Online Now 1019

Online now 949
Record: 11761 (2/27/2012)

Boards ▾

Inside Scoop

The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports

Terps Sports

Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports

General Sports Water Cooler

A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics

Off-Topic

Test/Feedback Forum

Feedback for IMS and 247Sports

The Ticket Exchange

Reply

Global warming....again

  • SATerp

    We haven't had a thread on this in a long, long time. I'm assuming that is because all the folks who insisted that Al Gore was right, finally saw the light, and realize that we're not all going to end up in a fiery furnace of CO2. So, congrats for seeing things my way!

    And for those who still think man is going to destroy the earth by breathing, here's a good article on why you really should relax:

    ..." The atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times higher than today in almost all earlier geologic periods when no runaway greenhouse effect occurred. For example, during the Jurassic period the CO2 concentration was at least 10 times higher than today, and during the Cambrian period it was at least 10-15 times higher than today. Interestingly, during the late Ordovician period the earth experienced an extremely cold glacial period despite the fact that the CO2 concentration was at least 10 times higher than today. In fact, most of the greenhouse effect that keeps the Earth warm is regulated by water vapor, not by CO2. … For human health CO2 is as essential to life as oxygen and water. Carbon dioxide is the major food for plants, which in turn are food for animals, and of course for humans too. Indeed, an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration would lead to accelerated plant growth and, therefore, to increased food production. … Thus an increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration may … benefit humanity. (Nicola Scafetta, physicist, Duke University)

    There have been many warmings and coolings in the past when the CO2 levels did not change. A well-known example is the Medieval Warming, about the year 1000, when the Vikings settled Greenland (when it was green) and wine was exported from England. This warm period was followed by the Little Ice Age when the Thames would frequently freeze over during the winter. There is no evidence for significant increase in CO2 in the Medieval Warm Period, nor for a significant decrease at the time of the subsequent Little Ice Age. Documented famines with millions of deaths occurred during the Little Ice Age because the cold weather killed the crops. Since the end of the Little Ice Age, the earth has been warming in fits and starts, and humanity's quality of life has improved accordingly. … The existence of the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period were an embarrassment to the global-warming establishment because they showed that the current warming is almost indistinguishable from previous warmings and coolings that had nothing to do with burning fossil fuel. (William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton University)

    Temperatures during most of the last 10,000 years were somewhat higher than at present until about 3,000 years ago. For the past 700 years, the Earth has been coming out of the Little Ice Age and generally warming with alternating warm/cool periods. Glaciers advanced from about 1890-1920, retreated rapidly from about 1925-1945, re-advanced from about 1945-1977, and have been retreating since the present warm cycle began in 1977. … Because the warming periods in these oscillations occurred well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise rapidly in the 1940s, they could not have been caused by increased atmospheric CO2, and global warming since 1900 could well have happened without any effect of CO2. (Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University)

    That portion of the scientific community that attributes climate warming to CO2 relies on the hypothesis that increasing CO2, which is in fact a minor greenhouse gas, triggers a much larger water vapor response to warm the atmosphere. This mechanism has never been tested scientifically beyond the mathematical models that predict extensive warming, and are confounded by the complexity of cloud formation -- which has a cooling effect. … We know that [the sun] was responsible for climate change in the past, and so is clearly going to play the lead role in present and future climate change. (Ian Clark, hydro-geologist and professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa)

    One can have surface warming for a variety of reasons. So the key layer of air to look at is the one-to-five-mile up layer of air [i.e., the lower troposphere]. Now, this is the layer of air sensitive to the human-made warming effect, and the layer that must warm at least as much as the surface according to the computer simulations [made by the defenders of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis]. Yet, the projected warming from human activities can't be found in the low troposphere in any great degree. … Most of the increase in the air's concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities -- over 80 percent -- occurred after the 1940s. That means that the strong early 20th century warming must be largely, if not entirely, natural [since little CO2 was thrown into the atmosphere at that time]. … The coincident changes in the sun's changing energy output and temperature records on earth tend to argue that the sun has driven a major portion of the 20th century temperature change. (Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

    I predict that in the coming years, there will be a growing realization among the global warming research community that most of the climate change we have observed is natural, and that mankind's role is relatively minor. … Our best satellite observations … suggest [that the climate system is relatively insensitive to CO2 concentrations]. If the climate system is insensitive [to CO2] this means that the extra carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere is not enough to cause the observed warming over the last 100 years -- some natural mechanism must be involved. … My favorite candidate: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation [i.e., the observed cyclical shift in thermal currents in the Pacific Ocean]. (Roy Spencer, atmospheric scientist, University of Alabama at Huntsville)

