Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Heat Is On

  1. Nov 12, 2005 #1
    Tune in to the FOX News Channel special report, ": The Case of Global Warming," on Sunday, Nov. 13, at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. EST.

    Fact? Fiction? Hockeystick?
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 12, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What is this, the preview channel?
  4. Nov 13, 2005 #3
    Demagogy? fallacies? ratings?
  5. Nov 13, 2005 #4


    User Avatar

    Lies perhaps even?
  6. Nov 14, 2005 #5
    Well that's a big word. Don't forget that there once was a hockey stick, an absolute brain paralyser. Only need to look for a second to comprehend that the world was in immediate danger, confirmed with shiploads of confirmation bias, melting glaciers, heat waves, droughts, storms, floods, it doesn't matter what, it's all global warming of course and of course all caused by burning fossile fuel. So, there is noble task to convince mankind. FOX was just late realizing that.
  7. Nov 14, 2005 #6


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    did anyone see it?
  8. Nov 14, 2005 #7
    It's probably rather predictable. http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/globalwarmingfaq.htm could be the script, this page once decribes by Stephen McIntyre:

    For a refreshing balance

    http://www.iaee.org/documents/05fall.pdf (huge file)

    Scroll to page 14. the article:
    The Skeptics on the Global Warming Issue: The Distinguished Veterans
    By Gerald T. Westbrook
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 21, 2017
  9. Nov 14, 2005 #8
    The war is on too

    One of the problems of global warming that it is not about science, it's about war. Former allies can turn into tomorrows enemies.

    http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/blair_failure_climate.pdf [Broken]

    My sympathy for Tony Blair, upon realizing the scam of global warming, he tries to back off, counting out, however, the brave green warriors.

    Who will save us from the world savers?
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  10. Nov 14, 2005 #9
    I've taken a fond liking of the world savers :) they help push technology further. So i've joined the bandwagon, there's nothing to lose... cleaner air and better tech.
  11. Nov 14, 2005 #10
    lol, I saw that, my mom has been a supporter of the global warming arguement, and I went off ranting about how it is a bunch of balogna. Fox reached an all time low, lol. Weather fluctuates, and over the course of centuries time, it can have vast fluctuations in temperature. Glaciers will melt, and then freeze again. You cant treat stuff like that as artwork, it cant be preserved. It may disappear for a period of time, but it will return. Many of these people, just like the person that was ranting on this program last night, doesnt want to let go of stuff like that. Everything will change, it is inevitable, I think they should let go and learn to live with it.
  12. Nov 14, 2005 #11
    Really? Suppose you have a limited budget for mitigation of environmental impact of anthropogenic energy production and you have two options:

    1. build windmills and reduce the overall emission of exhaust gasses.

    2. apply filters to remove soot and toxic chemicals from the exhausts.

    If you're on the bandwagon you have to go for option one, whilst in reality option two would have been the more effective.
  13. Nov 15, 2005 #12
    and where does the soot and chemicals go once filtered? stay in the filter forever? Or then get burried into the Earth, causing more pollution? It's either get rid of the problem or keep the problem. If you try and damper it, it still persists. As long as we have energy sources that emit soot and chemicals.. we will always have soot and chemicals floating around somewhere.
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2005
  14. Nov 15, 2005 #13
    Your reasoning requires we eliminate trees, grasses, shrubs…


    Higher plants are known to emit volatile hydrocarbons such as isoprene and monoterpenes into the atmosphere. The World wide emission rate of these natural hydrocarbons has been estimated to be 1.8-8.3 * 1011 kg y-1 which exceeds that of non methane hydrocarbons originating from human sources. Natural hydrocarbons have been suggested to be responsible for the blue haze found around forested areas on sunny days and the high rural ozone concentration in summer. The study of natural hydrocarbon emissions from plants is therefore of key importance to our understanding of the global effects of atmospherically born hydrocarbons.

  15. Nov 16, 2005 #14
    Now let's try and stay on track here... we were talking about human waste, and the effect it has on the environment...the environment works perfectly fine in it's natural state. If my reasoning required eliminating trees, grasses and shrubs.. i would have made it known. That's like saying... well a lake consists of water.. and clouds precipitate on it... yeah but when you start creating artificial clouds and precipitation, you cause unbalance in the environment and the lake overflows. Still the easier path is letting the Earth go on it's natural course, and stopping human emissions/waste as much as is possible, anywhere and everywhere.
  16. Nov 16, 2005 #15


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Okay, windmills come up. 50 GW installed capacity globally, Europe and U. S. the big users.

    Have the climate models been run with this sort of load on circulation in the N. Ferrel cell? Haven't found anything, but haven't tried every conceivable keyword combination as yet.

