http://decaflon.com/notes/ Decaflon Thread: About the Dust Bowl and Humans' Roles in Reversing Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change en Sat, 06 Sep 2008 21:42:08 +0000 http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-114603 Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:17:41 tds 114603 <p>I'm not really sure if you got an answer to your question, and I'm reluctant to wade in because it's too easy to get caught up attempting to counter "arguments" that are essentially a waste of time... oops. there I go. </p> <p>As I am sure you know, when we burn fossil fuels we are burning stored carbon that we're pulling up from the ground - either in the form of oil, coal, or natural gas. </p> <p>The carbon cycle on earth is a closed system. All that carbon in the ground was once in the atmosphere or in some form of organic living matter on earth. </p> <p>Over hundreds of thousands, millions, of years, that carbon was removed from the atmosphere and sequestered in the ground. </p> <p>Over the last 150 or 200 years we've belched back into the atmosphere the carbon that took millions of years to get into the ground. </p> <p>I suppose there are people that will somehow deny that simple fact, but there you go, human activity is altering a natural cycle. </p> <p>Of course, it is much more complex than that. But too many seem to get caught up in the word "theory" when it comes to climate science. A fundamental misunderstanding of science is that there is anything that is <a href="http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/blog/2007/12/09/news-flash-science-on-gravity-not-settled-attempts-to-dispute-einstein-continue/">NOT a theory in science</a>. Scientist are still studying the theory of gravity, but you don't see anyone attributing the study to left-wing Al Gore loving scientists out ot made a buck with <a href="http://www.properlychastised.com/2008/03/10/one-of-the-ten-worst-jobs-in-science-and-one-of-the-best-scientists-chastise-man-has-met/">grant money</a>. </p> <p>There is plenty of empirical evidence of climate change - as in the arctic from which I recently returned assisting a scientific expedition - but people get caught up in localized weather and the political agenda of the likes of James Imhoff - or simply stop at Al Gore - to find out what scientists on the ground are doing and saying. </p> <p>Anyway, I've gone off like I promised I wouldn't. If you really want to find out about climate change, you should check out an excellent series of videos produced by a science teacher on YouTube. His moniker on YT is <a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=AE6Kdo1AQmY">WonderMind42</a> and you can find his stuff here. There's a lot to listen to and I'd suggest you take the time, but if not, listen to at least some of what he has to say. It will explain the science and give you some things to think about. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113182 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:37:09 RightOn 113182 <p>I'm not sure how many here have actually seen "An Inconvenient Truth", but like most theories it's always best to look at competing theories and compare the data and come to your own conclusions.</p> <p>By far the best alternative theory documentary out there that I have see is the <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4302904746669786959">Great Global Warming Swindle</a>. The title REALLY should be changed as it's not an anti-warming movie more than it is a film about solar impact and how data from folks like Gore is flat out misleading. It's only about an hour long. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113177 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:21:34 shadowsun7 113177 <blockquote><p>I think what's significant this time around is that we realize what's going on. We can do things to change what's happening, however, I don't think we can fix it. Maybe slow down the climate change or at least make it not as bad as it could be.</p></blockquote> <p>The scary thing is that by slowing it down we might actually speed something else up. Or freeze some other vital environmental cycle. Or wipe out all the butterflies in Australia. Or something along that lines. I've just realize this can be a really fascinating line of work. Very exciting, because you don't know what's going to happen next.</p> <blockquote><p>Why don't we experiment with climate change on mars before we screw up our own house?</p></blockquote> <p>I can just imagine the headlines, Ozone: <strong>Rabbit Overpopulation Threatens Climate On Mars.