    The greenhouse effect is real. However, the effect is minute, insignificant, and very difficult to detect. … It's not automatically true that warming is bad, I happen to believe that warming is good, and so do many economists. … The current warming cycle is not unusual. … The Earth consistently goes through a climate cycle marked by alternating warmer and cooler periods over 1,500 years (plus or minus 500 years). (Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, the University of Virginia)

    Our team … has discovered that the relatively few cosmic rays that reach sea-level play a big part in the everyday weather. They help to make low-level clouds, which largely regulate the Earth's surface temperature. During the 20th century the influx of cosmic rays decreased and the resulting reduction of cloudiness allowed the world to warm up. … Most of the warming during the 20th century can be explained by a reduction in low cloud cover. (Henrik Svensmark, director, Center for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center)..."

    Global Warming: The Campus Non-Debate

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/09/global_warming_the_campus_non-.html

    http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2011/09/global_warming_the_campus_non-.html
  • Terp02

    Please explain why climate change is happening in such a short amount of time then.

    "The drummer for Maryland's pep band just freaked out: 'They're trying to slow the game down,' he screamed. 'Get up on them, get up on them.

  • But a few physicists weren't worrying about Al Gore in the 1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or "cosmic rays," whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.

    Anne Jolis: The Other Climate-Change Theory -

    In The Wall Street Journal Europe, Anne Jolis writes about the politics behind the cosmic-ray theory of global warming.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904900904576554063768827104.html
  • SATerp

    Terp02 said... (original post)

    Please explain why climate change is happening in such a short amount of time then.

    What climate change? And fast or slow, what does that have to with whether man is responsible or not? And are all the scientists in the link wrong, or is Fat Skeevy Doughboy wrong - pick one.

  • Terp02 said... (original post)

    Please explain why climate change is happening in such a short amount of time then.

    Pretty sure it has something to do with the HOTNESS of the new MARYLAND PRIDE football uniforms.

    AMIRITE!flex

  • SATerp said... (original post)

    What climate change? And fast or slow, what does that have to with whether man is responsible or not? And are all the scientists in the link wrong, or is Fat Skeevy Doughboy wrong - pick one.

    I see no flaw in this logic.

  • TheRawDogg

    Why do you knuckleheads like to act that science is matter of your opinion?

    "Thanks for taking my call. Evolution, climate change, do you agree or disagree? You know I can kind of see both sides, but my pastor is really against them so I'm calling to find out what I should think. Oh well, thanks again, I'll hang up and listen to your answer on the radio."

  • Terp02

    SATerp said... (original post)

    What climate change? And fast or slow, what does that have to with whether man is responsible or not? And are all the scientists in the link wrong, or is Fat Skeevy Doughboy wrong - pick one.

    Maybe the fact that out of the past 15 summers, something like 9 of them have been the hottest on average in recorded history. Also, have you seen the strength and severity of the storms recently? And, I mean you live in Texas right? The droughts that have been happening there have been insane.

    Look, I'm a bit skeptic myself, but to flat out refuse to believe things are changing and that man has NOTHING to do with it is silly. We are changing things (e.g. invasive species, changing environmental landscapes) and nature is gonna respond in some way.

    This post was edited by Terp02 3 years ago

    "The drummer for Maryland's pep band just freaked out: 'They're trying to slow the game down,' he screamed. 'Get up on them, get up on them.

  • Terp02 said... (original post)

    Maybe the fact that out of the past 15 summers, something like 9 of them have been the hottest on average in recorded history. Also, have you seen the strength and severity of the storms recently? And, I mean you live in Texas right? The droughts that have been happening there have been insane.

    Look, I'm a bit skeptic myself, but to flat out refuse to believe things are changing and that man has NOTHING to do with it is silly. We are changing things (e.g. invasive species, changing environmental landscapes) and nature is gonna respond in some way.

    Unless you believe the Bible and think the world is only 6000 odd years old, this makes little sense. The earth is millions of years old ... and you're taking a 15 year sample size to make sweeping statements about the temperature of the earth increasing?? I'm somewhat skeptical of global warming as well (although I firmly believe in climate change), but the scientific evidence for global warming is a lot stronger than whatever you just posted. I don't think you're doing that side of the arguments a favor by deducing that the earth is warming up based on recent droughts in Texas.

