-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
More evidence of global warming.
- Thread starter Crow357
- Start date
- Status
soundwave05
Member
I would say the melting of the Polar Ice Caps should have people concerned though. If the Gulf Stream is f-cked up as a result of this cooler water coming down, the world's weather patterns will change dramatically.
Also I think deforestation is an issue that will come back to haunt humanity some day.
I think by about 2050, the environment will probably become a much larger priority especailly if there's definite and alarming changes in global weather patterns.
I agree though it helps not to be in "panic mode", and yeah some of this activity probably is just cylical. However, how many planet Earth's do we have? Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution ... I mean if EVER there was a situation where you should, this would be it.
Also I think deforestation is an issue that will come back to haunt humanity some day.
I think by about 2050, the environment will probably become a much larger priority especailly if there's definite and alarming changes in global weather patterns.
I agree though it helps not to be in "panic mode", and yeah some of this activity probably is just cylical. However, how many planet Earth's do we have? Doesn't it make sense to err on the side of caution ... I mean if EVER there was a situation where you should, this would be it.
Pellham said:
As much research as Crichton does on his books (although I doubt anything beyond watching "Back to the Future" and reading some X-Men comics went into "Sphere"), him writing one book on a topic does NOT make him any kind of authority. He states his opinions based on the facts he obtained. That's fine, but what's great about facts is that another person can look at them and come to a distinctly different conclusion.
And it seems that Crichton is vastly outnumbered.
It'd be like entrusting him to forever lecture about dinosaurs just because he managed to write "Jurassic Park."
Your numbers don't jive. This page says volcanos contribute 110 million tons of CO2 annually.
Former geologic times were not the most hosptitable to human life.
You are ignoring the fact that today there are now over 6 BILLION people on this planet, and still somehwere around 57 million square miles of land on this planet. Are you seriously trying to tell us that humanity, with dams, landfills, widespread emissions, and nuclear weapons, have little effect on the very environment that allows us to live?
I see no one in this thread claiming anything of the sort. Who are these "people" you are citing? And who is participating in a "conspiracy?"Jeffahn said:
In fact, when commercial interests are dragged into a discussion about the environment, the usual argument is that laws which force environmentally-friendly behavior HURT business by forcing them to change, which costs money. The status quo is always cheap because there is no additional investment required in technology or training and no additional operating costs which result from new regulations.
-jinx- said:
Pellham said:
"global warming as caused by man-made factors is quite possibly one of the biggest media bullshit propaganda ever. thank god for michael crichton's State of Fear, hopefully it'll educate more people."
ToxicAdam said:
"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."
Let me just make it clear that it's my position that the majority of scientists agree that climate change as result of human activities will have a devestating effect in the next 30-100 years. Most of the debate is over how severe the effects are (and will be) and how soon we will start to see major changes. That said, I think that the minority of scientists who say don't agree with the above are either crackpots or funded by special interest (e.g. the fossil fuel industry) and I don't understand who the special interest groups are who are supposedly paying off the majority of scientists to agree with the climate change scenario.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say in your last paragraph.
God's Hand
Banned
Just wondering... which one of you is qualified to give a definitive response on global warming, something scientists still can't agree on?
I'd just like to summarise the documentary I mentioned earlier which changed my veiw on climate change mainly beacuse it was far scarier than any horror movie.
The Day the Oceans Boiled
Based on studies of historical claimte change, the planet goes through a number of different climate cycles (over 100 000's of years) with smaller cycles over 1000's of years throughout the longer cycles and it is true that it has been much hotter at certain times than it is right now.
Right now, the majority of excess CO2 is being absorbed by the Amazon Jungle, but the remainder is still enough to cause the greenhouse effect; raising global average temperatures and causing more natural disasters.
From the link:
"By 2050, climate change will cause a general drying in the Amazon Basin. Under these conditions the forest will rapidly die back, mainly because a lengthened dry season will allow the forest to dry out sufficiently to become flammable. Huge forest fires will rapidly return a huge quantity of stored carbon into the atmosphere. The result will be a sudden acceleration of global warming, with land temperatures rising an extraordinary 8 degrees by 2100.On the ocean floor there are huge quantities of methane, another potent carbon-based greenhouse gas, locked up in ice-like deposits called hydrates. These hydrates are very unstable. A small rise in the temperature of bottom waters causes them to melt, releasing methane which comes bubbling to the surface"
At his point, there will be no going back and the oceans will suddenly (over days/weeks) start to boil en masse causing the global temperature to soar in as shorter period. This is known to have occurred in the past and caused massive damge to all life on earth.
