PROOF OF GLOBAL WARMING
- Thread starter DVINNY
- Start date
Help Support Professional Engineer & PE Exam Forum:
Yeah, I saw that one in the deleted scenes section of my "An Inconvenent Truth" DVD.
It was right after the other deleted slide that showed Hilary Clinton's aging process over those same years. Or maybe I'm thinking of the deleted scenes from Aliens vs. Predator.
Uncle Al should have left that one in - it was the one slide that finally convinced me!
It was right after the other deleted slide that showed Hilary Clinton's aging process over those same years. Or maybe I'm thinking of the deleted scenes from Aliens vs. Predator.
Uncle Al should have left that one in - it was the one slide that finally convinced me!
G
Guest
I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth yet - just haven't had the time.
There are numerous arguments on both sides of the debate. I think one of the most compelling arguments that SUPPORTS the argument for global warming stems from the Insurance Industry incorporating increased hurricane activity due to global warming in their forecast models << Link Below >>.
Global Warming Article - Boston Globe
If the Insurance Industry is signaling that global warming is a "real" element in long term risk assessment, I tend to believe there is "truth" to the statement. '.02'
JR
There are numerous arguments on both sides of the debate. I think one of the most compelling arguments that SUPPORTS the argument for global warming stems from the Insurance Industry incorporating increased hurricane activity due to global warming in their forecast models << Link Below >>.
Global Warming Article - Boston Globe
If the Insurance Industry is signaling that global warming is a "real" element in long term risk assessment, I tend to believe there is "truth" to the statement. '.02'
JR
DVINNY
2-time 10K winner
Let's for argument sake say there is Global Warming.
How can you really say what the cause is?
Millions of years ago, we had global freezing on this planet, then global warming, then global freezing, then global etc. etc. etc.
How do you know this isn't just part of the earth's normal cycle?
Cave men and dinosaurs might not have figured it out back in the day?
How can you really say what the cause is?
Millions of years ago, we had global freezing on this planet, then global warming, then global freezing, then global etc. etc. etc.
How do you know this isn't just part of the earth's normal cycle?
Cave men and dinosaurs might not have figured it out back in the day?
G
GTScott
Only in a group of engineers would images of women's underwear spark a debate about global warming!
-GT
-GT
G
Guest
Ooohhhh ... that reminds me of a joke:
Two engineering students were walking across campus when one said, "Where did you get such a great bike?"
The second engineering student replied, "Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, 'Take what you want.'" The first nodded approvingly, "Good choice; the clothes probably wouldn't have fit you."
:rotfl: :rotfl: :claps: :claps:
JR
G
Guest
DVINNY --
I would respond that the causality is not based on a 'single' reason, but actually a confluence of factors. Many of those factors are intermingled to the point that you cannot pinpoint 'cause and effect'.
I would point out that the so-called greenhouse gas emissions ARE a factor in global warming. However, I don't believe anyone can provide % attribution for greenhouse gases effect on global warming - much less implicate man-made influences lest we forget that there are plenty of natural events that can generate large quantities of greenhouse gases (e.g. volcanic activity).
IMHO a rationale, measured approach to better understand how ALL of the factors influence global warming is warranted. The major problem that arises is that the available information gets twisted through propaganda to the point that it is difficult ot make heads or tails of the information. There are persuasive arguments that support or reject the notion that the accumulation of greenhouse gases is having an adverse effect on the global environment - manifesting itself in devastating weather patterns, retracting glaciers, rising sea level, famine, declining animal populations, etc.
In the final analysis, it really doesn't matter why you believe global warming is leading to disaterous results -- the results are documented. What is needed is some perspective and some real risk analysis. Look at the data - keep it in context. Look at contributors to greenhouse gases like power plants and automobiles and determine if one can justify the increased costs for emissions controls on vehicles and power plants. There are some increased risks that are considered 'acceptable' because it is not practical or cost effective to reduce the risk to standard risk levels (e.g. groundwater drinking criteria for Arsenic - a known toxicant, carcinogen).
The last thought on my not-so-mini-rant is that most people talk up the thought that we need to reduce emissions and go after sources like power plants. Those sources are in place and growing because of the demand that society and the lifestyle of comforts demands. My supervisor puts the situation in a simpler perspective - when it comes down to it, do you want a jab in the eye or a stab in the arm - those are the choices you have for reducing greenhouse gases.
'.02'
JR
Hill William
Lets Go Mountaineers
I'm just a hillbilly from WV and alls I know is, its about 50 degrees outside and its a week before Christmas. Should be 15. 
DVINNY
2-time 10K winner
Yes, but we've had a blizzard in May before? So what gives?
Hill William
Lets Go Mountaineers
Isn't this another year of El Nino? Last time I remember that being a big deal, we got like three feet on March 10.
