Cafe La Petit Roche

[johnnydr87]

But, like a lot of people, I am somewhat skeptical about the true source of global warming. Perhaps the data does support that it is warming. But, the earth has warmed, and cooled, and warmed, and cooled for millions of years, well before humans were around. Yet all of a sudden, we're responsible. To that end, and lest anyone be confused, one would be naive to think that there weren't huge financial and geopolitical "agendas" supporting this view regardless of actual science. It goes both ways, and like most everything, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

And do you really think scientists haven't cautioned themselves with the very same questions? Do you think it never occurred to the most brilliant minds at the most brilliant universities that "the earth has warmed, and cooled, and warmed, and cooled for millions of years"? It just slipped under the radar and they didn't put two and two together?

These questions were addressed head on in an Inconvenient Truth and many, many other places: the scientists have been comparing global warming of the past few decades to that of millions and millions of years ago. I think it's kind of ridiculous that one would assume scientists--who devote their lives and their minds (usually in the top 2-3% of IQ)--have not thought of these questions.

And you're right: there are agendas at play here, both for and against global warming. But when you have overwhelming scientific evidence and multitudes of scientific journals devoted to human-caused global warming (and none refuting it), it's just as much as fact as evolution and the atomic theory are. It's simplistic to think that because both sides probably have financial backers that it automatically means the truth is "somewhere in the middle" (whatever that means). Truth isn't equally distributed, and certain positions and convictions have more truth than others. (And generally, due to scholarly rigor, scientists are the least bias-prone people [other than what their straight-up data allows them to conclude] b/c other scientists are waiting in the wings to snipe down new theories with contradictory evidence. In other words, if you mess up, your career is pretty much gone. I don't think enough people here have an understanding of that.)

Anyways, if the Bush Administration switching its stance, in addition to all the cited evidence by preeminent scientists, doesn't convince you, I have to question dissenters' rational faculties.

Here's an idea, if anyone wants to refute global warming, walk us step by step through what's wrong with the theory, and make sure to point out if or why scientists seem to have overlooked that issue. Prove to us you actually know what you're talking about and that you're not parroting something that could be easily disproved with a quick Google search.

[Aporkalypse]

And do you really think scientists haven't cautioned themselves with the very same questions? Do you think it never occurred to the most brilliant minds at the most brilliant universities that "the earth has warmed, and cooled, and warmed, and cooled for millions of years"? It just slipped under the radar and they didn't put two and two together?

These questions were addressed head on in an Inconvenient Truth and many, many other places: the scientists have been comparing global warming of the past few decades to that of millions and millions of years ago. I think it's kind of ridiculous that one would assume scientists--who devote their lives and their minds (usually in the top 2-3% of IQ)--have not thought of these questions.

And you're right: there are agendas at play here, both for and against global warming. But when you have overwhelming scientific evidence and multitudes of scientific journals devoted to human-caused global warming (and none refuting it), it's just as much as fact as evolution and the atomic theory are. It's simplistic to think that because both sides probably have financial backers that it automatically means the truth is "somewhere in the middle" (whatever that means). Truth isn't equally distributed, and certain positions and convictions have more truth than others. (And generally, due to scholarly rigor, scientists are the least bias-prone people [other than what their straight-up data allows them to conclude] b/c other scientists are waiting in the wings to snipe down new theories with contradictory evidence. In other words, if you mess up, your career is pretty much gone. I don't think enough people here have an understanding of that.)

Anyways, if the Bush Administration switching its stance, in addition to all the cited evidence by preeminent scientists, doesn't convince you, I have to question dissenters' rational faculties.

Here's an idea, if anyone wants to refute global warming, walk us step by step through what's wrong with the theory, and make sure to point out if or why scientists seem to have overlooked that issue. Prove to us you actually know what you're talking about and that you're not parroting something that could be easily disproved with a quick Google search.

Evolution a fact?

