Global warming my a...

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I had to kill some time and went and saw the latest Al Gore climate change movie. Aside from being a major Al Gore self promotion video, as well as presenting some simplistic solutions (Solar City company with technology sharing rights to India), it did essentially focus on the fact that the massive amounts of human pollution we see are coming out of the developing world.

There was a scene where Gore and his side kick were talking to a large Indian delegation which included the Indian energy minister who had a plan on the books for 400 new coal powered electrical plants. Gore was trying to convince them to go solar......

Anyway, I don't think anyone disputes that humans are contributing massively to environmental pollution, the ramifications of which are perhaps unknown to a large extent, but not good for sure.

What gets obfuscated in the media is whether we are seeing current day changes to temperatures as a direct result of that, or whether this is part of well known/verified natural cycles in global temperatures (or both). That's what seems to get politicized. Just my 2 cents.
 
partydoc said:
Need a ccm/cardiac guy in about a year?

I can do without the ccm
Click to expand...
Absofrigginglutely I do. I can use both!

PM me if you're serious. Anybody else want a job in paradise? You'll be warm, though I can't guarantee there won't be the occasional sharknado.
 
The hubris that causes some members of the public to not believe overwhelming and worldwide physician/scientist consensus on healthcare related matters (ie vaccines, the benefit of statins, etc) is the same hubris that causes some to not believe the overwhelming and worldwide consensus of climate scientists on global warming: the mentality that the experts who've spent their lives studying this field know less than me and my anecdotal evidence.
 
GA8314 said:
I had to kill some time and went and saw the latest Al Gore climate change movie. Aside from being a major Al Gore self promotion video, as well as presenting some simplistic solutions (Solar City company with technology sharing rights to India), it did essentially focus on the fact that the massive amounts of human pollution we see are coming out of the developing world.

There was a scene where Gore and his side kick were talking to a large Indian delegation which included the Indian energy minister who had a plan on the books for 400 new coal powered electrical plants. Gore was trying to convince them to go solar......

Anyway, I don't think anyone disputes that humans are contributing massively to environmental pollution, the ramifications of which are perhaps unknown to a large extent, but not good for sure.

What gets obfuscated in the media is whether we are seeing current day changes to temperatures as a direct result of that, or whether this is part of well known/verified natural cycles in global temperatures (or both). That's what seems to get politicized. Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...
You got to love the politicians. They love the global warming story because they can use it to tax oil and CO2 emissions. If it's too hot it's due to global warming, too cold it's due to global warming, and anything in between is also due to global warming. And now with the electric car they are concerned that gas utilization will go down and hence tax collection. Now they want to tax by the mile driven to get money out of people causing less "global warming" by driving electric than their tax collections estimates allow.

It's all about taxes. Nothing else.
 
urge said:
You got to love the politicians. They love the global warming story because they can use it to tax oil and CO2 emissions. If it's too hot it's due to global warming, too cold it's due to global warming, and anything in between is also due to global warming. And now with the electric car they are concerned that gas utilization will go down and hence tax collection. Now they want to tax by the mile driven to get money out of people causing less "global warming" by driving electric than their tax collections estimates allow.

It's all about taxes. Nothing else.
Click to expand...

Or it's about them not wanting to leave the Earth uninhabitable and a place where their grandkids will not be able to live.
 
i have a patient who is a professor emeritus of geology and has spent his career studying ice ages and climate science. He's well respected and an amazing guy. I love any chance I get to pick his brain. Two years ago we were talking about the future of weather in the Northeast. I expressed my hope that "global warming" might lead to milder winters here. He said unfortunately we will probably see more arctic blasts and heavy snowfall. The reason being that the relative warming of the arctic is leading to more mixing of arctic air with the jet stream. That leads to what we're seeing now, deep cold spells and heavy snowfall. We can look forward to more of the same.
 
Simple explanation from Popular Mechanics article the other day (sorry, unable to paste link):

So why is it so cold? It may seem like an easy joke to make a pun about global warming, but actually increasing temperatures are partly to blame. Of course sometimes it justgets cold in winter, but a lot of the extreme weather the Northeast is experiencing right now has to do with climate change.

