More evidence of global warming.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just think it's interesting that when there is an unseasonably warm snap, people claim global warming is the culprit.
Click to expand...
Choose one or more of the following.

1) You actually believe that a cold snap falsifies global warming.

2) You actually believe that the scientific basis for global warming is anecdotal, and the "people" in your sentence refers to researchers.

3) You know very well that the scientific basis of global warming is not anecdotal, and that anecdotes don't prove anything, but your political alignment requires you to take a certain position, and the best you can do is muddy the waters with a deliberately false argument.

4) Other (please show your work).

5) No response/get banned.
 
Mandark said:
Choose one or more of the following.

1) You actually believe that a cold snap falsifies global warming.

2) You actually believe that the scientific basis for global warming is anecdotal, and the "people" in your sentence refers to researchers.

3) You know very well that the scientific basis of global warming is not anecdotal, and that anecdotes don't prove anything, but your political alignment requires you to take a certain position, and the best you can do is muddy the waters with a deliberately false argument.

4) Other (please show your work).

5) No response/get banned.
Click to expand...


*applauds*
 
I look at it this way.

What do we have, mayve 200 years of accurate weather data, and before that some basic information that we can pull from stuff we find?

And with this small amount of information that we have, we're supposed to be able to accurately say that "global warming" is occuring, and that humans are the cause of it? With a planet that is several billion years old?

I call bullshit on that. I just don't think there's enough data. I think there's a possibility that the planet goes through cycles, and we're in one right now.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for global warming to be happening, or for us to be the cause, I just don't think there's enough data right now to say it for sure.
 
:lol

Now, now, now, don't get your panties in a wad.

I saw this story, and remembered someone from a few weeks ago saying Global warming was the cause for 70 degree temps in Atlanta. I thought it was funny how people could think an aberation in weather was caused by global warming.

To be fair, there are just as many scientists that dispute the theory of global warming as those that state it is a factual event.

:)
 
Crow357 said:
To be fair, there are just as many scientists that dispute the theory of global warming as those that state it is a factual event.

:)
Click to expand...
It would be nice if they, you know, got published in the journals as often as the other scientists.
 
professor.jpg

"What we need is a giant ice cube!"
 
Hammy said:
It would be nice if they, you know, got published in the journals as often as the other scientists.
Click to expand...

Yeah it would. But they generally get drowned out by every Tom, Dick and Harry with a website.
 
Ecrofirt: Unless you have some credentials I'm not aware of, you're not exactly in a position to call bullshit on people who have spent decades collecting and analyzing the data, after getting the education needed to handle it.

Think of it this way. You say the planet is billions of years old. How do you know this? My guess is you're trusting the work of thousands of geologists who used the scientific process to make the most accurate and precise possible estimate. Why would you not trust the same (or a very similar) group of people using the same process in the area of global warming?

Crow: So I take it you're picking #3.

To be fair, there are just as many scientists that dispute the theory of global warming as those that state it is a factual event.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. The vast majority of scientists believe that recent global warming is primarily caused by human factors. There is a small minority that believes other factors are the primary cause.

Finding a scientist that will dispute the fact of global warming is nearly impossible, and when you do, they're likely to be a quack who can't tell the difference between radians and degrees.
 
I'm not taking a stance, but there was an interesting article by Michael Crichton (yeah, I know, he's writer, not a scientist) stating that 30-40 years ago, people were terrified of global cooling. Basically, he states that we are always living in some state of fear, waiting for the world to end (year 2000), or waiting for some other calamity to strike.

And then he heavily promotes his new novel.
 
Here's your anti-evidence to "global warming"...

it's Ohio.... it's snowing... and cold as balls out. Just like every other fucking winter in this hell hole of a state.

We'd WELCOME warming here.
 
mmlemay said:
I'm not taking a stance, but there was an interesting article by Michael Crichton (yeah, I know, he's writer, not a scientist) stating that 30-40 years ago, people were terrified of global cooling. Basically, he states that we are always living in some state of fear, waiting for the world to end (year 2000), or waiting for some other calamity to strike.

And then he heavily promotes his new novel.
Click to expand...

When I was in High School in the '70's they were teaching us from scientific journals that we were in for another ice age. I guess all I'm saying is I don't believe that humankind has the necessary data to say exclusively one way or the other.

Caffeine was bad for you, then it's good for you.
Oat bran was good for you, then bad for you, now it's back to good for you.
Yes, the earth has warmed in the last 100 years. 100 years! That's a blink in geologic time. Wouldn't it be the height of arrogance to say without a doubt, 100 years of data is enough? I've read reports of the rate of CO2 production and the rate of absorbtion. They can't measure it exactly.

