, Rush limbaugh, Gore, politicians, etc. There is very little attention given to the scientific merits of the issue.
I think this is largely because of 2 things. Firstly, Americans in general aren't good at science, and most people would have a difficult time describing exactly what the greenhouse effect is. Secondly, scientific issues in the US aren't considered factual, but a matter of opinion and political affiliation. Thus, you have conservatives ridiculing evolution and global warming as leftist ideology.
In contrast, the rest of the world has an apolitical view of global warming - they are curious about it from a scientific perspective, similar to how knowledge about whether mobile phones cause cancer doesn't depend on whether you're pro or anti business, but is a scientific fact. It's unfortunate, but this is how it is - scientific attitudes in the US are dictated by talk show hosts and political beliefs.
I have rarely seen any Americans discuss global warming without being influenced by what it means to oil prices, the employment rate, etc.
w/m