As the Arctic—and the rest of the globe—gets warmer, these changing temperatures can have an effect on the jet stream, the band of air that travels west to east, typically near the U.S. border with Canada. Normally, it acts like a barrier, keeping cold Arctic air trapped in the northern latitudes and away from most of the people on the East Coast. At least, in theory.

In practice, a warming Arctic strains the jet stream’s ability to keep all that cold polar air locked away in the north. When the jet stream falters, that polar air can make its way south, sometimes as far as the Gulf Coast. And over the next week or so, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Take a look at these air pressure maps of North America:

5dayfcst500-wbg-1514564774.gif
5dayfcst500-wbg-1514564774.gif

Atmospheric pressure maps of North America, from Sunday Dec 31 through Thursday Jan 4.
DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP/WPC
These maps show that air from the far north of Canada is flowing south into the American Midwest and Northeast, which is why it’s so cold outside right now. Normally the jet stream keeps that air confined to Canada, but thanks to climate change it's taking a hard right after passing the Rockies and heading south almost to the Gulf Coast.

So if you’re stuck outside on the East Coast this week freezing your extremities off, you can thank global warming.
 
not that I disagree, but if it was unseasonably warm this week, climate change/global warming would also be cited as the cause.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwk
bellevueperson said:
Simple explanation from Popular Mechanics article the other day (sorry, unable to paste link):

So why is it so cold? It may seem like an easy joke to make a pun about global warming, but actually increasing temperatures are partly to blame. Of course sometimes it justgets cold in winter, but a lot of the extreme weather the Northeast is experiencing right now has to do with climate change.

As the Arctic—and the rest of the globe—gets warmer, these changing temperatures can have an effect on the jet stream, the band of air that travels west to east, typically near the U.S. border with Canada. Normally, it acts like a barrier, keeping cold Arctic air trapped in the northern latitudes and away from most of the people on the East Coast. At least, in theory.

In practice, a warming Arctic strains the jet stream’s ability to keep all that cold polar air locked away in the north. When the jet stream falters, that polar air can make its way south, sometimes as far as the Gulf Coast. And over the next week or so, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. Take a look at these air pressure maps of North America:

5dayfcst500-wbg-1514564774.gif
5dayfcst500-wbg-1514564774.gif

Atmospheric pressure maps of North America, from Sunday Dec 31 through Thursday Jan 4.
DOC/NOAA/NWS/NCEP/WPC
These maps show that air from the far north of Canada is flowing south into the American Midwest and Northeast, which is why it’s so cold outside right now. Normally the jet stream keeps that air confined to Canada, but thanks to climate change it's taking a hard right after passing the Rockies and heading south almost to the Gulf Coast.

So if you’re stuck outside on the East Coast this week freezing your extremities off, you can thank global warming.
Click to expand...
There are others who disagree but which side of the story do you think politicians like?

World will start COOLING DOWN in 2017, claims one of planet's top climate change experts

Global Warming Petition Project
 
dr doze said:
not that I disagree, but if it was unseasonably warm this week, climate change/global warming would also be cited as the cause.
Click to expand...
Too hot, too cold, or just perfect, it's all due to global warming.

You got that right.
 
Deny, deny, deny.... but why?

Climate misinformer: David Evans

David Evans
"David Evans gained media attention after a 2008 article he wrote in The Australian titled ”No smoking hot spot.” The article claims that climate change is not caused by C02 emissions because there is no evidence of “a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics.” [3]

His claim has been thoroughly debunked by Tim Lambert, a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales. [4]

From 1999 to 2005, Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. [1]

While Evans said ”[He] knows a heck of a lot about modeling and computers,” in a 2007 presentation to the Lavoisier Group, he also states clearly that he is “not a climate modeler.” [5]"
 
Is a warmer climate a bad thing? Does it necessarily mean an uninhabitable earth? Yes, migration from sea level population centers will occur(perhaps over centuries, nothing new in human history) but presumably there would be newly inhabitable parts of the earth. And with that presumably would come new and better conditions for agriculture in what is now inhospitable to farming. Caused by us or not, while some of the consequences might be dire for some in a certain part of history, there is no evidence at all that it would by default be, on a more grand scale, not a good thing, or at least a wash. It's all speculation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jwk
@Ronin786
Cute picture. Daniel Gabriel Farenheit invented the alcohol thermometer in 1709 and then the mercury thermometer a few year later. This was the first reliable quantitative thermometer. Is the earth heating up? Sure. Is it due to industrialism? I don't know.
I'm upset that the Neanderthals didn't control their fires when trying to stay warm. we could have had the ice sheets from the ice age. Now we have this less inhabitable planet because they didn't think of us. 😉
 