They showed some footage of an undersea methane store that was disturbed by an an oil exploration rig and it was like the scariest thing I've ever seen. The surface of the water was exploding with huge bubbles as purple flames lept into the air.
But the absolute scariest part was the look on the reseacher's face as he was describing what's in store for the planet. He honestly looked and sounded like a man on death row. Though he did explain that he hoped he was somehow wrong, he was clear that this scenario is apparently now unstoppable and there was little that could be done.
Enjoy your planet while you're still alive and have a happy future.
The Day the Oceans Boiled
Based on studies of historical claimte change, the planet goes through a number of different climate cycles (over 100 000's of years) with smaller cycles over 1000's of years throughout the longer cycles and it is true that it has been much hotter at certain times than it is right now.
Right now, the majority of excess CO2 is being absorbed by the Amazon Jungle, but the remainder is still enough to cause the greenhouse effect; raising global average temperatures and causing more natural disasters.
From the link:
"By 2050, climate change will cause a general drying in the Amazon Basin. Under these conditions the forest will rapidly die back, mainly because a lengthened dry season will allow the forest to dry out sufficiently to become flammable. Huge forest fires will rapidly return a huge quantity of stored carbon into the atmosphere. The result will be a sudden acceleration of global warming, with land temperatures rising an extraordinary 8 degrees by 2100.On the ocean floor there are huge quantities of methane, another potent carbon-based greenhouse gas, locked up in ice-like deposits called hydrates. These hydrates are very unstable. A small rise in the temperature of bottom waters causes them to melt, releasing methane which comes bubbling to the surface"
At his point, there will be no going back and the oceans will suddenly (over days/weeks) start to boil en masse causing the global temperature to soar in as shorter period. This is known to have occurred in the past and caused massive damge to all life on earth.
They showed some footage of an undersea methane store that was disturbed by an an oil exploration rig and it was like the scariest thing I've ever seen. The surface of the water was exploding with huge bubbles as purple flames lept into the air.
But the absolute scariest part was the look on the reseacher's face as he was describing what's in store for the planet. He honestly looked and sounded like a man on death row. Though he did explain that he hoped he was somehow wrong, he was clear that this scenario is apparently now unstoppable and there was little that could be done.
Enjoy your planet while you're still alive and have a happy future.
Saturnman said:
Why so sad?
Did you see his special that I referenced? It's hysterical, regardless of whether one agrees with everything he's saying. I can laugh at him just like I can laugh at Bill Maher-- both are very funny. I wasn't saying that I agreed with his view on global warming or anything; I just quoted those lines of his because it was during his "global warming" bit and I found it quite amusing.
The Ocean Boiling Phenomenon Explained
" What then is the significance of the age of the Blake Plateau methane hydrates retrieved by Leg 164? It cannot be these that spontaneously dissociated to plunge the world into the closest analogue of our own greenhouse future that the fossil record has ever yielded. Methane hydrates take millions of years to form as dead organic material is cooked and compressed back down into raw methane gas that is then locked up in a 'buckyball'-like cluster of enclosing water-ice crystals. The hydrates that let go at the P-E boundary must therefore themselves have predated that greenhouse gas warming event by millions of years.
Is the fact that the Blake Ridge hydrates are precisely 55m years old (the age of the P-E boundary) merely a coincidence? No, it seems likely that the methane hydrates of the Blake Ridge are the fossilised remnants of the CO2 that was released at the P-E boundary and which was eventually drawn down by the enhanced photosynthesis suggested by Bains and coworkers. The spoor of the day the oceans boiled is buried under the Bermuda Triangle, and who can say that they are not awaiting the day when they will once again be unleashed?