</strong> </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113172 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:04:13 joshawesome 113172 <p>I don't remember where I heard this, but I'll look it up eventually, I just want to get this out, but, the Earth has undergone several climate changes, as it's been pointed out above. It goes in cycles. Like it's been mentioned, the keywords used in global warming studies are critical. There is a lot left to learn about what's happening right now. Do I believe in Global Warming? Yes. But I'm not so sure if it's part of the Earth's natural cycle or if it's a combination of the cycle and what we've been doing to contribute. Can we adapt? Yes. </p> <p>I think what's significant this time around is that we realize what's going on. We can do things to change what's happening, however, I don't think we can fix it. Maybe slow down the climate change or at least make it not as bad as it could be. </p> <p>I'm not one of those all-out "warmistas" but I do believe that we should try to make the Earth cleaner. I'm not really a huge fan of...dirtiness. </p> <p>I can't get the image to load, <a href="http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/04_1.shtml">but maybe this is where I heard it</a>. I sat in on one of my ex-girlfriend's classes. This was it. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113171 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 06:44:30 shadowsun7 113171 <p>Hey, even Time launched a 'Global Warming' issue not too long ago. It's very easy to vilify deniers - all the conventional wisdom in the world points towards the big, bad threat of climate change. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113151 Fri, 28 Mar 2008 01:50:16 RightOn 113151 <p>Oh, and according to Prince Gore himself, those of us in the evil "deniers" clan are like those people who thought the earth was flat or that the Moon landing was staged. Apparently it's an indisputable fact that Man is the sole motivating factor behind "global warming". Whooda Thunkit. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113137 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:30:02 RightOn 113137 <p>I could toss another stick on the fire by mentioning this asinine goal of replacing our gasoline addiction with an Ethanol one will have a similar effect due to the strain it will put on agricultural resources worldwide... but that would be too much fun.</p> <p>Oh wait... I DID. ^_^ </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113135 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 22:27:33 auburn 113135 <p>It's an interesting idea to combine how people treat the earth and war because sharing or destroying resources like oil or water may become the root of border and civil war disputes. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113124 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 21:08:18 Ozone42 113124 <p>I actually buy the doomsday theories to a point. I'm not sure what degree our influence has influenced the climate, nor do I think it's necessarily a horrible thing. The earth has been hotter, and colder, and while we are clever little beasts it will continue on without us. We are part of the environment, but we are not it's master.</p> <p>I'm all for climate engineering, I just don't think we're ready. We may have the technology, but not the organization or knowledge. I really think we'd need a unified world government before we can approach things of that magnitude.</p> <p>I don't think it's a bad idea to minimize our impact on the environment, but not to the detriment of our well being. I'll forgo convenience, and I'll spend more to be nicer to the earth but I'm not for plunging the world into wars or depression for the cause. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113121 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:57:01 leliathomas 113121 <p>Anyway, back on topic...given my original evidence, anyone have any other ideas of how we change the tied of something that's apparently always gone on? So far, it seems this is only being answered by those who don't buy into the doomsday theories. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113119 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:52:44 leliathomas 113119 <blockquote><p>No they didn't... If you built a house on a flood plane and it was obliterated and you responded by NOT rebuilding in the same spot, you've learned your lesson. These folks rebuilt in the bowl, and when they get ruined again they'll simply point the finger outside the bowl, and rebuild again.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think a lot of people living their prior to Katrina learned their lesson, actually. The population is not as large as it was, I believe, and many are outsiders rebuilding stuff (which yes, is stupid, but it's Darwin's theory at work).</p> <p>I agree with Ozone. It'd be amazing, if it weren't so arrogant. People living in danger zones (*cough* right on the coasts) need to read some literature that has a theme of man vs. nature. It's always Man: 0, Nature: 1. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113112 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 20:20:52 Ozone42 113112 <p>The fact New Orleans still exists where it does is a monument to human arrogance and stubbornness. I'd cheer it if it wasn't so ridiculous. I always thought it was foolish, but I didn't realize the depth of it until the August 07 issue of National Geographic.