    Order of magnitude, looks to be 0.01% of net solar input (to the N. Ferrel), but whether that's getting into the "significant effect" range is what I was hoping to answer if someone knows of climate models that include wind power loading.
  17. Nov 16, 2005 #16
    Really? I suppose before humans existed there were no species eradication, ice ages, global warmings, floods, hurricanes, tornados… Obviously the natural environment does not “work just fine”. The natural state of the environment is one of constant change with disastrous consequences to one species or another.

  18. Nov 17, 2005 #17
    Until you put a humanly expectation or desire on how the environment should act according to you... yes the environment works perfectly fine in it's natural state. Ice ages, species eradication... all natural... all fine. Not until a species starts to unbalance this natural state at catastrophic and extremely dangerous levels do things begin to take perspective. We are now harming the planet because we have gone from a natural force, to an unnnatural force. It's time to go back to natural living. Stop burning chemicals and polluting the atmosphere.. it's not that hard to just say yes. Unless of course you'd like to see just how far we can push mother nature... then I'm sure she can come up with something natural of her own... like species eradication ;) It's all about respect. Just as you'd treat a person good, and expect it back... treat your Home well and you shall be rewarded. Slap it in the face and ignore it's screams for help... and well... we'll only have to wait a few decades to see what the outcome of this one will be, because I'm obviously outnumbered here.(unfortunately) Instead of harming the planet more... we should try and keep it where it has been through the last 5,000 years... even if this means reversing SOME of the "natural?" affects of warming and cooling... but through clean methods. This isn't just a dilemna about whether or not it's causing global warming, we're also destroying the o-zone layer... and i personally like to have a clear view of the stars at night.. the smog doesn't help.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2005
  19. Nov 17, 2005 #18


    User Avatar

    The rate of extinction occuring today is highly accelerated due to human interference. Its basically what your first paragraph is saying (you know, if they were divided).
    Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans. Termite mounds, beaver dams, and coral reefs all change their environment dramatically, affecting many many other creatures.
    Here's a great story that's been shortened and summarized by myself (originally by Michael Chrichton):

    Yellowstone Park, the first wilderness to be set aside as a natural preserve anywhere in the world, was called a National Park in 1872, by Ulysses Grant. No one had ever tried to preserve wilderness before, they assumed it would be much easier than it proved to be.
    When Theodore Roosevelt visited the park in 1903, he saw a landscape teeming with game. There were thousands of elk, buffalo, black bear, deer, mountain lions, grizzlies, coyotes, wolves, and bighorn sheep. By that time there were rules in place to keep things the way they were. The Park Service was formed, a new bureaucracy whose sole purpose was the maintain the park in its original condition.
    Within 10 years, the teeming landscape that Roosevelt saw was gone forever. The reason for this was because of the Park rangers, they were supposed to be keeping the park in pristine condition, and had taken a series of steps that they thought were in the best interest of preserving the park.
    The Park Service mistankenly believed that elk were becoming extinct, they tried to increase the elk herds within the park by eliminating predators. To that end, they shot and poisoned all the wolves in the park, of course not intending to kill all of them. They also prohibited local Native Americans from hunting there, even though Yellowstone was a traditional hunting ground.
    Totally protected now, the elk herd population exploded and they ate so much of certain trees and grasses, that the ecology of the park began to change. The elk ate defoliated trees that the beavers used to make dams, so the beavers vanished. That was when manages found out that beavers were vital to the overall management of the region. When the beavers vanished, meadows dried up, trout and otter populations receded, soil erosion increased, park ecology changed even further.
    By the 1920s, it was clear there were way too many elk, os the rangers shot them by the thousands. The change in plant ecology seemed permanent; the old mix of trees and grasses did not return.
    It also became clear that Native American hunters had exerted a valueable ecological influence on the park lands by keeping down the numbers of elk, moose, and bison. This recognition came as a part of a general understanding that the Native Americans strongly shaped the untouched wilderness white men thought they saw.
    North American humans had exerted a huge influencee on the environment for thousands of years, by burning palins grasses, modifying forests, thinning out specific animal populations, and hunting others to extinction - capitulation to a superior species.
    The rule forbidding Native Americans from hunting was seen as a mistake, but it was just one of many that continued to be made by the Park Service. Grizzlies were protected, then killed off, Wolves were killed off, then brought back. Radio collars research was halted, then resumed. Fire prevention policies were instituted, with no understanding of the regenerative effects of fire. When the policy was reversed, thousands of acres were burned so hotly to the ground that it was sterilized, and forests did not grow back without reseeding. Rainbow trout were introduced in the 70s, that species killed off the native cutthroat species. And on and on and on and on.
    It is a history of ignorant, incompetent, intrusive interveintion, followed by disastrous attempts to repair, followed by attempts to repair damage caused by repairs. Just as dramatic as any oil spill or toxic waste dump, but in these ones there are no evil awful big corporations, or fossil fuel economy to blame. These are disasters caused by environmentalists, the very people who wanted to protect the environement, who made one mistake after another.
    Passive protection, leaving things alone, doesn't preserve the status quo within a wilderness any more than it does in your backyard. The world is alive, things are constantly in flux. Species are winning, losing, rising, falling, exploding, bottlenecking, taking over, being pushed back. Merely leaving it alone doesn't put it in a state of supsended animation. Its like locking your son or daughter in their bedroom and expecting them not to grow up.
    Humans do care what happens to the environment in the future, and try hard. We just don't know what they are doing, period. We haven't made an action that only had postive consequences yet - banning DDT, Solar panels, Water recycling systems for homes, abolishing CFCs.
    Why are we interferring with the course of nature? Why do some try to keep it the way it is? Why do some blame humans for changing it? It will change for better or for worse, if we are here are not here. If humans were in this state of development before the last ice age, we would blame each other for causing it.