In the great tradition of novel ideas in science, since the methane hydrate hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s geoscientists have been piling aboard the bandwagon so fast that the suspension's been twanging. The Figure (right) shows that not only have methane hydrates been implicated in the extinctions (b) at the P-E boundary but that they have also now been mooted as the cause (or at least one of the causes) of the extinction (c) at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary itself (65m years ago), the climate change (d) at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary (90m years ago) within the Cretaceous, the climatic oscillations (a) of the most recent series of ice-ages (2.5m years ago to the present day) as well as the biggest series of glaciations (f) of all time: those that characterised the late Precambrian eon (600m years ago); and also the biggest extinction of all time (e) at the Permo-Triassic boundary.
What then are we to make of these multiple methane hydrate nightmares scattered across history? The current fixation is worryingly similar to the multiple asteroid impact theories invoked up and down the fossil record a decade ago. Perhaps the truth is that geoscientists simply have a herd mentality when it comes to new agents of destruction in the fossil record. That said, the case for methane hydrates at the P-E boundary - the idea that started the whole thing - is still compelling. "
" What then is the significance of the age of the Blake Plateau methane hydrates retrieved by Leg 164? It cannot be these that spontaneously dissociated to plunge the world into the closest analogue of our own greenhouse future that the fossil record has ever yielded. Methane hydrates take millions of years to form as dead organic material is cooked and compressed back down into raw methane gas that is then locked up in a 'buckyball'-like cluster of enclosing water-ice crystals. The hydrates that let go at the P-E boundary must therefore themselves have predated that greenhouse gas warming event by millions of years.
Is the fact that the Blake Ridge hydrates are precisely 55m years old (the age of the P-E boundary) merely a coincidence? No, it seems likely that the methane hydrates of the Blake Ridge are the fossilised remnants of the CO2 that was released at the P-E boundary and which was eventually drawn down by the enhanced photosynthesis suggested by Bains and coworkers. The spoor of the day the oceans boiled is buried under the Bermuda Triangle, and who can say that they are not awaiting the day when they will once again be unleashed?
In the great tradition of novel ideas in science, since the methane hydrate hypothesis was first put forward in the early 1990s geoscientists have been piling aboard the bandwagon so fast that the suspension's been twanging. The Figure (right) shows that not only have methane hydrates been implicated in the extinctions (b) at the P-E boundary but that they have also now been mooted as the cause (or at least one of the causes) of the extinction (c) at the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary itself (65m years ago), the climate change (d) at the Cenomanian-Turonian boundary (90m years ago) within the Cretaceous, the climatic oscillations (a) of the most recent series of ice-ages (2.5m years ago to the present day) as well as the biggest series of glaciations (f) of all time: those that characterised the late Precambrian eon (600m years ago); and also the biggest extinction of all time (e) at the Permo-Triassic boundary.
What then are we to make of these multiple methane hydrate nightmares scattered across history? The current fixation is worryingly similar to the multiple asteroid impact theories invoked up and down the fossil record a decade ago. Perhaps the truth is that geoscientists simply have a herd mentality when it comes to new agents of destruction in the fossil record. That said, the case for methane hydrates at the P-E boundary - the idea that started the whole thing - is still compelling. "
Jeffahn said:
I have read a few books on the subject and as such have somewhat better than layman's understanding, but I don't feel that I know enough to speak authoritatively on the subject of global warming past my own personal thoughts on the matter. Thus put aside this argument as arguing for or against man's impact on the climate for second, and realize that there are indeed groups and individuals that have much invested in the population accepting the theory of global warming.
Chiefly among those are environmental groups who champion environmental causes, specifically fighting global warming. Green Peace, Earth First, et al have a vested interest in the continued assumption that there are vast problems in the environment that necessitate action, and thus funding to their cause. Though many of these groups are non-profit, there are people who both make money by working for them and have a vested interest in the continued support and popularity of their causes, due mainly to the fact that if all of the problems are "fixed" the groups themselves, and thus individual livelihoods and existence of the group as whole becomes irrelevant, as no one will continue to fight a problem that has been solved.
On a personal level, this makes association with environmental groups difficult for me, as I have no method to verify the veracity of their claims.
Loki said:Why so sad?
I wasn't saying that I agreed with his view on global warming or anything; I just quoted those lines of his because it was during his "global warming" bit and I found it quite amusing.
Not sad, mellow. The choice of smilies is pathetic at GA...
