Global Warming

[Thalassamania]

This is a bit of a conundrum. Someone always pays or funds a study. Does the funding source always discount the results? Certainly sometime it does. (Big Tobacco funding nicotine addiction and lung cancer connection in the 60’s) But I tend to believe that most scientists and researchers publish their results as they discovered them, regardless of the funding interest. However, when their results meet the press, many have been redacted, modified or simply politically spun to fit the current social atmosphere.

My brother-in-law is a PhD in physics and microbiology. He works solely for those who will fund his research. He will finish and publish his results and discoveries no matter the result.

When you have a situation in which there is virtually universal agreement in science that anthropogenic green house gases are a problem, up to and including the National Academy of Sciences, and you find a few outliers saying it "just ain't so" and it turns out they're "senior scholars" or some such such idiocy at the "Hudson Institute" or some other right wing asylum, it makes you wonder about their creditability and honesty.

 

[Teamcasa]

When you have a situation in which there is virtually universal agreement in science that anthropogenic green house gases are a problem, up to and including the National Academy of Sciences, and you find a few outliers saying it "just ain't so" and it turns out they're "senior scholars" or some such such idiocy at the "Hudson Institute" or some other right wing asylum, it makes you wonder about their creditability and honesty.

This is always a problem. To some a right wing asylum is a well regarded institution. It is just a matter or who you chose to believe is more correct. My point is consistent, in that people will generally side with those who they trust most. Regardless of the factual data.

So the question is not whom do you believe, but what is the truth and how were those truths determined. The earth was once flat, that was once a common truth – but not true today. Is there more carbon based gases in our atmosphere that there was 100 years ago? What will all this carbon do?

I attended a talk at CalTech’s Athenaeum where the speaker (sorry I can’t remember the professor’s name) sited dozens of conflicting studies on the carbon content in the atmosphere over differing periods of time. His research was using shells and coral to (clumped-isotope method) determine the carbon content and ocean temperatures. The point he was making (other than he needed more funding) was that there is a tipping point, we just don’t know for certain what it is or when it will occur.

 

[Thalassamania]

The earth was once flat, that was once a common truth – but not true today.

Actually that never was a common truth. Pythagoras (500 BCE) thought the world was round, Aristotle (300 BCE) demonstrated the Earth was round, and the Earth's circumference was measured by Eratosthenes.(240 BCE). You can find noted thinkers from then till the present that preserved the view that the Earth was round.

Is there more carbon based gases in our atmosphere that there was 100 years ago? What will all this carbon do?

I attended a talk at CalTech’s Athenaeum where the speaker (sorry I can’t remember the professor’s name) sited dozens of conflicting studies on the carbon content in the atmosphere over differing periods of time. His research was using shells and coral to (clumped-isotope method) determine the carbon content and ocean temperatures. The point he was making (other than he needed more funding) was that there is a tipping point, we just don’t know for certain what it is or when it will occur.

There is more carbon, ice cores have shown that. I have to agree with the speaker you heard.

 

[Eris Lucan7*]

Nitox as all gassmix are mostly intresting under the aspekt off serum research.

Nitrox is mostly in condition offf good filterte woodair(Mostoften woodair is

better).Coueston and his frinds loved it to dive with medician breatabel

Oxigen,but under preure the serum in the capilare starts to get glumpy...

E.L.7*

 

[DeepSeaExplorer]

Geesh... you guys with a background in science claiming that the jury is still out on global warming are disappointing... Even I was skeptical at first, but there's been a ton of supporting data in the last 5 years alone.

The idea that there is any doubt left in the scientific community is a political deception. No credible scientist will dispute that global warming is now fact. There is no longer any debate in the scientific community. The only debate left is in the political arena.

Yes, the Earth and Sun do have cycles, but the latest report from the international committe released in 2005 states it's fact and with 90% certainty that it's accelerated by use of fossil fuels.

The only debate left in the scientific community is when will we reach the tipping point and the ecological colapse begin, and is it possibly already too late to turn it around? The latest evidence is that the tipping point may be much closer than originally thought.

If you don't believe me, pick up an impartial, peer-reviewed, science magazine like Scientific American. I you don't want to pay for a subscription, go to their website at SCIAM.COM and do a search on Global Warming.

 

[Thalassamania]

...

The only debate left in the scientific community is when will we reach the tipping point and the ecological colapse begin, and is it possibly already too late to turn it around? The latest evidence is that the tipping point may be much closer than originally thought.

If you don't believe me, pick up an impartial, peer-reviewed, science magazine like Scientific American. I you don't want to pay for a subscription, go to their website at SCIAM.COM and do a search on Global Warming.

There is no doubt in my mind that there there is some degree of global warming as a result of human activities. Details, such as were we are in natural cycles and just were the tipping point is are, in my mind, open for discussion.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

While we fiddle around with the issue of who caused it, and what (if anything) we can do about it, I worry about the inevitable sideshow.

Resources under the Actic Sea that were heretofore unreachable due to the ice cap are suddenly going to become a hot commodity. Nations will seek to lay claim to territories in the Arctic Sea, and resources will become, yet again, the underlying "national security" issue that leads to excuses for war.

I suspect that the disappearing polar ice cap will, within two or three decades, become the true battleground of the 21st century ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[Jon C]

Is anyone open to the idea that we are supposed to go extinct? Hey, it certainly stops the "human caused" carbon problem.

Of course, look at the bright side...a comet might hit us and end the debate early. If I knew that was coming I'd buy a Hummer, a private jet and keep my house lit all night long. Maybe Gore knows something we don't? I mean the comet thing...not global warming or inventing the internet.

 

[RV]

not again

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Is anyone open to the idea that we are supposed to go extinct? Hey, it certainly stops the "human caused" carbon problem.

I dunno about extinct ... but I do think we're workin' ourselves into a world of hurt. Mother Nature has a way of "self-correcting" ... and the problems we're putting on ourselves really aren't anything that couldn't be resolved by a naturally-mutated virus that wiped about half the humans off the planet.

Oh ... and I'm also open to the notion that homosexuality is God's way of telling us we're making too damn many babies ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)