  • SA - please give the political shit a rest. Al Gore is a non- factor. We get that you believe in creationism but not global warming. We know that you believe it's ok for certain elected officials to run on anti- gay and family moral platforms and fondle men/boys in bathrooms. We understand your position. I could type your posts on this shit by now.

    Please go back to being funny. I really enjoyed that SATerp.

  • Terp02

    terps99 said... (original post)

    Unless you believe the Bible and think the world is only 6000 odd years old, this makes little sense. The earth is millions of years old ... and you're taking a 15 year sample size to make sweeping statements about the temperature of the earth increasing?? I'm somewhat skeptical of global warming as well (although I firmly believe in climate change), but the scientific evidence for global warming is a lot stronger than whatever you just posted. I don't think you're doing that side of the arguments a favor by deducing that the earth is warming up based on recent droughts in Texas.

    My point is that change happens slowly over time, naturally, and humans are speeding things up. I'll easily back out of this conversation though.

    "The drummer for Maryland's pep band just freaked out: 'They're trying to slow the game down,' he screamed. 'Get up on them, get up on them.

  • Terp02 said... (original post)

    Please explain why climate change is happening in such a short amount of time then.

    God hates us. It's payback time for a godless nation. Just ask livewell. heh!!!

    Seriously, I have to drink the water and breath the air as well, and we should make every effort to do things to sustain a planet. But there is zero evidence of causality that man is the culprit in the claims of climate change. It's not politically correct to suggest that in our political environment, but it is what it is.

    Has anyone tried to figure where we'd be as a globe without mined metals/minerals and coal to make steel or the mined materials necessary to manufacture solar panels and our computers? By all means clean up what we can, but last time I looked it's the emerging economies of China and India that are the new polluters, and you can't repeal the laws of supply and demand. Just an opinion from the "Rust Belt" where the jobs have been destroyed in coal and steel.

  • I think some of the posts (and the broader discussion in general) conflate two issues a bit: (1) does human development and action impact the earth's climate/environment; and (2) even assuming it does, is it worth limiting human development and action to reduce man's impact on the environment?

    I think in our political environment, too many people think that the answers to both questions have to be the same (i.e., either yes, we impact the environment, and yes, we must change ... or no, we don't impact the environment, and no, we must not change).

    Personally, I think the far more reasonable position is that (1) Yes, man impacts the environment; and (2) While we should make attempts to reasonably do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment (e.g., reducing power consumption, recycling, etc.), we should not let climate change be a primary driving force for any large-scale economic or governmental policy change.

  • SATerp said... (original post)

    What climate change? And fast or slow, what does that have to with whether man is responsible or not? And are all the scientists in the link wrong, or is Fat Skeevy Doughboy wrong - pick one.

    Oh so nowwwww its cool to listen to scientists. I see.

  • Oh god the only thing that can make this thread worse is Livewell

  • Terp02

    Just heard this on NPR. Is SATerp a Perry supporter?

    Perry Takes Hard Line On Environmental Issues

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry is taking a hard line on the campaign trail when it comes to the environment. He has dismissed global warming and climate change. The Perry administration in Texas has a long record of going after the Environmental Protection Agency.

    http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140261572/perry-takes-hard-line-on-environmental-issues

    "The drummer for Maryland's pep band just freaked out: 'They're trying to slow the game down,' he screamed. 'Get up on them, get up on them.

  • SATerp

    Terp02 said... (original post)

    Maybe the fact that out of the past 15 summers, 9 of them have been the hottest on average in recorded history. Also, have you seen the strength and severity of the storms recently? And, I mean you live in Texas right? The droughts that have been happening there have been insane.

    Look, I'm a bit skeptic myself, but to flat out refuse to believe things are changing and that man has NOTHING to do with it is silly. We are changing things (e.g. invasive species, changing environmental landscapes) and nature is gonna respond in some way.

    Thank you for the "Nature is sentient, and is mad at us" POV.

  • SATerp

    parlay said... (original post)

    SA - please give the political shit a rest. Al Gore is a non- factor. We get that you believe in creationism but not global warming. We know that you believe it's ok for certain elected officials to run on anti- gay and family moral platforms and fondle men/boys in bathrooms. We understand your position. I could type your posts on this shit by now.

    Please go back to being funny. I really enjoyed that SATerp.