Saturnman said:
No, I know it wasn't the "sad" smiley, like so:
But usually when people do the :| , it means that they were unamused to the point of almost finding it offensive, which is why I thought that perhaps your personal opinion re: global warming was getting in the way of you enjoying the joke (or Miller in general), which is why I went on to clarify my stance.
(whew- long sentence
)
KingV said:
It makes no sense to join an environmental group if you're aim is to make money. You would be far better off joining a group lobbying for rich industries with a vested interest in the maintaining the status quo, or just being a scientist willing to endorse their apparent point of view.
Jeffahn said:
Well, yes, from the individual member's point of view. There are people somewhere, that have founded or been with these organizations for years that make their living off of the organization. Further many of these organizations, like almost all, have other less popular environmental, or socio-political issues that they lobby. Fixing the one big issue essentially forces them to either adopt a new issue as the "big issue" or become obsolete and go under.
Willco: The fact that global warming is happening is a fact. Why it's happening is a matter of theory.
McLesterolBeast: I believe you misread my second post. When it comes to global warming, there are scientists who:
1) Believe the recent increase in temperature is attributable to human factors. These are a majority.
2) Believe the recent increase in temperature is attributable to other factors. These are a minority.
3) Deny that there is a recent increase in temperature at all. These I tend to write off as quacks.
Why do I say the first group is a majority? Because of reports by the National Academy of Sciences the American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is also the Science article by Naomi Oreskes, which looked at 928 peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change from 1993 to 2003 and found a resounding consensus for human-caused global warming.
As for Sallie Beliunas, you might want to get another source. She co-authored a paper that was published in Climate Research, which turned out to be so flawed that it triggered the resignation of several editors from that publication. Climate Research went on to later publish the McKitrick paper that mixed up radians and degrees.
The credentials you provide for her should set off some warning bells. The head of the George T. Marshall Institute is William O'Keefe. He used to be an executive at the American Petroleum Institute, and the head of the Global Climate Coalition, an energy industry lobbying group. The Marshall Institute has received funding from ExxonMobil to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
TechCentralStation is a astroturf front for corporate lobbying.
The Petr Beckmann award is given out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a small quack-farm that markets nuclear-war preparedness and a home-schooling curriculum to combat "socialism in education." The Beckmann award itself (named after a scientist who claimed to have disproved Einstein's theory of relativity) seems to be given every year to someone who denies the global warming consensus, working for foundations funded by energy companies.
So to sum up: Yes, the vast majority of scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming. Some disagree, but Sallie Baliunas is not credible.
ToxicAdam: This is almost too easy.
A very unoriginal talking point, and a totally disingenuous one at that. There was never a scientific consensus that we were headed towards an ice age. The Newsweek article you link to quotes exactly one scientific report, and the direct quotes show that they did not, in 1975, have a strong opinion as to where the global climate was going, and this was because they recognized their own lack of data. You can read the report for yourself, and see that they recommend only further study.
A small, popular fad about ice age possibilities is totally different from the huge scientific consensus that has developed three decades later, expressed through hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. Here's a more thorough piece about the ice age straw man.
This is pretty clever. These statistics make global warming seem counter-intuitive, without actually challenging the theory itself. The stats are off, by the way: The World Bank has worldwide human CO2 emissions pegged at 23 billion tons in 2000.
It is true that anthropogenic carbon sources are a small fraction of overall carbon emissions. However, they are significant because carbon sinks can only absorb so much. So while the natural emissions would stay in balance if left to themselves, a certain amount of the human CO2 is left in the atmosphere. Notice how the page avoids discussing how CO2 levels have changed over several decades. Let's remedy that, shall we?
Yes, CO2 is a small part of the Earth's atmosphere. But global warming doesn't rely on the CO2:N2 or CO2:atmosphere ratio achieving some arbitrary value. It deals with the effect on the Earth's climate. Pointing out that the portion seems small is the equivalent of someone saying "I don't think the arsenic killed him. It comprised less than one percent of his body mass!"
Tenured professors feel a need to use "scare tactics" so they'll be able to do research projects? In fact, you're saying that any science that requires money will be fraudulent, and all science obviously requires money, so you're saying all science is fraudulent. That's a pretty strong position.
