|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: CERN on Global Warming | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 821 days) Posts: 3193 Joined:
|
Who needs science and facts when you have angels and fucking MAGIC!
"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
hooah writes: ........ Who needs science and facts when you have angels andMAGIC! (dots mine for decency) Oh, but isn't it great when science and history attest to the reliability of what you deem magical? Wake up & smell the coffee, bud. BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The Immeasurable Present Eternally Extends the Infinite Past And Infinitely Consumes The Eternal Future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
The study was certainly covered in the media (e.g. BBC). So all we have is a lousy journalist asking why the other press coverage isn"t equally bad...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Here is the important takeaway from that article.
quote: Source I guess this completely undermines the article GDR presented.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9140 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.3 |
Seems like Lorne Gunter does not allow things as trivial as facts to get in the way of his ideology.
Here is a review of a previous column by him.
Fact checking, National Post style: Lorne Gunter on global cooling quote: Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3311 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined:
|
buzsaw writes: ...my hypothesis being a fast emerging pre-flood like greenhouse canopy over the planet... Good lord, buzsaw, not this again. Let's start simple this time. Do you understand how fluid mechanics work? When engineers measure the water pressure at certain depth, what is the primary variable that directly affects the pressure? Please answer this question and you will see how silly the idea of a water canopy over the planet is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3311 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Please email me a pdf. My email is in my profile. Thanks.
Added by edit. Please email to peter_rohn at yahoo dot com. I can no longer access the email in my profile. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 304 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So does this have anything to do with global warming? That depends on whether you ask the scientist who did the actual research or the journalist whose research skills fall short of being able to find out whether journalists are writing about the subject that he (a journalist) is writing about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
As a result of this thread I started getting e-mails from someone who I thought made a great point.
Regardless of how much or how little man is contributing to the problem, global warming is happening. With my own short sightedness I've understood the problem as being a question of how we reduce our emissions and by how much. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering that but I believe it is the case that if we reduced our emissions by 100% global warming would still continue which I think is consistent with that CERN report. With that in mind should we not then say that global warming is happening, regardless of how much we do on the emissions side, and so we should be putting a large focus on how we as a global community are going to deal with that reality? I’m sure there is some of this already going on but frankly I don’t hear anything about it. For example, how would countries like Holland deal with a rise of sea level? I know that a good chunk of the populated world would be under water. How about food supplies etc.? Is anything actually being done or even talked about much? I have heard people outlining the problem but I can’t recall any solutions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
I don't think there is any one plan. There are a number of things being done, not enough though.
There are plenty of things people do as individuals, but as a global issue there seems do be a divide on whether it is real or not. 3rd world countries cannot afford to make many of the improvements to their infrastructure without help/money from other nations. The practices of slash and burn agriculture is how many people live in these nations, I would guess a large portion of the world has no idea about global warming. Another thing to consider is what will happen to Europe when the gulf steam stops. Some models show that happening as more ice melts and salinity and temperature levels get out of wack. Not only will that cause Europe to get colder, it will also probably be disastrous to our N Atlantic fisheries. Just something else to think about. We have a mess on our hands with no clear cut solutions."No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 414 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Agriculture depends to a great extent on consistent long term weather patterns.
Will the temperatures be correct for the crops grown? When should crops be planted and harvested? Will there be sufficient water supply available for irrigation? If weather driven water supply patterns change what will be needed to capture, hold and then distribute the water to where it is needed, when it is needed, in the quantities needed? How long will it take from planning to completion to build new dams? New pipelines? New distribution infrastructure?Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fearandloathing Member (Idle past 4165 days) Posts: 990 From: Burlington, NC, USA Joined: |
All of this directly effects the production of livestock also. Water could be the cause of wars, it is already a source of conflict between nations.
"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson Ad astra per aspera Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering that but I believe it is the case that if we reduced our emissions by 100% global warming would still continue which I think is consistent with that CERN report. The CERN report is not inconsistent with that conclusion, but the CERN report isn't any kind of strong support support for the conclusion either. As I understand from reading discussions on the net, the CERN report suggests a possible mechanism by which the sun can affect galactic cosmic radiation on earth which in turn affects cloud formation. But there is then the problem that there is no historical evidence of any relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and global climate change, while there is considerable evidence of a correlation between global temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations. In other words, the CERN report is way too little to get one's hopes up that man cannot have a substantial effect on reducing or delaying global warming. And it certainly is ridiculous to suggest that CERN is the group doing climate science rather than climate politics. Unfortunately, when it comes to global climate change, reality does seem to have a well known of liberal bias. Edited by NoNukes, : Clarity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3983 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
GDR writes: Regardless of how much or how little man is contributing to the problem, global warming is happening. With my own short sightedness I've understood the problem as being a question of how we reduce our emissions and by how much. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering that but I believe it is the case that if we reduced our emissions by 100% global warming would still continue which I think is consistent with that CERN report. Hi, GDR. I haven't read the CERN report in full, but I presume it speaks to continued global warming in a way that mirrors the scientific consensus. Yes, even if we stop all emissions, global warming will continue, because the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have not yet had their full effect. If we reduce our contributions to that burden, global warming will continue to some specific, unknown point, stop and, one hopes, reverse. If we do not reduce emissions, then global warming will continue longer and to higher temperatures. Think of it as the difference between the world ultimately being mighty unpleasant for a while vs. permanently uninhabitable. Personally, I don't think the necessary changes will occur. The monied interests and the anti-science factions will block any coordinated global efforts. On the one hand, those blocking change for financial reasons won't be here to sustain any losses for their actions, and, on the other, the anti-science folks are perfectly content with the prospect of the world ending with fire this time. I think we can prepare for global warming the same way were taught to prepare for a nuclear blast in the 1950s: huddle under a desk, cover our heads, and kiss our butts goodbye. Edited by Omnivorous, : added the other hand"The brakes are good, the tires are fair."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Huntard Member (Idle past 2315 days) Posts: 2870 From: Limburg, The Netherlands Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Well, not entirely. At least, not what I gather from the net. At least, the report doesn't draw any conclusions about cloud formation. What they tested for was if cosmic rays could nucleate small particles. They found this to be the case, yet they never tested if these nucleated particles would lead to cloud formation. So, yes on the nucleation, no on the cloud formation. At least, not from this report. As I understand from reading discussions on the net, the CERN report suggests a possible mechanism by which the sun can affect galactic cosmic radiation on earth which in turn affects cloud formation. Here's a video on it, also criticising the media's/bloggers handling of this news, and science news in general:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024