It's crazy how deep people can stick their heads in the sand without even bothering to put in the most basic of primary research into climate change, and it's even worse for someone in a science-related field to do so. The sheer politicization has become just absurd when somehow believing in climate change is equated with hating 'murica and freedom. However, it isn't surprising that the charge is being led by the same group of folks who in 2017 still deny that evolution is objective fact.

In reality, there are bookshelves of journal articles about the accuracy of long-term global temperature tracking. Ice sheets in polar ice caps have different crystalline H2O structures and entrain different concentrations of atmospheric gases or other trace elements depending on the then current temperature when the sheet was made. These can be traced back 20-30k years, analogous to looking at the rings in a tree trunk cross section. Same goes for earth/rock/other geological deposition analyses. The point of the "cute" picture that ronin posted is that these last 100 years since the start of the industrial revolution have seen an enormous p<0.0001 deviation in global temperature trend which is unlikely to be explained by the random, slow-moving climate processes. The parsimonious (and likely correct) explanation is that the deviation is anthropogenic in nature. But what I really can't understand for the life of me is that even if someone wanted to deny that climate change is anthropogenic, does the person not think pollution itself is still harmful on a more microgeologic or public health scale? Shouldn't everyone want to limit the amount of toxic **** we're pumping into the air/soil/water regardless of whether the greenhouse effect is causing something potentially catastrophic? IJDGI
 
vector2 said:
It's crazy how deep people can stick their heads in the sand without even bothering to put in the most basic of primary research into climate change, and it's even worse for someone in a science-related field to do so. The sheer politicization has become just absurd when somehow believing in climate change is equated with hating 'murica and freedom. However, it isn't surprising that the charge is being led by the same group of folks who in 2017 still deny that evolution is objective fact.

But what I really can't understand for the life of me is that even if someone wanted to deny that climate change is anthropogenic, does the person not think pollution itself is still harmful on a more microgeologic or public health scale? Shouldn't everyone want to limit the amount of toxic **** we're pumping into the air/soil/water regardless of whether the greenhouse effect is causing something potentially catastrophic? IJDGI
Click to expand...

Very well written response. I'm generally indifferent on the topic. I'm not confirming or denying the anthropgenecity of climate change. Re-read my post and view it in the lens of jest.
 
pgg said:
It snowed here last night. I'm gonna start using more desflurane.
Click to expand...

Not to sidetrack discussion, but has anyone else considered reducing/eliminating desflurane use in most cases given the recent (granted, small) Lancet study?

The impact of surgery on global climate: a carbon footprinting study of operating theatres in three health systems
Andrea J MacNeill, MD'Correspondence information about the author MD Andrea J MacNeillEmail the author MD Andrea J MacNeill, Robert Lillywhite, Prof Carl J Brown, MD

Background
Climate change is a major global public health priority. The delivery of health-care services generates considerable greenhouse gas emissions. Operating theatres are a resource-intensive subsector of health care, with high energy demands, consumable throughput, and waste volumes. The environmental impacts of these activities are generally accepted as necessary for the provision of quality care, but have not been examined in detail. In this study, we estimate the carbon footprint of operating theatres in hospitals in three health systems.

Methods
Surgical suites at three academic quaternary-care hospitals were studied over a 1-year period in Canada (Vancouver General Hospital, VGH), the USA (University of Minnesota Medical Center, UMMC), and the UK (John Radcliffe Hospital, JRH). Greenhouse gas emissions were estimated using primary activity data and applicable emissions factors, and reported according to the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