But there is a lot of money waiting for the people who will say certain things about global warming. Only that money is on the industry side, and can be gotten by denying the consensus. There's the Global Climate Coalition, the Greening Earth Society, the Cooler Heads Coalition, Frontiers of Freedom, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Scientific Alliance, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. All funded by corporations who have a direct financial incentive in convincing people that there is no anthropogenic global warming.
The point is not whether humans have "control of the Earth" in some philisophical sense. The question is whether, through the cumulative production of hundreds of billions of tons of certain types of gases, humans are contributing to a change in the planet's climate. So thousands of scientists have accumulated lots and lots of data, analyzed it, modelled it, argued over it, and now have arrived at a consensus. This is not the end of the process, but the basic question of whether anthrogenic factors are affecting global temperature now has an answer that very few scientists would disagree with.
Crow357: Boo-hoo, don't get your panties in a bunch. If you post something which has absolutely no logic backing it up, you're going to get ridiculed for it. Don't whine because a majority of posters aren't as intellectually lazy as you are.
I mean, your main argument is that there are lots of scientists who disagree with global warming, but they choose not to publish their findings because... people would make websites about it? That is just so mind-bogglingly stupid.
Teflar: You're being a pussy. Don't be a pussy. Pussy.
Michael Chrichton: Your book is as much evidence against climate change as The Day After Tomorrow was evidence for it. That is to say, none at all. Also, Gavin Schmidt is all over you.
Loki: THIS is how you deliver on a promise.
McLesterolBeast: I believe you misread my second post. When it comes to global warming, there are scientists who:
1) Believe the recent increase in temperature is attributable to human factors. These are a majority.
2) Believe the recent increase in temperature is attributable to other factors. These are a minority.
3) Deny that there is a recent increase in temperature at all. These I tend to write off as quacks.
Why do I say the first group is a majority? Because of reports by the National Academy of Sciences the American Meteorological Society, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There is also the Science article by Naomi Oreskes, which looked at 928 peer-reviewed articles dealing with climate change from 1993 to 2003 and found a resounding consensus for human-caused global warming.
As for Sallie Beliunas, you might want to get another source. She co-authored a paper that was published in Climate Research, which turned out to be so flawed that it triggered the resignation of several editors from that publication. Climate Research went on to later publish the McKitrick paper that mixed up radians and degrees.
The credentials you provide for her should set off some warning bells. The head of the George T. Marshall Institute is William O'Keefe. He used to be an executive at the American Petroleum Institute, and the head of the Global Climate Coalition, an energy industry lobbying group. The Marshall Institute has received funding from ExxonMobil to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
TechCentralStation is a astroturf front for corporate lobbying.
The Petr Beckmann award is given out by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, a small quack-farm that markets nuclear-war preparedness and a home-schooling curriculum to combat "socialism in education." The Beckmann award itself (named after a scientist who claimed to have disproved Einstein's theory of relativity) seems to be given every year to someone who denies the global warming consensus, working for foundations funded by energy companies.
So to sum up: Yes, the vast majority of scientists believe humans are the primary cause of global warming. Some disagree, but Sallie Baliunas is not credible.
ToxicAdam: This is almost too easy.
A very unoriginal talking point, and a totally disingenuous one at that. There was never a scientific consensus that we were headed towards an ice age. The Newsweek article you link to quotes exactly one scientific report, and the direct quotes show that they did not, in 1975, have a strong opinion as to where the global climate was going, and this was because they recognized their own lack of data. You can read the report for yourself, and see that they recommend only further study.
A small, popular fad about ice age possibilities is totally different from the huge scientific consensus that has developed three decades later, expressed through hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. Here's a more thorough piece about the ice age straw man.
This is pretty clever. These statistics make global warming seem counter-intuitive, without actually challenging the theory itself. The stats are off, by the way: The World Bank has worldwide human CO2 emissions pegged at 23 billion tons in 2000.
It is true that anthropogenic carbon sources are a small fraction of overall carbon emissions. However, they are significant because carbon sinks can only absorb so much. So while the natural emissions would stay in balance if left to themselves, a certain amount of the human CO2 is left in the atmosphere. Notice how the page avoids discussing how CO2 levels have changed over several decades. Let's remedy that, shall we?