DVINNY
2-time 10K winner
Yup, I remember that one. I'm talking about '93 or '94, one of those years, we got 2.5 feet in 2nd week of May.
Hill William
Lets Go Mountaineers
Those were the days. Got outta school for like a month. Can't honestly say I look forward to it anymore.
frazil
Master of the Boondoggle
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 7,592
- Reaction score
- 358
I read an article a year or two ago that finally convinced me. I work with historical temperature data all the time and see it go up and down over the years. To me it just seemed like a warm period.
The article was called The Climate of Man by Elizabeth Kolbert (you can find it online). It was very long and it was written in a 3 part series but it looked at climate change from so many aspects: glaciers, permafrost, migration patterns, plants, etc. She interviewed a huge variety of experts and all the patterns pointed to the same thing.
It made it obvious that global warming is certainly happening. The second part debates the causes -- is it man or something else. There was a great graph that showed green house gas levels (I think) kind of going up and down over the millenia...until the industrial age. From that point on there was a dramatic increase that is still going.
It's long, but it's definitely worth reading. '.02'
The article was called The Climate of Man by Elizabeth Kolbert (you can find it online). It was very long and it was written in a 3 part series but it looked at climate change from so many aspects: glaciers, permafrost, migration patterns, plants, etc. She interviewed a huge variety of experts and all the patterns pointed to the same thing.
It made it obvious that global warming is certainly happening. The second part debates the causes -- is it man or something else. There was a great graph that showed green house gas levels (I think) kind of going up and down over the millenia...until the industrial age. From that point on there was a dramatic increase that is still going.
It's long, but it's definitely worth reading. '.02'
RIP - VTEnviro
His Memory Eternal
I wonder why she didn't call it the Kolbert Report? :dunno:
G
Guest
Frazil --
Cool reference, I found a link to all three (3) parts plus an interview at:
The Climate of Man
I only had time to read the interview. Most of what I read seemed objective, but I must take issue with one of the author's responses. When asked if this problem is scientific or political - she indicates that the problem is political.
I have to disagree to a certain extent. The problem is political in so much that not many people are willing to alter their lifestyle or give up on convenience for the sake of cutting/curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the American public has signaled this unwillingness by not voting environmental. Political candidates do not take this issue up because they realize, everybody wants a cleaner environment, but what is any given individual prepared to do - or even better - give up in order to attain that cleaner environment.
Right now I believe the problem is a matter of weighing risks. What is the risk to losing life, property, crops, wildlife, glaciers, etc. Each person has to ask how much value each of these things have and then start to balance how much $$ will it take to bring the risk to an 'acceptable' level. This is a scientific process that has not been engaged well by the government or even the academic community. Insurance companies are starting to evaluate these risks because they are losing $$ because they have underestimated the risk in some cases.
It still appears to be a good article and certainly intrigued me enough to want to read the three-part series.
JR
Cool reference, I found a link to all three (3) parts plus an interview at:
The Climate of Man
I only had time to read the interview. Most of what I read seemed objective, but I must take issue with one of the author's responses. When asked if this problem is scientific or political - she indicates that the problem is political.
I have to disagree to a certain extent. The problem is political in so much that not many people are willing to alter their lifestyle or give up on convenience for the sake of cutting/curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Clearly, the American public has signaled this unwillingness by not voting environmental. Political candidates do not take this issue up because they realize, everybody wants a cleaner environment, but what is any given individual prepared to do - or even better - give up in order to attain that cleaner environment.
Right now I believe the problem is a matter of weighing risks. What is the risk to losing life, property, crops, wildlife, glaciers, etc. Each person has to ask how much value each of these things have and then start to balance how much $$ will it take to bring the risk to an 'acceptable' level. This is a scientific process that has not been engaged well by the government or even the academic community. Insurance companies are starting to evaluate these risks because they are losing $$ because they have underestimated the risk in some cases.
It still appears to be a good article and certainly intrigued me enough to want to read the three-part series.
JR
FusionWhite
Epee ~)----- Fencer
As far as the natural "cycles" of the earth go I think its foolish to think the earth heats up and cools down like your toaster oven. It doesnt heat up several degrees in a hundred and fifty years naturally. It took how many thousands of years for the last ice age to receed? And if we are undergoing a natural warming why is it accelerating at the exact same time as humans start pumping green house gases into the atmosphere? Coincidence?
G
GTScott
They kill baby Dolphins as part of the research involved in creating hybrids. You should be ashamed.
I have a car that the window sticker *claims* gets 8 MPG. Woohoo.
-GT
DVINNY
2-time 10K winner
I love both of my V8 Chevy's!!!!!!!!!