Anyway... ban me, rip me, do whatever (I'm pretty sure I won't get mad props:lol ) . I just hoped that GAF was big enough to allow an opposite opinion.
 
I don't really know anything about this, but back when I was taking A-level geography, this topic came up. Unfortunately I paid fuck all attention in that class (or any of them for that matter) and can't remember the details.

What I do remember is the teacher showing us a graph of average temperatures they somehow know for the history of the earth (I don't know for how far back, millions of years anyway) and it was up and down and all over the place. And some of the peaks were far above what we're currently at. That's not to say global warming isn't the cause this time, but I know my teacher said we can't know whether it is or not.

Not that they necessarily knew shit. It was a good school with good teachers, but that hardly means they're up to date with all the info on every subsection of their subject.
 
Noo, GAF just demands higher standards from those who don't hold the majority board opinion. It's a natural organic thing. You can't just blurt and run you have to blurt and defend since a large number of people call you out on sloppy thinking.

Sloppy thinking gets called out on both sides of the political spectrum actually; just fewer people bother when the stupid person is spouting leftist bullshit (for example Che remains the dumbest person on the boards but manages to fly under the radar most of the time).

And global warming if I'm not mistaken is based mostly on research done on ice samples from the Arctic which allows scientists to discren weather patterns from thousands and thousands of years ago (some of that ice is ancient).

Of course for me personally the fact that the native people in Canadas north cant' predict the weather anymore as they used to for thousands of years convinces me that things have changed a LOT in the past few decades. All I can really do about it is make mean faces at people driving SUVs though.
 
Crow357 said:
I just hoped that GAF was big enough to allow an opposite opinion.
Click to expand...

You know, screw the "hive mind" card. There's more than enough room for dissenting opinions. What's quickly dismissed, however, is an opinion that's backed up with merely "Because I say so," or "Because it makes sense to me."

Protip: Tossing man-made (and generated) chemicals and fumes into the atmosphere probably isn't doing us any favors. That stuff doesn't just vanish, it has to go someplace, and all signs indicate that they're having a very real, very bad affect on our o-zone layer. Hey, you know, in the 50s, smoking was supposed to be good for you! But now they say it's bad! Extend your logic to its natural conclusion:

I guess we just can't know, either way, whether smoking is bad for us.
 
Ecrofirt said:
I look at it this way.

What do we have, mayve 200 years of accurate weather data, and before that some basic information that we can pull from stuff we find?

And with this small amount of information that we have, we're supposed to be able to accurately say that "global warming" is occuring, and that humans are the cause of it? With a planet that is several billion years old?

I call bullshit on that. I just don't think there's enough data. I think there's a possibility that the planet goes through cycles, and we're in one right now.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for global warming to be happening, or for us to be the cause, I just don't think there's enough data right now to say it for sure.
Click to expand...

Ecro, we may have only 200 years of weather data, but we have accumulated an INCREDIBLE amount of data on climate change and can approximate the climate shifts through far more time that 200 years. Just because we have only been observing first hand the weather for a short period doesn't mean we haven't gathered vast amounts of knowledge from other observations. It has been identified that there are cycles of climate change, and this may just be part of that cycle, but the RATE at which the change is occuring is troublesome.

Also Global Warming from the influences of man is accepted by nearly every single climatologist on the planet. The only debate is how much of the current warming of the earth is due to the influence of man and how much is due to other factors that are out of our control.
 
Azih said:
(for example Che remains the dumbest person on the boards but manages to fly under the radar most of the time).
Click to expand...

Glad I'm not the only person who thinks this way.

oh, and more props for Mandark, good show.
 
To say that the "vast majority" attribute global warming to human development is a stretch.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/Baliunas.pdf

In the twentieth century, the global average surface temperature rose about 0.5C. At first glance the warming seems attributable to human fossil fuel use, which increased sharply in the twentieth century. But a closer look at the twentieth-century temperature shows three distinct trends:

First, a strong warming trend of about 0.5C began in the late nineteenth century and peaked around 1940. Then, oddly, there was a cooling trend from 1940 until the late 1970's. And the third phase of the surface record shows a modest warming trend from the late 1970's to the present. Yet about 80% of the carbon dioxied from human activities was added to the air after 1940, and so the air's increased carbon dioxide content cannot acount for the first substantial warming trend, which appeared before 1940. Then, as the air's carbon dioxide content increased more rapidly, temperatures dropped for nearly 40 years.
Click to expand...

note: i just did a quick search for an academic paper on it, but im aware of quite a few others from classes ive taken in environmental economics that i dont have off hand.

and when i say attributable, it's implied that the relationship would be significant.
 