</p> <p>New Orleans has been around about 289 years. In that time it has been put underwater <strong>27 times</strong>. Katrina was harsh to it, but this is nothing new. We're just stubborn and foolish humans that think we can do it better next time--instead of actually addressing the problem and moving or rebuilding in a way to deal with the floods that WILL come again. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113111 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:57:37 RightOn 113111 <blockquote><p>People living below sea level in New Orleans learned the unfortunate and hard lesson about that, I think.</p></blockquote> <p>No they didn't... If you built a house on a flood plane and it was obliterated and you responded by NOT rebuilding in the same spot, you've learned your lesson. These folks rebuilt in the bowl, and when they get ruined again they'll simply point the finger outside the bowl, and rebuild again. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113106 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:31:43 leliathomas 113106 <blockquote><p>Every time we've tried to step in and "regulate" a species or "repair" damage caused by a non-native invasive we've just screwed things up much further.</p></blockquote> <p>I think that's because adaptation and evolution occur over courses of millennia, something impossible for humans (with average lifespans up to 100--if we're lucky) to fathom. Whether things become repaired over time or not is sort of a non-issue at times, when you consider how many things go extinct so often, without man's interference.</p> <p>I digress, though. You bring up a point that's important to me as well, that any intended changes we may try may backfire. Of course, that's one of my arguments with global warming, that people think themselves so important and significant that they believe they are affecting (or killing it, according to some) something that has existed for millions of years. Along the same line of self-important thinking, people believe they can change things back to this non-existent time of perfect weather and harmony.</p> <p>But yeah, I agree. No matter what's occurring, we need to learn to adapt, rather than just try to make things bend to what we want them to be. People living below sea level in New Orleans learned the unfortunate and hard lesson about that, I think. You can only make nature bend to your way of life for so long. Every now and again you have to learn to adapt/bend to it. I think we'll have to adapt to this cycle of change, just like we've had to adapt to the Ice Ages and warmer periods of the past.</p> <p>I wonder, though, with all this talk of how we can change everything back to that Wonder Time, if people will be willing to adapt to the changes or just continue to believe that using things like Blackle are changing the world. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113103 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:07:01 Ozone42 113103 <p>Adaptation is key. I think we should continue to study and try to figure out the what/when/where/why/how of climate change but we are nowhere <em>near</em> near the necessary understanding to affect change in a way we can predict.</p> <p>I'm sure we can affect change... but to what end? We don't know. We're not advanced enough yet to be able to have a handle on all the variables involved. We have trouble dealing with much simpler systems. Talk to biologists, especially wildlife workers and conservationists. Every time we've tried to step in and "regulate" a species or "repair" damage caused by a non-native invasive we've just screwed things up much further.</p> <p>I am more terrified with us tinkering with the environment purposefully than even the most dire predictions about global warming.</p> <p>I am all for putting more effort to studying it, especially since all we learn can be used in terraforming other planets for our use. Why don't we experiment with climate change on mars before we screw up our own house? </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113102 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:57:54 RightOn 113102 <p>...and that is a valid concern Auburn, we must adapt to our climate. If you're into gardening or a full blown farm operation, climate isn't a constant so we must adapt or fail miserably. It doesn't work the other way around, you don't make nature adapt to you and THAT is my biggest concern.</p> <p>Man has the audacity to think we rule all and must control all, and as such, I see things becoming extremely devastating for us if man hooks into mother nature. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113098 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 17:34:21 auburn 113098 <p>Whether weather change exists, whether the process is century long and whether people and machines have a role; I am still seeing impact on my little piece of the world. To be more specific, I am interested in gardening and have several raised beds in upstate NY. I used to know very well which plants grew well in my weather (zone 4). Now my area does not get as much snow and rain as before. I need to adapt. I am aware the hundreds of farmed acres in my 'neighborhood' have extreme irrigation problems for the same reason. