Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member CalJust
    It is what it is
    18 Sep '08 09:13
    I read in Time mag recently that Sarah Palin does not believe GW is manmade (or womanmade).

    Is this a view widely held in the US?

    Will this affect the US joining a post-Kyoto UNFCCC initiative? And does it support Sonono's view that anti-GW efforts will "undermine the American way of life"?

    Just wondering...

    CJ
  2. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    18 Sep '08 10:31
    Originally posted by CalJust
    I read in Time mag recently that Sarah Palin does not believe GW is manmade (or womanmade).

    Is this a view widely held in the US?

    Will this affect the US joining a post-Kyoto UNFCCC initiative? And does it support Sonono's view that anti-GW efforts will "undermine the American way of life"?

    Just wondering...

    CJ
    I think underneath all the hype the american public knows mankind is changing the climate and not for the better but nobody wants to give up their microwaves, LCD's, cell phones, computers, high powered gas guzzling SUV's and such. So it will take a big thunderous ice age event or 140 degree weather in DC before anyone admits it.
  3. 18 Sep '08 11:21
    In a way, she's right. Global warming and ice age are two phases that have ocurred many times in the past.

    What we are doing is accelerating this process, so what happens every thousand years now happens in one-hundred. We're taking away the time nature needs to adjust to the changes in the world.
  4. 18 Sep '08 11:46
    Originally posted by CalJust
    I read in Time mag recently that Sarah Palin does not believe GW is manmade (or womanmade).

    Is this a view widely held in the US?

    Will this affect the US joining a post-Kyoto UNFCCC initiative? And does it support Sonono's view that anti-GW efforts will "undermine the American way of life"?

    Just wondering...

    CJ
    Man made = no
    Influenced and accelerated by man = yes
  5. 18 Sep '08 12:53
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I think underneath all the hype the american public knows mankind is changing the climate and not for the better but nobody wants to give up their microwaves, LCD's, cell phones, computers, high powered gas guzzling SUV's and such. So it will take a big thunderous ice age event or 140 degree weather in DC before anyone admits it.
    Just like the American public know that there is no God? or on a more conscious level?
    So you don't think that the hurricanes are having a significant impact on popular perception? I thought I noticed some change since Katrina.
    I think that the price of fuel is having far more effect than actual climate change when it comes to changing peoples energy guzzling habits.
  6. Standard member CalJust
    It is what it is
    18 Sep '08 14:08
    Originally posted by timebombted
    Man made = no
    Influenced and accelerated by man = yes
    Both timebombted and DannyU are playing with words: If the ACCELERATION (only) is man-made, then the PROBLEM is man-made.

    The key issue at stake is that if GW is NOT man-made (as the VP-to-be seems to think), then man can do nothing about it!

    Is there somebody on RHP that believes that GW (i.e. the nature-made-but-man-accelerated version) has not been proven scientifically, and is a fraud perpetrated on the American people in order to reduce their enjoyment of life? There are prominent people over there saying it, and I would like to hear some debate supporting that point of view.
  7. 18 Sep '08 14:28
    Originally posted by CalJust
    The key issue at stake is that if GW is NOT man-made (as the VP-to-be seems to think), then man can do nothing about it!
    That is not true. Man can certainly do something about it whether or not he 'made' it. The real issue is whether or not americans can live with the guilt of knowing that they have messed up the world for the rest of us.

    It is encouraging to note that there is at least more acceptance in the US that the globe is in fact warming. A few years ago, there were many more people in denial about that.

    My personal feeling is that we need to decide whether we wish to deal with the consequences or try to reverse the trend. Right now, some consequences are unavoidable - and must be dealt with. Again it is a matter of do we start dealing with the consequences now, or wait till disasters happen.
    For example, should coastal cities start moving or building walls or should we rather invest in cleaner energy?
  8. 18 Sep '08 20:28
    Was Katrina the punisment for Americas excessive emision of CO2?
    Was New Orelans only the first target for this punishment?
    Where will the nature strike back next...?
  9. 18 Sep '08 23:57
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Was Katrina the punisment for Americas excessive emision of CO2?
    Was New Orelans only the first target for this punishment?
    Where will the nature strike back next...?
    I don't think Katrina was the only consequence of Global Warming for the US.