Yes, CO2 is a small part of the Earth's atmosphere. But global warming doesn't rely on the CO2:N2 or CO2:atmosphere ratio achieving some arbitrary value. It deals with the effect on the Earth's climate. Pointing out that the portion seems small is the equivalent of someone saying "I don't think the arsenic killed him. It comprised less than one percent of his body mass!"
Tenured professors feel a need to use "scare tactics" so they'll be able to do research projects? In fact, you're saying that any science that requires money will be fraudulent, and all science obviously requires money, so you're saying all science is fraudulent. That's a pretty strong position.
But there is a lot of money waiting for the people who will say certain things about global warming. Only that money is on the industry side, and can be gotten by denying the consensus. There's the Global Climate Coalition, the Greening Earth Society, the Cooler Heads Coalition, Frontiers of Freedom, the Institute of Public Affairs, the Science and Environmental Policy Project, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Scientific Alliance, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. All funded by corporations who have a direct financial incentive in convincing people that there is no anthropogenic global warming.
The point is not whether humans have "control of the Earth" in some philisophical sense. The question is whether, through the cumulative production of hundreds of billions of tons of certain types of gases, humans are contributing to a change in the planet's climate. So thousands of scientists have accumulated lots and lots of data, analyzed it, modelled it, argued over it, and now have arrived at a consensus. This is not the end of the process, but the basic question of whether anthrogenic factors are affecting global temperature now has an answer that very few scientists would disagree with.
Crow357: Boo-hoo, don't get your panties in a bunch. If you post something which has absolutely no logic backing it up, you're going to get ridiculed for it. Don't whine because a majority of posters aren't as intellectually lazy as you are.
I mean, your main argument is that there are lots of scientists who disagree with global warming, but they choose not to publish their findings because... people would make websites about it? That is just so mind-bogglingly stupid.
Teflar: You're being a pussy. Don't be a pussy. Pussy.
Michael Chrichton: Your book is as much evidence against climate change as The Day After Tomorrow was evidence for it. That is to say, none at all. Also, Gavin Schmidt is all over you.
Loki: THIS is how you deliver on a promise.
Ned Flanders
Banned
Mandark crushed one out of the park.
soundwave05
Member
Shit, Mandark just owned everyone :lol
I think the bottom line is this, we don't have a "replacement Earth" (not unless we get into terraforming and fast), so if we do fuck this up, its not like an ice cream cone, where you can just go and get a replacement.
That's why I think its asinine to not err on the side of caution in this case. If there's even *chance* that human activity is causing global warming, we have to act, even if in the end it turns out to be not quite as bad as we thought.
I'd rather be in the "oh, well its not so bad, but at least we have cleaner air" camp than in the "oh fuck, global warming is for real but its too late to do shit about it now" camp.
I think the bottom line is this, we don't have a "replacement Earth" (not unless we get into terraforming and fast), so if we do fuck this up, its not like an ice cream cone, where you can just go and get a replacement.
That's why I think its asinine to not err on the side of caution in this case. If there's even *chance* that human activity is causing global warming, we have to act, even if in the end it turns out to be not quite as bad as we thought.
I'd rather be in the "oh, well its not so bad, but at least we have cleaner air" camp than in the "oh fuck, global warming is for real but its too late to do shit about it now" camp.
Mandark said:
Yes, because I've never responded to a topic when I've said I would do so. Better to harp on the one time I didn't (which was only because I felt that we were talking past one another and everything that needed to be said had been said.)
Nice to see that you still have a stick up your ass about that one, however
(this was nearly two years ago, mind you). It's okay, though-- I'm bigger than to reference you and some of your <ahem> "questionable" claims about me whenever the fancy strikes me.It's really a shame, because that was a fantastic post otherwise.
Just try your best not to mention my name when I'm not at all involved in a conversation, mmkay? It's tacky.OpinionatedCyborg
Member
After reading Mandark's post, which will either quell or further enrage the factless wonders, I decided that the only way this thread could get better was by adding one of Ronald Reagan's timeless gems. In the words of Oprah, take a look:
"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist, and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about."
That's right, I WENT THERE. UH HUH. This thread has now been ownzored flownzored by President Reagan himself. Continue the discussion at your mortal peril.
"I have flown twice over Mt St. Helens out on our west coast. I'm not a scientist, and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that that one little mountain has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere of the world than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind that people are so concerned about."