    Wow, you incorrectly state my position on pretty much every point. That doesn't say much about 1) your memory, or 2) your ability to reason, or 3) both. You're a good guy, too, on non-political points, but don't tell me I can't express my views, especially when it's on a topic that a lot of people are interested in (count the views/posts).

  • SATerp

    terps99 said... (original post)

    I think some of the posts (and the broader discussion in general) conflate two issues a bit: (1) does human development and action impact the earth's climate/environment; and (2) even assuming it does, is it worth limiting human development and action to reduce man's impact on the environment?

    I think in our political environment, too many people think that the answers to both questions have to be the same (i.e., either yes, we impact the environment, and yes, we must change ... or no, we don't impact the environment, and no, we must not change).

    Personally, I think the far more reasonable position is that (1) Yes, man impacts the environment; and (2) While we should make attempts to reasonably do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment (e.g., reducing power consumption, recycling, etc.), we should not let climate change be a primary driving force for any large-scale economic or governmental policy change.

    I pretty much agree with you here. I miss the EPA of the days when I came out of college, cleaning up rivers, closing down really dangerous industries. I was an environment major (yeah, it's true), and have worked in the environmental regulatory field part of my career (even active on an Environmental Crimes Task Force with the AZ Attorney General's office).

    But in many respects, EPA is pushing those margins to "pollution" that's not pollution at all, but a completely natural, organic process. And in order to justify that, they warp the crap out of science with the enthusiastic cooperation of charlatans like Al Gore, Hansen, et al.

  • The Human Stain

    "You are mentally a cat and each post is a red dot from a laser pointer." - MisterSmiley

  • TheRawDogg

    UnleashtheFurby said... (original post)

    The Human Stain

    I wish I had 1 million aliases to give you 1 million up-votes.

  • terps99 said... (original post)

    I think some of the posts (and the broader discussion in general) conflate two issues a bit: (1) does human development and action impact the earth's climate/environment; and (2) even assuming it does, is it worth limiting human development and action to reduce man's impact on the environment?

    I think in our political environment, too many people think that the answers to both questions have to be the same (i.e., either yes, we impact the environment, and yes, we must change ... or no, we don't impact the environment, and no, we must not change).

    Personally, I think the far more reasonable position is that (1) Yes, man impacts the environment; and (2) While we should make attempts to reasonably do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment (e.g., reducing power consumption, recycling, etc.), we should not let climate change be a primary driving force for any large-scale economic or governmental policy change.

    Well said.

    And I also agree with SATerp on the old EPA versus the new one. Repressive rule in Communist Russia had nothing on these people.

  • TheRawDogg

    SATerp said... (original post)

    Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah LOL Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Al Gore is stupidvBlah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Too long and besides I don't do math Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Al Gore AGAIN! Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah LOL at science which I did not read anyway Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah I worship at the Church of Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann is my commander. Activate me, I am ready to do your bidding. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah MitchMcConnell is so deep. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

    I believe you now.

  • SATerp

  • SATerp said... (original post)

    Wow, you incorrectly state my position on pretty much every point. That doesn't say much about 1) your memory, or 2) your ability to reason, or 3) both. You're a good guy, too, on non-political points, but don't tell me I can't express my views, especially when it's on a topic that a lot of people are interested in (count the views/posts).

    I guess I should have left the hyperbole out. The bottom line: I used to look for your posts to read. Now I avoid them like the plague. Yes, we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. I know I am not changing your mind and pretty much anyone else's on these topics. There are places where you could get a great debate raging on this topic I am sure. But you beat it like a dead horse here. Sdog and the weather guys get a fun thread going about the weather. You wait for an opportunity to pounce on it with this subject. Crickets to your post in the thread and it doesn't stop you the next time you see an opening. Trust me, we get it. You think we can pave the planet and it won't matter. As someone that's been around a while like you, I'm just trying to let you know that you have gone from a funny guy that liked to get into political threads to a hard line politico that occasionally throws a one liner.

    I'm not opening this again or going to respond any further. I don't want to go down that road. Just throwing out some unsolicited and likely unwanted advice. Back to my corner.

  • climate change aside, do you really think the shit we do to the environment is ok? you should be concerned about all this even if climate change never even came in to the discussion. there's a giant patch of garbage the size of texas in the ocean, and what's worse is, i doubt too many visitors to both could discern many differences between the two.

    This post was edited by asp1124 3 years ago