(just kidding)

[skirby]

johnny sounds like the only parrot around here is you. you put too much stock into what is true and what is thought to be true. you only have to look at madcow to see where the majority of the science can not be proved. tell me what type of beef has never been found with madcow but products from these cows are banned along with the others?

why is the Kyoto Protocol so important but China is not included? according to projections within 10 years China will be using the the entire amount of oil now being produced each year for the entire world. or is it ok for some to pollute and others not to.

science is relative to what is known at the time and as more knowledge becomes available the views of science changes. as we all know climate changes. if the earth warms up is that a bad thing or just something different from what we are use to? the earth has always been in a state of climate change and living things either adjust or perish. some of those which perish will later return and inhabit the area they lived in the past.

i think one of the main campaign slogans for the election this year is all about change. i'm sure some people will find a change in politics and/or climate a good thing and take advantage of it.

[Architect]

And do you really think scientists haven't cautioned themselves with the very same questions? Do you think it never occurred to the most brilliant minds at the most brilliant universities that "the earth has warmed, and cooled, and warmed, and cooled for millions of years"? It just slipped under the radar and they didn't put two and two together?

These questions were addressed head on in an Inconvenient Truth and many, many other places: the scientists have been comparing global warming of the past few decades to that of millions and millions of years ago. I think it's kind of ridiculous that one would assume scientists--who devote their lives and their minds (usually in the top 2-3% of IQ)--have not thought of these questions.

And you're right: there are agendas at play here, both for and against global warming. But when you have overwhelming scientific evidence and multitudes of scientific journals devoted to human-caused global warming (and none refuting it), it's just as much as fact as evolution and the atomic theory are. It's simplistic to think that because both sides probably have financial backers that it automatically means the truth is "somewhere in the middle" (whatever that means). Truth isn't equally distributed, and certain positions and convictions have more truth than others. (And generally, due to scholarly rigor, scientists are the least bias-prone people [other than what their straight-up data allows them to conclude] b/c other scientists are waiting in the wings to snipe down new theories with contradictory evidence. In other words, if you mess up, your career is pretty much gone. I don't think enough people here have an understanding of that.)

Anyways, if the Bush Administration switching its stance, in addition to all the cited evidence by preeminent scientists, doesn't convince you, I have to question dissenters' rational faculties.

Here's an idea, if anyone wants to refute global warming, walk us step by step through what's wrong with the theory, and make sure to point out if or why scientists seem to have overlooked that issue. Prove to us you actually know what you're talking about and that you're not parroting something that could be easily disproved with a quick Google search.

Let me say this again...I have done a lot of research on this issue, and it has in fact had a lot of impact on my profession. However, I don't buy it all lock, stock and barrel. If you have done equal research, and that's your determination, that's what makes America great.

However, I'm of the opinion that there is as much "religion" here as there is science...the movement has taken on its own life and agenda. I see it everyday. And yes, the truth is somewhere in the middle (meaning, we have not been good stewards of the environment and change is necessary, but humans are not the sole reason for climate change - that is an egotistical, human-centric world view, of which I personally do not agree with).

Oh, and you cannot be serious when you say there are NO reciprocal opinions in the scientific world. Do some research.

[Aporkalypse]

Let me say this again...I have done a lot of research on this issue, and it has in fact had a lot of impact on my profession. However, I don't buy it all lock, stock and barrel. If you have done equal research, and that's your determination, that's what makes America great.

However, I'm of the opinion that there is as much "religion" here as there is science...the movement has taken on its own life and agenda. I see it everyday. And yes, the truth is somewhere in the middle (meaning, we have not been good stewards of the environment and change is necessary, but humans are not the sole reason for climate change - that is an egotistical, human-centric world view, of which I personally do not agree with).

Oh, and you cannot be serious when you say there are NO reciprocal opinions in the scientific world. Do some research.

Well said. You actually hit my sentiments on this matter on the nose.