As opposed to making a statement that the "vast majority" do not, while providing a comparably negligable sample? (a sample of zero, last i counted)

There's a side note at the end of my post. In studying the effects of global warming academically, there was a fair amount of literature on both sides of the argument.

This thread isn't entirely a game of numbers, though. The reason i posted the article is to explain why there're opposing viewpoints.
 
2
About the Author
SALLIE BALIUNAS, an astrophysicist at
the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
and deputy director of Mount Wilson
Observatory, received her MA and PhD
degrees in astrophysics from Harvard
University. She is co-host of the Website
www.TechCentralStation.com, a senior
scientist and chair of the Science Advisory
Board at the George C Marshall Institute,
and past contributing editor to World Climate Report. Her awards
include the Newton-Lacy-Pierce Prize of the American
Astronomical Society, the Petr Beckmann Award for Scientific
Freedom, and the Bok Prize from Harvard University. The author
of over 200 scientific articles, Dr Baliunas served as technical
consultant for a science-fiction television series, Gene
Roddenberry’s Earth: Final Conflict. Her research interests include
solar variability, magnetohydrodynamics of the sun and sun-like
stars, exoplanets, and the use of laser electro-optics for the
correction of turbulence due to the earth’s atmosphere in
astronomical images.
Click to expand...

I'd say that's a fairly reputable source too.
 
McLesterolBeast said:
As opposed to making a statement that the "vast majority" do not, while providing a comparably negligable sample? (a sample of zero, last i counted)
Click to expand...
Hey, I'm not taking sides -- just letting you know that if you set out to disprove the statement that the majority agree, you haven't really succeeded.
 
It wasnt intended to be evidence that less than the "vast majority" believe global warming is attributable to humans. It was an example - one to support the notion that it isn't just "quacks" who deviate from the stance that global warming is "there" because of our emmissions. The fact that ive studied it and been familiarized with a fair amount of literature on both sides of the coin is support for the notion that neither side makes up the "vast majority".
 
People need to stop thinking of global warming as simply adding a few degrees onto average seasonal tempuratures. By fucking with the planet's ecosystem at this level, we are setting ourselves up for seriously extreme and unpredictable weather conditions.
 
See MclestrolBeast's posts show how you can have a dissenting opinion and not be scorned. And see.. an actual discussion is possible now.
 
KingV said:
A "secret report" from the Pentagon claims Apocalypse? Excuse me if I view that article with some scepticism.
Click to expand...

The Pentagon does that report every few years, apparently. Basically they're told to come up with a worst-case scenario of what could happen to the world. It's nothing new, and I'm not sure if it's "classified" or even at what level it's classified at. It's supposed to be done to prepare everyone to deal with any conceivable scenario.
 
Mandark said:
Ecrofirt: Unless you have some credentials I'm not aware of, you're not exactly in a position to call bullshit on people who have spent decades collecting and analyzing the data, after getting the education needed to handle it.

]
Click to expand...



Oh boy .. we have a live one.


It wasn't thirty years ago .. we were headed for a new ICE AGE. Then, during the mid '80's droughts of N.A. some scientists got money/funding for thier little global warming theory .. and an industry was born.

Here is an article from the mid 70's:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


There were 3 or 4 best sellers on the upcoming Ice Age. All from respected scientists ... all in conflict with the thinking of todays "majority" .. (guffaw)


http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

(Scientific references at the bottom of the page)

Here is an excerpt of this piece.

Global warming started long before the "Industrial Revolution" and the invention of the internal combustion engine. Global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age-- a time when much of North America, Europe, and Asia lay buried beneath great sheets of glacial ice.

Earth's climate and the biosphere have been in constant flux, dominated by ice ages and glaciers for the past several million years. We are currently enjoying a temporary reprieve from the deep freeze.

Approximately every 100,000 years Earth's climate warms up temporarily. These warm periods, called interglacial periods, appear to last approximately 15,000 to 20,000 years before regressing back to a cold ice age climate. At year 18,000 and counting our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age is much nearer it's end than it's beginning.
Click to expand...


Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.


Once you realize that science is funded by money ... and that money is raised by organizations that use scare tactics to get people to donate to thier "noble causes", you will be able to take some of this shit with a grain of salt.

Also, the recent tsunami should remind us all, that when the Earth has a hiccup it kills 200k people ... and there isn't much we can do. We are all a neat little anomaly that is clinging onto this rock, completely at the mercy and whim of forces and trends that would occur regardless of what we do to prevent them.