    The number of tornadoes has increased dramatically in the states that compose the "tornado alley". There has also been an increase in average temperature as well as an increase in the number of days with temperatures reaching over 100 degrees Farenheit, especially in the hotter states.

    The dessert land is increasing, the farms are getting dryer, all of these can be seen on the US.

    For anyone interested in this issue, I recommend you watch the documental "an inconvenient truth" by Al Gore. It explains most of these phenomena in a way that's easy to understand for any type of viewer.
  10. 19 Sep '08 07:54
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Was Katrina the punisment for Americas excessive emision of CO2?
    Was New Orelans only the first target for this punishment?
    Where will the nature strike back next...?
    No, Katrina was the punishment for Americas lack of funding to the flood protection systems in New Orleans. It was a fairly well known fact before Katrina that the flood protection was not built to withstand a 100 year storm without even taking global warming into account.

    As for punishment, the rest of the world is experiencing far more dire consequences from global warming than the US is so far.

    However, most large scale 'natural' disasters so far world wide are not a result of global warming but rather other Human related mistakes including:
    1. Forrest fires getting out of control due to poor fire management.
    2. Soil Erosion due to poor soil management.
    3. Flooding due to poor soil management.
    4. Flooding, due to poor planning - ie building houses in known flood zones.
    5. Earthquake damage due to poor building practices.
    6. Desertification due to poor soil management.
  11. 19 Sep '08 08:41
    Was Katrina even a very big tornado when she struck New Orleans?
    It would happen sooner or later anyway, wouldn't it?
  12. 19 Sep '08 11:39
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    Was Katrina even a very big tornado when she struck New Orleans?
    It would happen sooner or later anyway, wouldn't it?
    It wasn't the biggest hurricane (not tornado) on record, nor was it the first time New Orleans has been flooded.
    Storms do batter the southern coast of the US every year but their exact point of landfall is different for each one.
    Before Katrina hit and before anyone really made a fuss about the frequency of large storms increasing, National Geographic published an article describing a hurricane hitting New Orleans and it read like prophesy.
    Basically yes - it would have happened sooner or later and will happen again sooner or later - the storm walls are still not built to withstand all storms within the expected range without even taking global warming into account.
  13. 20 Sep '08 10:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by CalJust
    Both timebombted and DannyU are playing with words: If the ACCELERATION (only) is man-made, then the PROBLEM is man-made.

    The key issue at stake is that if GW is NOT man-made (as the VP-to-be seems to think), then man can do nothing about it!

    Is there somebody on RHP that believes that GW (i.e. the nature-made-but-man-accelerated version) has not be ...[text shortened]... people over there saying it, and I would like to hear some debate supporting that point of view.
    Not playing with words, just trying to be clear.

    We know that before man was on this planet, global warming happened through several oscillations. Thus it is not man made.

    However man is now influencing and accelerating the current global warming cycle to a level that could be disastrous, thus the problem is of course man made.

    I was just distinguishing between natural global warming vs mans influence.

    The evidence exists, man is to blame.
  14. 21 Sep '08 06:19 / 2 edits
    My question is... exactly where is it that the sea is rising on the shorelines of the world? Where? 900 to 1100 the ice melted enough on Greenland that farming was accomplished... what "carbon footprint" did man have then? I love these media based catch-phrases some seem to cling to so readily. The only data they have as "proof" are computer models... when has any "weather man" been right about the weather?!?! Don't get me wrong... there is nothing wrong with being green; but, to respond because the fear mongers want you to is another thing. In the late 70's we were warned we were heading to another ice age... again, wrong.
  15. 21 Sep '08 07:52
    Originally posted by Lucky Baldwin
    My question is... exactly where is it that the sea is rising on the shorelines of the world? Where? 900 to 1100 the ice melted enough on Greenland that farming was accomplished... what "carbon footprint" did man have then? I love these media based catch-phrases some seem to cling to so readily. The only data they have as "proof" are computer models ...[text shortened]... ng. In the late 70's we were warned we were heading to another ice age... again, wrong.
    Weather and climate very different things dude.

    Are you American?