[johnnydr87]

johnny sounds like the only parrot around here is you. you put too much stock into what is true and what is thought to be true. you only have to look at madcow to see where the majority of the science can not be proved. tell me what type of beef has never been found with madcow but products from these cows are banned along with the others?

why is the Kyoto Protocol so important but China is not included? according to projections within 10 years China will be using the the entire amount of oil now being produced each year for the entire world. or is it ok for some to pollute and others not to.

science is relative to what is known at the time and as more knowledge becomes available the views of science changes. as we all know climate changes. if the earth warms up is that a bad thing or just something different from what we are use to? the earth has always been in a state of climate change and living things either adjust or perish. some of those which perish will later return and inhabit the area they lived in the past.

i think one of the main campaign slogans for the election this year is all about change. i'm sure some people will find a change in politics and/or climate a good thing and take advantage of it.

The point is: global warming, spurred by human activity, is happening at a rate faster than the ecosystem can properly mitigate and handle. Sure, natural tendencies of the earth's evolution might be affecting it--as Architect noted--but the point is that it's happening at a much faster rate. That's the big point. There is a natural heritage at stake here--animals and plants going extinct, climate patterns changing ways of life (ex: farming, or how do you like skiing).

P.S. China isn't included in the Kyoto protocol b/c it opted out, just like the US due to relative gains problems (i.e. what do we have to lose economically by signing this?). The EU took the lead and cut its emissions by 8%, Japan by 7%. Even Russia joined in. Australia was not part of the Protocol until the Labour Party gained power, and one of the first things their prime minister did was sign it. Several countries have joined in since (accounting for at least 55% of world emissions).

some of those which perish will later return and inhabit the area they lived in the past

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

As far as Architect's comments on the "religion" it has taken: I don't deny it. The same could be said of the anti-war movement: a lot of counter-culture types gravitate around issues like that, without fully understanding it. I'm saying look at the straight up science, and the glaring lack of science against global warming. Please link me to a journal article showing otherwise (or a reputable scientist), and I will happily change my stance.

Eh, whatever. Arguing online is masturbatory and pointless 90% of the time.

[Architect]

Eh, whatever. Arguing online is masturbatory and pointless 90% of the time.

Yeah, but its still fun Johnny! I enjoy and respect everyone's perspective on all the issues...

[skirby]

johnny you said: "P.S. China isn't included in the Kyoto protocol b/c it opted out, just like the US due to relative gains problems (i.e. what do we have to lose economically by signing this?). The EU took the lead and cut its emissions by 8%, Japan by 7%. Even Russia joined in. Australia was not part of the Protocol until the Labour Party gained power, and one of the first things their prime minister did was sign it. Several countries have joined in since (accounting for at least 55% of world emissions)."

I think you need to check your facts about China. China approved the Kyoto Protocol in 2003. Along with India and Brazil they have no obligation to reduce any emissions.

[johnnydr87]

Ah yes, my bad skirby. The benefits of wikipedia.

Well, I thought my professor implied that China didn't sign it when I took International Institutions.

Basically, 3rd world countries were held to a lower bar because they argued that they hadn't taken part in the Industrial Revolution, and it was mainly the western powers' faults for the current state of global warming. They argue that their present "industrial revolutions" should not be held back b/c of a scientific phenomena (global warming) that was started by western powers. In the Kyoto Protocol, the less developed countries only had to "begin the process of reducing emissions levels."

-----------

But that point notwithstanding: global warming is real, and the US needs to take moral authority (not get upstaged the EU and Japan). In fact, part of the reason Japanese cars are pummeling American cars is because they are held to higher fuel efficiency standards in Japan!

[Architect]

But that point notwithstanding: global warming is real, and the US needs to take moral authority (not get upstaged the EU and Japan). In fact, part of the reason Japanese cars are pummeling American cars is because they are held to higher fuel efficiency standards in Japan!

That's partly true I believe, but its mainly due to the arrogance and short-sightedness of the American automotive industry who prioritized short-term profits over long-term investment (i.e. "quality" products). It pains me to see them getting pummeled, but they have no one to blame but themselves. Now of course, they are making some fantastic cars (Pontiac G8, Cadillac CTS, Ford Edge, Buick Enclave), but they may have already lost the mindshare years ago. If they had gotten this serious 10 years ago, they wouldn't be facing what could be a tragic end...