That's right, I WENT THERE. UH HUH. This thread has now been ownzored flownzored by President Reagan himself. Continue the discussion at your mortal peril.
KingV said:
The fact that they make a living working for such organisations is incidental because most people need an income and some of them at are volunteers. That said, Greenpeace, FotE etc. are not really doing much research of their own and instead rely on independent scientists for their material, and many of the climate change warnings emanate from them. I'm sure that many of these organisations would be happy for the issue to be resolved (it's their stated goal), but the reality is that it doesn't look likely to be anytime soon. I think you're trying to say that they're generating controversy to ensure their continued existence, but the fact is that they aren't the only people blowing their trumpets and they have the support of the majority of scientists and independent scientific bodies.
Phoenix
Member
Blatz said:
NedFlanders said:
That the Earth has increased in temperature 1 degree over the past 100 years is a fact. Normally when people refer to global warming they are referring to a sustained change resulting from human influence. That last part is the problem. Since we haven't been keeping tabs on the world very long we really don't know if the earth has been getting hotter for the past 200, 500, 1000 years etc. We don't know if there is some natural cycle in play. We know that historically the climate has undergone changes that lead to ice ages without human interference. Were global climate changes similar during those situations? Are we headed for another ice age irregardless of our activities? Therein are the questions that we can't answer.
Phoenix
Member
Azih said:
FALSE!
There is no consensus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Nicely done and laid out for easy reading so I don't have to copy paste it here. That there is consensus is a fallacy with origins unknown.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
Phoenix said:
Well, we can make some pretty good educated guesses as to temperature variances from times before we recorded temperatures.
Geologists can look at various strata and study ancient soil for evidence of plantlife, pollen, fossils, etc that can give an indication of temperature variation. Core samples from the polar ice caps can give scientists clues as well.
But it's still not as complete and comprehensive a picture as we'd have if we'd been able to track the temperature itself over ancient times.
Phoenix said:
"We don't know if there is some natural cycle in play. We know that historically the climate has undergone changes that lead to ice ages without human interference. Were global climate changes similar during those situations? Are we headed for another ice age irregardless of our activities? Therein are the questions that we can't answer."
A rough history of climate change has been extracted from polar ice cores and they do confirm lengthy climate cycles and shorter cycles within those, as well as some remarkable spikes in global average temperatures which unsurprisingly coincide with mass extinctions. The ice trend is part of much longer cycle and climate change induced by global warming could decimate like on earth before it even arrives.
"We don't know if there is some natural cycle in play. We know that historically the climate has undergone changes that lead to ice ages without human interference. Were global climate changes similar during those situations? Are we headed for another ice age irregardless of our activities? Therein are the questions that we can't answer."
A rough history of climate change has been extracted from polar ice cores and they do confirm lengthy climate cycles and shorter cycles within those, as well as some remarkable spikes in global average temperatures which unsurprisingly coincide with mass extinctions. The ice trend is part of much longer cycle and climate change induced by global warming could decimate like on earth before it even arrives.
Mandark said:
There were numerous studies, articles, and 4 or 5 BEST SELLERS that asserted the next Ice Age is upon us. It was definitely a "popular" opinion ... and thus the "CONSENSUS".
What does that mean?
Nothing. Consensus is strictly popular opinion. That does not make it right. That was my point. What was taken as FACT in 1975 was not true in 1985. What was true in 1985 was not true in 2000. This is an evolving process (see: Ozone Hole).
There is still not enough substantive evidence or long term research to support FIRM reasons for temperal fluctuations. There are too many variables that could have caused the small change in temperature. From existing carbon laying on the earth to magnetic fluctuations ... the contributing factors are too numerous. Which is why it irks me when people grandstand that we are on a collision course of doom. It's dangerous, reckless science and it empowers power groups with specific political motivations.
You wrote a very nice post, Mandark. You are clearly passionate about this topic, moreso than me.
Mandark is talking about scientific consensus which is a very different animal. I think you're the only one talking about pop culture consensus.
As Mandark pointed out, there was no scientific consensus back in the 70s. All the scientists said 'we need more data'. And here we are thirty years later with oodles more data and a scientific consensus.
You really should read the ice age strawman article Mandark linked to.
- Status