Atmospheric Science, the weather, and global warming - Page 3

Alex · 08-23-2006, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

It is designed to give the perception that global warming is causing killer hurricanes.

No, it is to say that global warming is going to cause massive hurricanes. It is impossible to pin any individual hurricane on global warming but if global warming sets in to a sufficient degree it is pretty much accepted by everybody that the hurricanes will be bigger.

Kind of like it is impossible to pin any individual case of lung cancer on smoking, but smoking certainly causes plenty of lung cancer.

scaeagles · 08-23-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

No, it is to say that global warming is going to cause massive hurricanes.

The the relatively educated, certainly. To the uneducated masses, though, knowing that the movie is about global warming, and knowing that there were lots of big hurricanes recently, the conclusion most easily reached is that global warming is causing these big hurricanes now.

Cadaverous Pallor · 08-23-2006, 08:25 PM

I agree with Leo about scare tactics and linking stuff to recent catastrophes.

As usual with this kind of thing I am not surprised and I'm not horrified. People from all sides have used scare tactics torn from the headlines of the day to push their causes. One could even argue that in the face of a moral dilemma, it's not immoral to use these tactics, as long as it wakes people up. One could argue this but I'm not sure I'd swallow it.

I don't pretend to know whether it's right or wrong, but I do know it's expected. Just like politicians and salesmen lying.

This all has nothing to do with global warming or anything else, it's just a fact.

innerSpaceman · 08-23-2006, 08:26 PM

hate to break it to you, scaeagles ... but the uneducated masses are not the folks who are going to be exposed to An Inconvenient Truth.

scaeagles · 08-23-2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

hate to break it to you, scaeagles ... but the uneducated masses are not the folks who are going to be exposed to An Inconvenient Truth.

But the posters with the hurricane....I'd bet they have seen the posters.

innerSpaceman · 08-23-2006, 08:46 PM

Even I haven't seen the posters.

SacTown Chronic · 08-23-2006, 08:48 PM

Leo tore them all down to protect the children.

Alex · 08-23-2006, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

The the relatively educated, certainly. To the uneducated masses, though, knowing that the movie is about global warming, and knowing that there were lots of big hurricanes recently, the conclusion most easily reached is that global warming is causing these big hurricanes now.

So who is to blame for stupid people jumping to conclusions? And why aren't they educated. All they need to do is take 90 minutes before just assuming that their preferred pundit will tell them the truth about how awful/wonderful it is.

Atmospheric scientists have been spending the last 15 years trying to "educate" people on what they believe is happening and what it may mean. It's their fault that the idiots of the world prefer to get their opinions from talk radio and network political dramas?

Frogberto · 08-23-2006, 10:09 PM

It's a matter of being safe rather than sorry. We know that human activities release carbon. We also know that carbon is released in a natural cycle. What we CAN do, is to minimize the compound effects of both together, by doing at least the following:

1. Making industry more efficient; and
2. Exploring alternative non carbon energy and fuels.

What's wrong with either? Industries seek efficiency anyway, and nobody wants to be burning coal, or petroleum, in 100 years either.

Part of the problem could be human activity, but its a compound effect that worries scientists in the field. To quote one of 8 articles on the problem from this month's Scientific American:

"Retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, thinner polar bears: the ominous harbingers of global warming are driving companies and governments to work toward an unprecedented change in the historical pattern of fossil-fuel use. Faster and faster, year after year for two centuries, human beings have been transferring carbon to the atmosphere from below the surface of the earth. Today the world's coal, oil and natural gas industries dig up and pump out about seven billion tons of carbon a year, and society burns nearly all of it, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). Ever more people are convinced that prudence dictates a reversal of the present course of rising CO2 emissions.

The boundary separating the truly dangerous consequences of emissions from the merely unwise is probably located near a doubling of the concentration of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in the 18th century, before the Industrial Revolution began. Every increase in concentration carries new risks, but avoiding that danger zone would reduce the likelihood of triggering major, irreversible climate changes, such as the disappearance of the Greenland ice cap."

scaeagles · 08-24-2006, 05:40 AM

Conservation is fine. Efficiency is fine. Alternative sources of energy are even preferable. It is not my point to say that these things are not. I am merely saying that climate change happens, and it has happened long before man pumped one spec of CO2 into the atmosphere (or any other gas). I think it is futile to think we have the capability to stop or affect this on a global scale.

08-23-2006, 08:25 PM	#23
Cadaverous Pallor ohhhh baby Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Parental Bliss Posts: 12,364	I agree with Leo about scare tactics and linking stuff to recent catastrophes. As usual with this kind of thing I am not surprised and I'm not horrified. People from all sides have used scare tactics torn from the headlines of the day to push their causes. One could even argue that in the face of a moral dilemma, it's not immoral to use these tactics, as long as it wakes people up. One could argue this but I'm not sure I'd swallow it. I don't pretend to know whether it's right or wrong, but I do know it's expected. Just like politicians and salesmen lying. This all has nothing to do with global warming or anything else, it's just a fact. __________________ The second star to the right shines in the night for you
	Submit to Quotes

08-23-2006, 08:26 PM	#24
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	hate to break it to you, scaeagles ... but the uneducated masses are not the folks who are going to be exposed to An Inconvenient Truth.
	Submit to Quotes

08-23-2006, 08:46 PM	#26
innerSpaceman Kink of Swank Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Inner Space Posts: 13,075	Even I haven't seen the posters.
	Submit to Quotes

08-23-2006, 08:48 PM	#27
SacTown Chronic the myth of the dream Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 2,217	Leo tore them all down to protect the children.
	Submit to Quotes

08-23-2006, 10:09 PM	#29
Frogberto Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 63	It's a matter of being safe rather than sorry. We know that human activities release carbon. We also know that carbon is released in a natural cycle. What we CAN do, is to minimize the compound effects of both together, by doing at least the following: 1. Making industry more efficient; and 2. Exploring alternative non carbon energy and fuels. What's wrong with either? Industries seek efficiency anyway, and nobody wants to be burning coal, or petroleum, in 100 years either. Part of the problem could be human activity, but its a compound effect that worries scientists in the field. To quote one of 8 articles on the problem from this month's Scientific American: "Retreating glaciers, stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, thinner polar bears: the ominous harbingers of global warming are driving companies and governments to work toward an unprecedented change in the historical pattern of fossil-fuel use. Faster and faster, year after year for two centuries, human beings have been transferring carbon to the atmosphere from below the surface of the earth. Today the world's coal, oil and natural gas industries dig up and pump out about seven billion tons of carbon a year, and society burns nearly all of it, releasing carbon dioxide (CO2). Ever more people are convinced that prudence dictates a reversal of the present course of rising CO2 emissions. The boundary separating the truly dangerous consequences of emissions from the merely unwise is probably located near a doubling of the concentration of CO2 that was in the atmosphere in the 18th century, before the Industrial Revolution began. Every increase in concentration carries new risks, but avoiding that danger zone would reduce the likelihood of triggering major, irreversible climate changes, such as the disappearance of the Greenland ice cap."
	Submit to Quotes

08-24-2006, 05:40 AM	#30
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	Conservation is fine. Efficiency is fine. Alternative sources of energy are even preferable. It is not my point to say that these things are not. I am merely saying that climate change happens, and it has happened long before man pumped one spec of CO2 into the atmosphere (or any other gas). I think it is futile to think we have the capability to stop or affect this on a global scale.
	Submit to Quotes