[CentralArkansas]

That's partly true I believe, but its mainly due to the arrogance and short-sightedness of the American automotive industry who prioritized short-term profits over long-term investment (i.e. "quality" products). It pains me to see them getting pummeled, but they have no one to blame but themselves. Now of course, they are making some fantastic cars (Pontiac G8, Cadillac CTS, Ford Edge, Buick Enclave), but they may have already lost the mindshare years ago. If they had gotten this serious 10 years ago, they wouldn't be facing what could be a tragic end...

I think it's a little early to be speculating about their tragic end. Ford is doing very well and GMC and Chrysler are both on the mend. It takes time for behemoths to completely and totally grasp a paradigm shift in their industry. They had been doing business the same way since the inception of their company, and now they are realizing they can no longer do so.

Give them some time. They'll be okay.

[Architect]

I think it's a little early to be speculating about their tragic end. Ford is doing very well and GMC and Chrysler are both on the mend. It takes time for behemoths to completely and totally grasp a paradigm shift in their industry. They had been doing business the same way since the inception of their company, and now they are realizing they can no longer do so.

Give them some time. They'll be okay.

Let's hope so. But they've gotten so far off track that they'll (sadly) never regain their world-dominating positions. Thankfully, for Ford and GM, they're growing their business outside the U.S. - they're just having a tough go in the home market. As bad as GM is taking it at home and what people perceive, few know that GM sold more cars in 2007 than at anytime in their history. Unfortunately, Toyota sold a few thousand more.

[CentralArkansas]

Let's hope so. But they've gotten so far off track that they'll (sadly) never regain their world-dominating positions. Thankfully, for Ford and GM, they're growing their business outside the U.S. - they're just having a tough go in the home market. As bad as GM is taking it at home and what people perceive, few know that GM sold more cars in 2007 than at anytime in their history. Unfortunately, Toyota sold a few thousand more.

Along the same lines, one of the reasons Toyota has been able to kill the US big 3 is because their labor costs have historically been much lower than the big 3's cost. This has allowed them to produce the higher quality vehicles for comparable, or in many cases, lower prices. I read an article in the Journal a few months ago that forecasted Toyota's cost to be as high or higher than the big 3's within the next 5-10 years. Toyota has taken the approach of building factories in the US, and has begun to run into the same unions and high cost that the big 3 has been handicapped with for years.

[Architect]

Along the same lines, one of the reasons Toyota has been able to kill the US big 3 is because their labor costs have historically been much lower than the big 3's cost. This has allowed them to produce the higher quality vehicles for comparable, or in many cases, lower prices. I read an article in the Journal a few months ago that forecasted Toyota's cost to be as high or higher than the big 3's within the next 5-10 years. Toyota has taken the approach of building factories in the US, and has begun to run into the same unions and high cost that the big 3 has been handicapped with for years.

Quite true. I, for one, wouldn't mind seeing Toyota take a misstep - or really for GM/Ford/Chrysler to gain new momentum. Surely they will with all the great new product coming out.

[EJC]

Let me say this again...I have done a lot of research on this issue, and it has in fact had a lot of impact on my profession. However, I don't buy it all lock, stock and barrel. If you have done equal research, and that's your determination, that's what makes America great.

However, I'm of the opinion that there is as much "religion" here as there is science...the movement has taken on its own life and agenda. I see it everyday. And yes, the truth is somewhere in the middle (meaning, we have not been good stewards of the environment and change is necessary, but humans are not the sole reason for climate change - that is an egotistical, human-centric world view, of which I personally do not agree with).

Oh, and you cannot be serious when you say there are NO reciprocal opinions in the scientific world. Do some research.

Thank you. This is the reason I posted the link.

There is so much promotion of the heated planet and what we humans are "causing" and it's based upon the unknown and control. The truth is that the earth has heated and cooled, on it's own, for far longer than the existence of humanity. And now there is evidence that Earth is not, in fact, heating at the moment.

Regardless of what's actually happening, the religion of global warming (and it's counterpart religions) definitively know very little and speculate greatly. Meanwhile, we're told how we're supposed to act and what we should change...we are controlled...by these groups. It's frustrating and the simple fact that people on this board and elsewhere take "man as the cause of global warming" as fact shows that it's working. We don't even know that global warming is definitively happening and yet now we know WE'RE the cause... Funny that you use the term egotistical...I have said the same thing for years....my how "in control" we think we are...