Findings
Site greenhouse gas evaluations were done between Jan 1 and Dec 31, 2011. The surgical suites studied were found to have annual carbon footprints of 5 187 936 kg of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) at JRH, 4 181 864 kg of CO2e at UMMC, and 3 218 907 kg of CO2e at VGH. On a per unit area basis, JRH had the lowest carbon intensity at 1702 kg CO2e/m2, compared with 1951 kg CO2e/m2 at VGH and 2284 kg CO2e/m2 at UMMC. Based on case volumes at all three sites, VGH had the lowest carbon intensity per operation at 146 kg CO2e per case compared with 173 kg CO2e per case at JRH and 232 kg CO2e per case at UMMC. Anaesthetic gases and energy consumption were the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions. Preferential use of desflurane resulted in a ten-fold difference in anaesthetic gas emissions between hospitals. Theatres were found to be three to six times more energy-intense than the hospital as a whole, primarily due to heating, ventilation, and air conditioning requirements. Overall, the carbon footprint of surgery in the three countries studied is estimated to be 9·7 million tonnes of CO2e per year.

Interpretation
Operating theatres are an appreciable source of greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions reduction strategies including avoidance of desflurane and occupancy-based ventilation have the potential to lessen the climate impact of surgical services without compromising patient safety.
 
When a vegan who bikes to work lectures me about desflurane and the environment, I listen.

When a carnivore who drives a car to work does, I tune out.

Cow farts>>>>>>desflurane wrt greenhouse gas
 
Hawaiian Bruin said:
When a vegan who bikes to work lectures me about desflurane and the environment, I listen.

When a carnivore who drives a car to work does, I tune out.

Cow farts>>>>>>desflurane wrt greenhouse gas
Click to expand...

True. Beef is only for special occasions when eating out and my commute is too long to bike, so I drive a Volt (nowhere to charge in our apartment building, so couldn't go full electric). 😉 But I figure even a small difference over a 20- to 30-year career amounts to something.
 
Dusn said:
The hubris that causes some members of the public to not believe overwhelming and worldwide physician/scientist consensus on healthcare related matters (ie vaccines, the benefit of statins, etc) is the same hubris that causes some to not believe the overwhelming and worldwide consensus of climate scientists on global warming: the mentality that the experts who've spent their lives studying this field know less than me and my anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

Statins as primary prevention? Look at the data.

The government, taking cues from flawed research in the 60's and 70's, had adopted a food pyramid which was widely circulated, publicized, and promoted. This favored, again via some majorly flawed research, a higher carbohydrate low fat diet. Look at the results of the institutionalization of the low fat dietary recommendations on human health in the US. In spite of these "results", the ADA and other institutions have continued to largely promote the same recommendations, albeit with some minor, begrudging changes.

It's not hubris to question, and challenge research and status quo thinking. You as a physician should know this already.
 
Hawaiian Bruin said:
Absofrigginglutely I do. I can use both!

PM me if you're serious. Anybody else want a job in paradise? You'll be warm, though I can't guarantee there won't be the occasional sharknado.
Click to expand...

Need a pain/regional guy?
 
Hawaiian Bruin said:
Absofrigginglutely I do. I can use both!

PM me if you're serious. Anybody else want a job in paradise? You'll be warm, though I can't guarantee there won't be the occasional sharknado.
Click to expand...
Dude, the taxes alone. Thought about it. Then thought I would rather keep my money and take vacation there.
It’s beautiful looking though. And you can grow year round!
Locums CCM?
Did you hire a guy recently who trained in NM?
 
vector2 said:
It's crazy how deep people can stick their heads in the sand without even bothering to put in the most basic of primary research into climate change, and it's even worse for someone in a science-related field to do so. The sheer politicization has become just absurd when somehow believing in climate change is equated with hating 'murica and freedom. However, it isn't surprising that the charge is being led by the same group of folks who in 2017 still deny that evolution is objective fact.

In reality, there are bookshelves of journal articles about the accuracy of long-term global temperature tracking. Ice sheets in polar ice caps have different crystalline H2O structures and entrain different concentrations of atmospheric gases or other trace elements depending on the then current temperature when the sheet was made. These can be traced back 20-30k years, analogous to looking at the rings in a tree trunk cross section. Same goes for earth/rock/other geological deposition analyses. The point of the "cute" picture that ronin posted is that these last 100 years since the start of the industrial revolution have seen an enormous p<0.0001 deviation in global temperature trend which is unlikely to be explained by the random, slow-moving climate processes. The parsimonious (and likely correct) explanation is that the deviation is anthropogenic in nature. But what I really can't understand for the life of me is that even if someone wanted to deny that climate change is anthropogenic, does the person not think pollution itself is still harmful on a more microgeologic or public health scale? Shouldn't everyone want to limit the amount of toxic **** we're pumping into the air/soil/water regardless of whether the greenhouse effect is causing something potentially catastrophic? IJDGI
Click to expand...

