Al Gore wins Nobel Peace Prize

[Hydrogen]

i sometimes wonder if all the global warming hype is a form of secular eschatology.

i'm not talking about the issue of global warming its self but rather how it's being handled.

You would not be the first to think this, Prometheus.

For example, just look to the charts that Zephyr has kindly posted. There is nothing particularly important about the dates on the graphs except that they relate to when thermometric records started to be collected in order to construct such records. Longer graphs would begin to show more of this small-scale variability in temperature, changes that would fall within larger, but more coarse climate cycles shown to exist through other forms of measurement. Even the dip in temperature between 1940 and 1980 should suggest something (temperatures drop while human emissions of carbon dioxide virtually doubled during and after World War Two).

Too often, we can find the things we want to see when we believe that they are important enough to see. Statistical crime rates and surveys of public perception about crime is another example of this thing (but not related by content).

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Even the dip in temperature between 1940 and 1980 should suggest something (temperatures drop while human emissions of carbon dioxide virtually doubled during and after World War Two).

can that be attributed to high sulfur emissions? i heard that sulfur emissions has the opposite effect of greenhouse gases.


if human activity has an effect on climate change, can our cleanliness be what is screwing us up? are there charts demonstrating sulfur emissions for the past 100 years? what about natural sulfur emissions?

 

[Hydrogen]

The sulfur emissions you refer to, or sulphates, were gradually reduced in Western countries around the 1980's. However, over the same period SO2 emissions were increasing at a very significant rate across Asia. The most recent IPCC report has noted this fact and suggested uncertainty with respect to their overall effect.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

this issue is very complex. maybe if all the politics were taken out of it, we could have real answers.

 

[Hydrogen]

One can only hope.

 

[Zephyr]

i sometimes wonder if all the global warming hype is a form of secular eschatology.

i'm not talking about the issue of global warming its self but rather how it's being handled.

You would not be the first to think this, Prometheus.

For example, just look to the charts that Zephyr has kindly posted. There is nothing particularly important about the dates on the graphs except that they relate to when thermometric records started to be collected in order to construct such records. Longer graphs would begin to show more of this small-scale variability in temperature, changes that would fall within larger, but more coarse climate cycles shown to exist through other forms of measurement. Even the dip in temperature between 1940 and 1980 should suggest something (temperatures drop while human emissions of carbon dioxide virtually doubled during and after World War Two).

Too often, we can find the things we want to see when we believe that they are important enough to see. Statistical crime rates and surveys of public perception about crime is another example of this thing (but not related by content).

I glanced over at this thread to see why this is still rolling on, only to be mildly disturbed again. So I am now officially forced to rescind my declaration of leaving my last post on this thread in favour of posting my objections.

Hydrogen -- we often find ourselves in this venue, reacting to what others post. Those charts I posted and now you have brought up again, were not all that I could have used to make a case for global warming, they merely spoke to an issue on the table that you brought up. Think about it, if you were to bring in the longer charts, I would have upped the ante and brought in the historical overlays and the measurement of long-term thermal patterns on seasonal weather charts. Then I would expect you, or someone else, to come back with questions about the validity of this data, or maybe bring other data beyond seasonal parallels, etc. What I fear is that proof game, carried beyond a certain point, will only serve to bury the essential points that I thought were already made. With all due respect, there is no need to assume that a person taking a position on global warming, regardless on which side of it he or she stands, is just seeing what they want to see, just because they don't agree with you. Even in the example you give, there is the assumption that nuances about other factors at different times are not being taken into account by proponents of global warming - you must not be reading what I am reading, because I can attest that is not the case.

Prometheus - I applaud the fact that you at least accept the legitimacy of the global warming argument, even though you apparently disagree with it. This is an acceptable stance and would be fairminded. But then why do you think it is just the people who argue global warming that are hyping this issue? That is the implication of what you state. Is it due to the winning of the Nobel Prize - the ultimate hype - or is it in general? I think there are people on both sides of this argument, not just one side, who have brought in the hype - in the long run this should have the effect canceling each other out.

As to this 'secular eschatology' dismissal, does this really fit that very large segment of the scientific community who has studied and endorsed this thesis? I've seen this kind of phrasing before, particularly surrounding the dangers of so-called "secular humanism". I think we would be better off casting these connotative labels aside, and sticking to the matters at hand.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

my responses in the bold

Prometheus - I applaud the fact that you at least accept the legitimacy of the global warming argument, even though you apparently disagree with it.

i don't know what to believe. i'm in the middle over here. just because alot of people say it is or isn't so, that doesn't prove anything. each side is extremely biased when presenting their argument and they leave out any data that contradicts their claim.