I'm happy to make many changes in my life/lifestyle to reduce, reuse, recycle but I won't happily accept the force fed nature of the movement when so little is known.

[LRU1967]

Thank you. This is the reason I posted the link.

There is so much promotion of the heated planet and what we humans are "causing" and it's based upon the unknown and control. The truth is that the earth has heated and cooled, on it's own, for far longer than the existence of humanity. And now there is evidence that Earth is not, in fact, heating at the moment.

Regardless of what's actually happening, the religion of global warming (and it's counterpart religions) definitively know very little and speculate greatly. Meanwhile, we're told how we're supposed to act and what we should change...we are controlled...by these groups. It's frustrating and the simple fact that people on this board and elsewhere take "man as the cause of global warming" as fact shows that it's working. We don't even know that global warming is definitively happening and yet now we know WE'RE the cause... Funny that you use the term egotistical...I have said the same thing for years....my how "in control" we think we are...

I'm happy to make many changes in my life/lifestyle to reduce, reuse, recycle but I won't happily accept the force fed nature of the movement when so little is known.

From everything I read I believe the earth's climate is getting warmer. Your post is a red herring. I certainly don't, nor do I think others who've posted here think, that man is THE SOLE CAUSE of global warming.

My opinion is that the earth is going through a naturally occurring period of warming which is being accelerated by the tons and tons of pollution released into the atmosphere. As you doubt that "global warming is definitively happening" what means do you think the earth has for absorbing pollution?

[EJC]

From everything I read I believe the earth's climate is getting warmer. Your post is a red herring. I certainly don't, nor do I think others who've posted here think, that man is THE SOLE CAUSE of global warming.

My opinion is that the earth is going through a naturally occurring period of warming which is being accelerated by the tons and tons of pollution released into the atmosphere. As you doubt that "global warming is definitively happening" what means do you think the earth has for absorbing pollution?

You are free to feel as you want. Red herring...absolutely not. Just a counterbalance to note that things are not at all black & white in terms of warming (if there is such a thing happening). The point is that we don't know what's happening, and those that state that they DO know that Earth is warming and collectively tell the rest of the world what to do are jumping to conclusions at best. Are there better ways to use and safeguard our resources? Most assuredly, but the current parade of folks telling us how that will impact Earth aren't particularly helpful because they don't know.

Earth seems to have a pretty sophisticated system of absorbing and/or converting carbon (which I presume you are referring to when you broadly state "pollution".) Between large bodies of water, plantlife etc, there is a continual conversion going on...that much I'm sure we all agree upon. And I'm sure we all agree that climate change is inevitable regardless of what humans do. The interesting thing is that the vast majority of "greenhouse gas" that exists is of course water vapor. Which, all by itself, has regulating effects. Nonetheless, all the research has to do w/ carbon and yet it's a small component of the overall puzzle. Yes, I have doubts about whether Earth is warming overall. I have even more serious doubts about whether the cause is human. What I don't doubt, is that climate is changing, and the impacts in many cases are not positive because we have grown more dependent upon climate remaining relatively uniform.

[Stormcrow]

From everything I read I believe the earth's climate is getting warmer. Your post is a red herring. I certainly don't, nor do I think others who've posted here think, that man is THE SOLE CAUSE of global warming.

My opinion is that the earth is going through a naturally occurring period of warming which is being accelerated by the tons and tons of pollution released into the atmosphere. As you doubt that "global warming is definitively happening" what means do you think the earth has for absorbing pollution?

The ocean is a vast and very efficient carbon sequestration system. Biologists are witnessing it at work as various plankton and algae blooms proliferate. The action of carbon sequestration in the ocean is one possible mechanism cited in coral die-offs.