It's only recently that man's ego has enabled him to think that he actually has control of the Earth ... Ironically, it is only recently that all of Earth's woes have been the cause of man also. At one time, when the ocean brought death ... they blamed the gods. When the Sun brought drought ... they blamed the gods. Now they blame prosperity.
 
Willco said:
I thought Global Warming was pretty much a fact?
Click to expand...

Global warming is a theory about possible effects of industrialization based on our understanding of the environment and temperature regulation of the biosphere. Our understanding however is far from complete or accurate as the number of variables involved defy imagination. Everytime you fart there is an impact to the environment and the cumulation of the miniscule percents isn't clearly studied nor understood. As such we are unable to prove that global warmings effects WILL happen, just that based on our understnding of the biosphere it should happen. It could be totally incorrect. The planet may be able to deal with our activities in ways that we don't understand. Nevertheless, global warming represents one of the few models that stands out as 'making sense'.
 
Polar ice caps are melting - this is FACT. It doesn't matter what's causing it. The change in the salinity of the oceans due to the melting ice caps will change weather on a global scale - MORE FACT. If humans can do something to slow or stop it, then it should be a global priority. Since partisan lines and idiots who take anecdotal evidence as global occurance exist, we will do nothing and let happen what nature wills.
 
carpal said:
People need to stop thinking of global warming as simply adding a few degrees onto average seasonal tempuratures. By fucking with the planet's ecosystem at this level, we are setting ourselves up for seriously extreme and unpredictable weather conditions.
Click to expand...

Yes, Global Warming is a misnomer and that is what causes the problems. People keep trying to use the term to define what it means. Unfortunately we used this elementary school science approach to telling people what global warming means and that's the only meaning that has stuck.
 
I'm no scientist, but I can say that the global warming ep of futurama was the best one they've ever made. that's scientific fact.
 
ToxicAdam said:
Oh boy .. we have a live one.


It wasn't thirty years ago .. we were headed for a new ICE AGE. Then, during the mid '80's droughts of N.A. some scientists got money/funding for thier little global warming theory .. and an industry was born.

Here is an article from the mid 70's:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm


There were 3 or 4 best sellers on the upcoming Ice Age. All from respected scientists ... all in conflict with the thinking of todays "majority" .. (guffaw)


http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

(Scientific references at the bottom of the page)

Here is an excerpt of this piece.




Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.


Once you realize that science is funded by money ... and that money is raised by organizations that use scare tactics to get people to donate to thier "noble causes", you will be able to take some of this shit with a grain of salt.

Also, the recent tsunami should remind us all, that when the Earth has a hiccup it kills 200k people ... and there isn't much we can do. We are all a neat little anomaly that is clinging onto this rock, completely at the mercy and whim of forces and trends that would occur regardless of what we do to prevent them.

It's only recently that man's ego has enabled him to think that he actually has control of the Earth ... Ironically, it is only recently that all of Earth's woes have been the cause of man also. At one time, when the ocean brought death ... they blamed the gods. When the Sun brought drought ... they blamed the gods. Now they blame prosperity.
Click to expand...

You're a bit confused. Threre is VERY long term trend towards another Ice Age (as there have been numerous Ice Ages in the past) but this is over-ridden by the global warming trend induced by human activities over the last 100 years (which was only hypothesised in the early '70's). The effects of global warming are already in evidence. There is no conflict as they are two separate issues.

Along the same lines, the concept of "global warming" is clearly mis understood by more than few people when they say things like "We've just had our coldest Winter ever so global warming can't be true!". This can be understandable to a degree by the misleading nature of the term. What it in fact means (or predicts) is higher than average temperatures which will cause more natural disasters, catastrophic climate change and less predictable weather patterns.

I'll address the CO2 part of your question/statement in my next post.
 
Blatz said:
Polar ice caps are melting - this is FACT. It doesn't matter what's causing it. The change in the salinity of the oceans due to the melting ice caps will change weather on a global scale - MORE FACT.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately that part is not "MORE FACT". We actually don't know for certain what the outcome of melting polar ice is and at what point it would become a problem. The problem with the whole debate is that people are calling stuff facts that are really still theories based on our understanding of the climate model. Should we do something? Probably. But we can't go gung ho claiming to understand more of the problem than we actually do because then when you make a change and you don't get the effects you expect you'll have blowback that could damage your position entirely.
 
As was shown in the regressions from the study i provided, assuming that the data is reliable (which given the source, is a reasonable assumption), there is a weak relationship between emissions and the variation in temperature. At the very least, far weaker than has been thought in the past.