This is an acceptable stance and would be fairminded. But then why do you think it is just the people who argue global warming that are hyping this issue? That is the implication of what you state. Is it due to the winning of the Nobel Prize - the ultimate hype - or is it in general?


everyone hypes the issue. the media is the one being the worst. the medias interest is not to present reality but sensation to get ratings. then you have a bunch of capitalists for global warming (argument) because they have figured out a way to profit and vice versa and a bunch of socialists against it for the sake of being against capitalism and also vice versa.

why is al gore the voice of reality? why isn't some prominent scientist in the field, who is very familiar with the facts and can prove and win over many, the voice of the argument?



I think there are people on both sides of this argument, not just one side, who have brought in the hype - in the long run this should have the effect canceling each other out.

i think alot of people are going the the peace rally (from both sides) to get laid.



As to this 'secular eschatology' dismissal, does this really fit that very large segment of the scientific community who has studied and endorsed this thesis? I've seen this kind of phrasing before, particularly surrounding the dangers of so-called "secular humanism". I think we would be better off casting these connotative labels aside, and sticking to the matters at
hand.

well, alot of people are crying it's going to be the end of the world and are scaring the shit out of everyone. because it's coming from scientists and politicians, it sounds more real than if it were coming from some crackpot theologist. i bet you alot of these people that believe in man made global warming because the scientists say it's true are the same ones that believe that scientists are hiding the cures for many diseases. the people of this planet are fucked. there are people that believe that the government can conjure up natural disasters but the moon landing was faked; wacky folk. it's not the end of the world. there are alot of doomsdayers out there. i have no problem with people trying to figure out solutions to carbon emission reduction, even though it may be futile in the long run due to matters out of our hands. that's the other thing, humans like to think they're in control, they're not.

maybe if we can get some of that gray goo from the nanotechnology disaster,
we can program it to consume carbon dioxide

 

[Hydrogen]

Hydrogen -- we often find ourselves in this venue, reacting to what others post. Those charts I posted and now you have brought up again, were not all that I could have used to make a case for global warming, they merely spoke to an issue on the table that you brought up. Think about it, if you were to bring in the longer charts, I would have upped the ante and brought in the historical overlays and the measurement of long-term thermal patterns on seasonal weather charts. Then I would expect you, or someone else, to come back with questions about the validity of this data, or maybe bring other data beyond seasonal parallels, etc. What I fear is that proof game, carried beyond a certain point, will only serve to bury the essential points that I thought were already made. With all due respect, there is no need to assume that a person taking a position on global warming, regardless on which side of it he or she stands, is just seeing what they want to see, just because they don't agree with you. Even in the example you give, there is the assumption that nuances about other factors at different times are not being taken into account by proponents of global warming - you must not be reading what I am reading, because I can attest that is not the case.

Wow, and I said "so kindly."

Anyway, Prometheus and I were exchanging communication on an issue related to the graphs you posted, not to the idea that they were posted. These graphs, or others similar to them, have been published on numerous occasion, on line and in journals. One can assume that, on the basis of the existing graphs and the evidence germaine to their creation, there are reasonably good records for the temperature data. There is enough thermometric and proxy evidence to suggest that globally averaged temperatures have gone up slightly over the past century (at least in the northern hemisphere), they just have not gone up in a perfect curve (or a curve matching carbon dioxide or other infrared absorbing gasses). The dip from the late 30's to the late 70's is a case in particular. It does not match the increase in carbon dioxide emissions. We were discussing that particular point. The exchange is there to be read. It appeared to be concluded.

Interestingly, there is a somewhat better match between the mid-century dip and sunspot numbers. I'm not going to say now that sunspots are the cause of the slight cooling, but it is interesting correlation, and should peak some curiosity. There is also an interesting historical record concerning this correlation between sunspost numbers (relating to solar activity) and temperature. This link is actively being investigated with respect to the mechanisms involved. Interestingly, there is virtually nothing mentioned of these investigtions in the IPCC FAR - other than to say that the understanding of solar influences are low, and in their opinion, negligible in effect. The IPCC, however, is not a scientific body. It is political.

As for your own posts, you stated that you are keeping an open mind on the issue. Why would you think I suggested that you are taking a specific position? I assume you meant what you said. I still do.

 

[Zephyr]

my responses in the bold

Parsing sometimes helps in responding, but what I left for you has gone through a shredding machine.

Oh well, I guess I get some of your points, not all of them. I must admit that your final two responses in particular, totally lost me.