One predicted aspect of global warming that is not holding up under empirical scrutiny just yet is the slowing of the Gulf Stream and other thermal energy movers. In fact, one recent researcher using a fairly large array of automated sensors has failed to show any changes in velocity of the deep ocean cold water return current. It's not out of the question that minor changes in the chemical makeup have enhanced thermal absorption rates to compensate for the anticipated effects of both warming upper latitudes and salinity decrease resulting from glacial melting.

[EJC]

The ocean is a vast and very efficient carbon sequestration system. Biologists are witnessing it at work as various plankton and algae blooms proliferate. The action of carbon sequestration in the ocean is one possible mechanism cited in coral die-offs.

One predicted aspect of global warming that is not holding up under empirical scrutiny just yet is the slowing of the Gulf Stream and other thermal energy movers. In fact, one recent researcher using a fairly large array of automated sensors has failed to show any changes in velocity of the deep ocean cold water return current. It's not out of the question that minor changes in the chemical makeup have enhanced thermal absorption rates to compensate for the anticipated effects of both warming upper latitudes and salinity decrease resulting from glacial melting.

This is part of what interests me. What actually happens as salinity decreases. I've read loads of theories on the net result of this.

[turboturtle]

This is part of what interests me. What actually happens as salinity decreases. I've read loads of theories on the net result of this.

Water tastes less salty and freezes at a higher temperature.

[EJC]

Water tastes less salty and freezes at a higher temperature.

.....which would make you think that it would become ice again....

[turboturtle]

.....which would make you think that it would become ice again....

If it gets cold enough, it should. At least that is what the scientists say...

[Architect]

.....which would make you think that it would become ice again....

Good one!

[Stormcrow]

This is part of what interests me. What actually happens as salinity decreases. I've read loads of theories on the net result of this.

It's a couple of factors. First, the heat capacity will decrease so the total amount of energy the ocean can absorb in the tropics will go down meaning less energy will be available to the Gulf Stream and other prime energy moving currents. Secondly, density will decrease with most of that coming in the early stages of the global warming event at the polar regions. This will prevent the cool water return from penetrating to the same depth it does today. This is will prevent the current from giving up the same amount of energy to the polar regions it does today. Both of the factors, it is believed, will cause a gradual slowing of the Gulf Stream until it possibly stops entirely. Now here's the real kicker, when the Gulf Stream ceases moving energy from the tropics to the poles, the polar regions will rapidly cool and we get another ice age.

As a guy who's done a LOT of thermal analysis, I'd say there's another possibility: the gulf stream will react to the decreasing density in the northern latitudes by extending further north and still moving about the same amount of energy it does today. This could actually result in enhanced polar melting.

It's a very complex system and without a top notch numerical model we can qualitatively analize it to death and the best scientists will probably still be wrong. Even our best numerical climatalogical models are riding on a ton of assumptions that will not be resolved without a lot more research.

[EJC]

It's a couple of factors. First, the heat capacity will decrease so the total amount of energy the ocean can absorb in the tropics will go down meaning less energy will be available to the Gulf Stream and other prime energy moving currents. Secondly, density will decrease with most of that coming in the early stages of the global warming event at the polar regions. This will prevent the cool water return from penetrating to the same depth it does today. This is will prevent the current from giving up the same amount of energy to the polar regions it does today. Both of the factors, it is believed, will cause a gradual slowing of the Gulf Stream until it possibly stops entirely. Now here's the real kicker, when the Gulf Stream ceases moving energy from the tropics to the poles, the polar regions will rapidly cool and we get another ice age.

As a guy who's done a LOT of thermal analysis, I'd say there's another possibility: the gulf stream will react to the decreasing density in the northern latitudes by extending further north and still moving about the same amount of energy it does today. This could actually result in enhanced polar melting.

It's a very complex system and without a top notch numerical model we can qualitatively analize it to death and the best scientists will probably still be wrong. Even our best numerical climatalogical models are riding on a ton of assumptions that will not be resolved without a lot more research.

Yup, these are a couple scenarios I've read about. Your last paragraph sums up my feelings pretty well except that I don't know that a lot more research will actually yield accurate assumptions. Meanwhile, it seems likely that anything we do to counteract these changes will have unintended consequences. See ethanol as a prime example.