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113096 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:32:07 RightOn 113096 <p>Since 'edit' seems to be broken I'm adding this...</p> <p>I have no doubt there could have been a natural cause behind the dust bowl, in fact it wouldn't shock me at all... it's the insertion of a human effect on the whole of nature into their theory that I disagree with. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113095 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 16:30:24 RightOn 113095 <blockquote><p>and his colleagues now <strong>think</strong> they know the answer.</p></blockquote> <p>There is a vital keyword in there... and it shows up a LOT in global warming theory, right next to its brothers "might", "could", "possible" and "in theory".</p> <p>The big issue I have with the warmistas is that everything that is based in theory is taken as fact and those who do not agree, are imbeciles or even worse... criminals. </p> <p>The ice caps are supposed to be melting at record rates and we're seeing growth occurring...</p> <p>Hurricanes and devastating tropical weather is supposed to be ravaging our coastlines, but we've had nothing but weak and sometimes completely calm storm seasons since they've run their numbers.</p> <p>The big push now, is to remove the term "warming" from the discussion because it isn't selling well. If it's "warming" and the globe is experiencing strikingly odd COLD weather (Baghdad having its first ever recorded snowfall), it's easier to make someone alter their lifestyle if you tell them that the climate is "CHANGING".</p> <p>It's apparent the climate is changing, but when you're modifying your buzz words every week, pointing to a new "cause" every time I turn around and pushing to criminalize dissent, all to make the theory more marketable... it just reeks of political motive. Ironically, those politicos who buy into it the most tend to be the same folks who speak out against what makes America what it is... (Free Market Capitalism being the BIG target).</p> <p>Mans desire to control everything around him, even the climate is all a big ego trip. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113061 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 11:28:55 shadowsun7 113061 <p>The problem I have with global warming studies is that they never tell us enough. It's like exploring the globe, blind folded, on a lawn mower. And this study is no different: count the number of 'probably's and see 'think they know the answer'. The simple underlying counter-argument to global warming is that <em>we just don't know</em>. We are simply not able to pinpoint the causality of a climate phenomenon because there are too many factors involved. It might be part of a cycle. It might not be part of a cycle. The scary thing is stopping said cycle, and then starting another, more violent one. </p> <p>Mother nature is quite the fickle beast.</p> <p>Urgh. </p> http://decaflon.com/science/notes/13280/p/1/#response-113045 Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:36:30 leliathomas 113045 <p>All right, as many of you who see me post around here already know, I've not bought into the green religion, but that's not really what this post is about, per se, and I'm not looking for any debates, just asking a question.</p> <p>I was thinking about the Dust Bowl earlier, which was said to have been partly caused by farmers' poor crop rotation methods during the time. I was reading up on it a bit more and found <a href="http://www.eurekalert.org/features/kids/2004-03/aaft-wct020805.php">this</a>:</p> <blockquote><p>A first step toward answering [why the Dust Bowl occurred] is to figure out what caused the drought to begin with. Siegfried Schubert of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center and his colleagues now think they know the answer.</p> <p>Using a computer climate model, they discovered that unusual sea surface temperatures in the tropical oceans were probably to blame.</p> <p><strong>These ocean changes may have kicked off a series of climatic events that eventually disrupted the flow of moist air over the Great Plains, the authors suggest.</strong> These findings appear in the 19 March [2004] issue of the journal Science.</p> <p>Recent climate change caused by human activities makes it difficult to predict the likelihood of such a drought occurring again in the near future. <strong>But, evidence from tree rings and lake sediments does suggest that droughts lasting even longer than the Dust Bowl have occurred in the Great Plains approximately once or twice a century for the last 400 years.</strong></p></blockquote> <p>Okay, so, assuming that last sentence is correct, and that oceans take such a large part in changing temperatures and weather patterns, how is it that people are supposed to change something that has been (apparently) happening to the earth for centuries, long before any major industrialization?</p> <p>Any and all answers are welcome, whether you agree with theories of global warming/cooling/climate change or not. </p>