It's Dunning-Kruger's obscure cousin, the backfire effect.
 
@urge

maybe its because sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, but you appear to be dead-set on denying the science of climate change.

i don't get it. why do people who have no background in geography, climate change, modeling feel compelled to present their opinions on this matter. why can't you listen to the experts?

your remarks are about as intelligent as that goofball Inhofe who brought a snowball into senate as evidence that climate change does not exist

imagine if a lay person comes to you and starts spouting nonsense about your field. what would you think?
 
Last edited:
eikenhein said:
@urge

maybe its because sarcasm doesn't translate well over the internet, but you appear to be dead-set on denying the science of climate change.

i don't get it. why do people who have no background in geography, climate change, modeling feel compelled to present their opinions on this matter. why can't you listen to the experts?

your remarks are about as intelligent as that goofball Inhofe who brought a snowball into senate as evidence that climate change does not exist

imagine if a lay person comes to you and starts spouting nonsense about your field. what would you think?
Click to expand...

urge is a 9/11 Truther, thinks the moon landings were faked, and thinks the Catholic Church has secret knowledge of alien visitors.

Wacky stuff about climate science isn't even the weirdest thing he believes.
 
urge said:
I's not what I think. Earth has been getting colder since year 2000.
Click to expand...
Just to confirm, do you actually truly believe this or are you just supporting this position in spite of an enormous amount of evidence, because for some ridiculous reason this topic has somehow become a Republican rallying cry?

13 of the last 14 warmest years on record occurred since 2000. You can argue if Humans are the cause, but you can't argue with the data.
 
This thread blows my mind. It's like listening to religious evolution deniers try to explain bacterial evolution
 
facted said:
Just to confirm, do you actually truly believe this or are you just supporting this position in spite of an enormous amount of evidence, because for some ridiculous reason this topic has somehow become a Republican rallying cry?

13 of the last 14 warmest years on record occurred since 2000. You can argue if Humans are the cause, but you can't argue with the data.
Click to expand...
Not political.

Global warming models have been wrong and it is publicly known that "global warming scientists" have been tampering with temperature readings. CO2 level is just a small fraction of the issue. Most of earth's temperature is due to solar activity which has been declining for years.

While these guys are spouting global warming, people are freezing to death and the crops are going bad. And this is only beginning.

I acknowledge this is not an easy subject for people who cannot think for themselves.

Good article if you can remove your blinders and consider the other side.:
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
 
You
urge said:
Not political.

Global warming models have been wrong and it is publicly known that "global warming scientists" have been tampering with temperature readings. CO2 level is just a small fraction of the issue. Most of earth's temperature is due to solar activity which has been declining for years.

While these guys are spouting global warming, people are freezing to death and the crops are going bad. And this is only beginning.

I acknowledge this is not an easy subject for people who cannot think for themselves.

Good article if you can remove your blinders and consider the other side.:
Sorry Global Warming Alarmists, The Earth Is Cooling
Click to expand...
Your article is about what the Heartland institute thinks? The same institute that is sponsored by the oil companies and the Koch brothers?

I'm clearly not going to convince how ridiculous your position is. Just look around the world at melting glaciers, decreasing sea ice extent, and rising sea water (this is VERY real. Look up what's happening already in South Florida during king tide periods). If you can't see what's around you and are being blinded by data put out by oil companies whose survival and profits are dependent on you falling for it, then I can't help you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
My story/ advice/ help (Edited)
Replies
32
Views
3K
UscGhost
U
Drwine
Was this a resident pretending to be a Starbucks employee? ;)
Replies
1
Views
590
Lab Lover
L
L
CRNAs - a blessing or a curse.... we have created a monster
2 3 4
Replies
158
Views
20K
lotsapain
L
R
Salary for a Program Director
Replies
30
Views
3K
zizzer
Z
A
Texas is a mess
2
Replies
75
Views
8K
Status Sciaticus
Status Sciaticus
Top