If there is a weak relationship, implying that a reduction of emissions will only prove to have a marginal impact on global temperatures, then the damages from this 'global warming' would have to be relatively high in order to justify a relatively high level of pollution abaitment.

The true marginal damage from pollution is not known. The optimal level of abaitment (pollution reduction) would entirely depend on one's estimates of those damages, along with the impact that a reduction in pollution has on global temperatures.

Clearly we have to have some given level of pollution. Production, and virtually all factors contributing to human welfare, require that we pollute to some degree. What we need to identify is the relative damages - that is to say, the marginal abaitment cost relative to the expected present value of damages attributable to "global warming".

It has been a trend in popular culture to back the 'green ideal'. People get the warm and fuzzy feeling that they're backing what they think is right and it's a whole lot easier to appeal to one's love of "nature" than to an abstract valuation of abaitment costs. There's also a tendancy to rely on old data that has been since replaced with far superior estimates of the relationship between pollution and global temperatures. Unfortunately, they've remained popular despite being outdated and have staunch supporters who's campaigning, i suspect, is at some base level connected to that 'warm and fuzzy feeling'.

It's unfortunate that some are so adament about sticking to these principles that have no meaningful basis. It results in problems like command and control policy that sacrifices a great deal of welfare simply because the idea of tradable permits (buying/selling how much you want to emit) are not popular politicallly.
 
I don't care about the debate regarding global warming either way - I just don't want companies to be able to dump pollution and contaminate my ground water, damnit!
 
CO2 isn't the problem. The Ozone layer is. This thing has been around for a long long long time.

Then mankind was born.

A person named Mr. Thomas Midgley invented Chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs are more than 10,000 times as effective at trapping this radiated heat than carbon dioxide. They live in the upper atmosphere for around 100 years. When 1 CFC atom breaks down it destroys thousands of Ozone atoms. It's bad stuff.
 
We actually don't know for certain what the outcome of melting polar ice is and at what point it would become a problem.
Click to expand...

That isn't really true. We throw salt & slag on our bridges when it freezes to change the freezing point of the rain/sleet (water). When freshwater ice caps melt in the saltwater oceans, the temperatures at which the states of water shift will change. If the evaporation point of the oceans decrease then we will have more severe storms and more rain. The chain-reaction of the events that follow are beyond my understanding. It is true that we don't know how much ice can melt before we could begin to see effects.
 
Global warming is indeed a fact. The only disputed aspect of the debate is whether it is largely a side effect of mankind's deforestation/ozone depletion etc or a natural climate shift, or some combination thereof.

One of the things that has always pissed me off is people like Dennis Miller (from his "The Raw Feed" standup) who claim that a 1 or 2 degree average shift over a century is "remarkably stable" and serves to debunk the theory. The fact is that even a 2 degree shift can mean huge changes in weather patterns. Much of it goes back to the poles, where melting permafrost means new bacterial and vegetative growth that can exponentially alter the oxygen cycles, and cold polar meltwater traveling the Atlantic and Pacific toward the equator can alter jet stream patterns. Basically even a couple of average degrees in temperature shift can have an exponential residual effect, which in turn pushes the cycle forward even further. If you don't believe that there is drastic change occuring in the poleward regions, you need look no further than Condolezza Rice's confirmation hearing yesterday, when Alaska Republican Lisa Murkowski made reference to the states challenge in dealing with climate alterations. A Republican.

So it's not simply a matter of "telling the kids you moved to Phoenix", Dennis. If those couple of degrees in shift alter the weather cycle so that you have extended droughts in parts of the country (Wyoming/Montana etc), or altered jet streams mean extreme cold snaps or record hurricane seasons, then there's obviously a lot more at stake here than bumping down the thermostat a little more come summertime. Ecologies and economies alike will all be forced to suffer and adapt at the hands of our shifting climate patterns.
 
Here's my solution.

The weather patterns are already fucked up. So I say we fuck it up even more! Eventually, it'll be so fucked up it'll revert back to normal.

Let's make it happen, people!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Neuroscientist claims evidence of post-death brain communication
36
563
Hudo replied
Dentsu: Anime is no longer a niche. It's a global phenomenon.
2
64
2K
No BBC=Anger replied
Brian Cox explains the Fermi Paradox (why we have not yet seen evidence of intelligent alien life)
2
68
5K
GloveSlap replied
HBO Announces More Cast of Upcoming Harry Potter TV Show
2
62
4K
Avid Reading Horse replied
With Love, Meghan (Netflix) is everything I dreamed of and more
44
4K
Days like these... replied
Top Bottom