    Why would we want to change the course of nature for ourselves? Seems kind of selfish to me. And we might be affecting other species too...
    Really? Tell me what you know about this.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2005
  20. Nov 17, 2005 #19
    "The rate of extinction occuring today is highly accelerated due to human interference. Its basically what your first paragraph is saying (you know, if they were divided).
    Extinction is a natural phenomenon; it is estimated that 99.9% of all species that have ever lived are now extinct. Through the laws of evolution, new species are created by speciation — where new organisms arise and thrive when they are able to find and exploit an ecological niche. Species become extinct when are no longer able to survive in changing conditions or against superior competition. Conditions on the Earth are always changing, and dramatically is not rare. It is not something new, caused by humans"

    I never argued that it was something new... But to argue that today it is not caused by humans in any way... is just pure rude antics... Humans as the dominent and intellegent species on this planet have a duty to take care of it. That's my position and i stand strong. You can ignore the problems, or you can take care of them, regardless if we're the culprits or not. We cannot survive in an environment that is going to warm 15 degrees worldwide and flood shorelines and islands.. it might seem selfish to you for me to want and keep the environment the way it is now... but you're entitled to your opinion, whether i understand it or not. You talk about us effecting other species... i think we do enough of that today as it is... let's try and stop doing it. We're not talking about preserving Yellowstone park here, we're talking about preserving humankind and it's environment. Can you tell me how and why the last ice age occured with precise scientific data?! Or else the statement "if we were around back then, we'd blame each other".. has no substance. Also we were not around back then the way we are today... and the's precisely the differentiating factor here. Now we are here... and unless we want to experience another ice age or global warming catastrophe, we'd better get on our horses and start doing something about it.
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2005
  21. Nov 17, 2005 #20
    What is missing in this discussion is the grey. It's neither black nor white. yes humans have considerable impact on nature, No the impact on cimate is extremely small, if at all. Focus on the direct adverse items like pollution and destruction of habitats but forget climate, that's way beyond our scope.
  22. Nov 17, 2005 #21
    Pollution and the destruction of habitats IS destroying the climate... might be above some of our scopes, but it's as clear as day here. Show me some gray and I'll start researching some more.. I really mean that. Coral reefs... rain forests... species... unbalancing ecosystems, directly effecting climate.
  23. Nov 17, 2005 #22
    No Pollution and the destruction of habitats IS destroying habitats. You cannot destroy climate, there is always climate. Climate is the average weather of a prolongued time. There will always be weather.

    But the scope is if an increase of human generated greenhouse gasses will heat up the climate significantly and if so, if we can do anything about it.

    The answer is no on the first, making the answer on the second irrelevant But even if the answer to the first was to be yes (which it ain't) then the answer to the second would still be no.
  24. Nov 17, 2005 #23
    All we need is to wait for a giant volcanic eruption to cool the earth down by a few degrees, problem solved...:tongue:
  25. Nov 17, 2005 #24
    Your post is entirely opinionated and has no place in a scientific forum. I suggest the moderator place it in the general discussion forum.

  26. Nov 18, 2005 #25
    scientific data, must be backed with scientific reason. Reason can be viewed as opinion. If you don't like opinions, i suppose PF would cease to exist. We could all just walk around agreeing with everything, what a perfect world :) Your OPINION about how the ice ages came about didn't bother me. And if you haven't noticed, the basis of this thread is based on opinion backed by scientific data.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook