If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Science)   Global warming alarmists change some assumptions in their computer models and claim global warming twice as great as before. With bonus spiffy color graphs   (popsci.com) divider line 523
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

11058 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 May 2009 at 7:20 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



523 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-05-26 08:09:12 PM
Zeppelininthesky: To all you global warming deniers:

Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.

I am talking *real* evidence. No crap about how Al Gore is the antichrist or carbon credits suck.

I want real scientific evidence that can be tested and falsified in a lab. I also would like to see any scientific papers that are published in a respectable scientific journal.

/not trolling


And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.

The models are pretty much useless since they can't be verified. The theory of manmade CO2 (at a very small percentage of the green house gasses -- water vapor is number 1) having this major effect on termperature is hard to believe.

Average temperatures change. We get warmer. We get colder. We got no say so on the matter.

I'm glad it's not getting colder. We are overdue for another ice age.
 
2009-05-26 08:09:49 PM
sure was hot out yesterday.

must be global warming.
 
2009-05-26 08:11:17 PM
What if you play it safe and assume climate change is REAL, then you might actually help in solving the issue.

Have you heard? Tikbalangs have been dragging people away to the treetops. But if you buy this magical amulet, you'll be protected. If tikbalangs don't exist, you just wasted some time and money, but if they do, man, you're safe! It's like insurance!
 
2009-05-26 08:12:15 PM
Hey, does anyone remember the Time Magazine cover back in the 70's that said we were definitely heading for our next Ice Age?

Personally, I have come to believe the whole thing is being contrived to (a) give politicians more power and (b) separate me and my children from our money both current and potential.
 
2009-05-26 08:12:30 PM
bberg: Baryogenesis: how about a few straight years of much cooler average temperatures, you know, outside of the top 25 hottest years recorded.

I've bolded the important part. How do we know that ice on the poles is how the planet is "supposed" to be? Just because it's all we've known doesn't make it "normal". Maybe we're not supposed to live near the equator because of its extreme temperature. Maybe that's why the majority of the land mass is above or below the tropics.

Look at Brockway's chart of this century. That's a pretty damn flat line right there, telling me that the NOAA data has flattened out and warming is no longer an issue.

Now, if we continue mucking about we could bring about another ice age if we keep reducing the temperature.


Oh jesus....did you seriously quote brockway? I shouldn't continue with you, but I will.
First, I'm going to ignore the fact you have no idea what plate tectonics are and just address how the Earth is "supposed to be". That may be an interesting point prima facie, but it doesn't really matter to the humanity what state the Earth is supposed to be in. We've built civilization in a time of relative stability climate wise. If the climate starts to radically shift (even if it is shifting to a "better" equilibrium) people are going to die. People will starve, homes will be flooded, there will be mass immigration and all the talk of "how it should be" won't matter one farking bit. So maybe a significantly hotter or colder planet is more stable from a climate perspective, but I don't think millions of people dying is something you just chalk up to "how things are supposed to be".
 
2009-05-26 08:12:43 PM
Quick, throw a bajillion in grants at them!
 
2009-05-26 08:13:57 PM
lurkster: I thought the official name was now "climate change"? I keep missing the damn memos.

Yeah, it's like how "creationism" became "creation science" which later became "intelligent design". "Global Warming" is now "climate change" and in ten years will become something else equally phony and alarmist.
 
2009-05-26 08:14:18 PM
See, the charts and graphs are useless, because they fall on both sides of the argument.

Politics - "We have a consensus."
Religion - "I want to believe. You are a denier."
Science - "BS, prove it."

This thread isn't about science. This is arguing about believing or not. Its a bit of Politics and Religion.

/with charts and graphs and links
 
2009-05-26 08:15:14 PM
Anyone who still believes in global warming is advised to google Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher and one of the most distingiushed scientists in the world.

Monckton was prohibited from testifying before Congress, because he would have made hash out of Al Gore; he is the author of a paper citing 35 mistakes in An Inconvenient Truth, and pretty much telkls it like it is: The Global Warming Hoax is a scam, to perpetuate power in the hands of government by creating a permanent phony crisis, and also to divert tax money to third-world dictators like Robert Mugabe.

They can take it and shove it.
 
2009-05-26 08:16:17 PM
chimp_ninja: More specifically, their conclusions under the "policy" scenario didn't move much at all-- the "no policy" scenario increased in magnitude significantly, largely due to more information about economic factors in an unregulated carbon market.

So, the MIT model used 7.4degF as the outlier on the high side in their "unregulated" scenario. Which peer reviewed GCM came up with that amount as something to hang their hat on? Has this GCM that produced that 7.4degF rise been sanctioned (or will it be) by the IPCC in their next report?
 
2009-05-26 08:16:44 PM
bberg: Big, coal burning power plants and gas-guzzling SUVs are what we need to get back on track.

There are plenty of ways to get the economy back on track without SUVs and extra coal plants. I agree that crippling our already woeful economy isn't a smart thing to do, but let's figure out solutions that don't involve ridiculous overconsumption and belching out pollutants/CO2.
 
2009-05-26 08:16:52 PM
CujoQuarrel: The theory of manmade CO2 (at a very small percentage of the green house gasses -- water vapor is number 1) having this major effect on termperature is hard to believe.

CO2 is number two. Water vapor varies with temperature, i.e. it feedsback to temperature changes caused by other means and acts to amplify these changes. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the same bands as most of the Earth. That is something that is as close as you can get to an absolute fact in science. So why is it so hard to believe that changing its concentration in the atmosphere will change the energy balance of the Earth (and therefore change temperatures)?

As far as why it's a bad thing, try asking a farmer what s/he thinks about having more years with either droughts or floods or pest problems. More CO2 and warmer temperatures may mean more plant growth, but not necessarily the right plants in the right places when it comes to food production.
 
2009-05-26 08:17:49 PM
phlegmmo: Needless to say, the study says the outcome is worse when no action is taken. To help illustrate that point, the authors devised these cool looking roulette wheels with the odds of different temperature changes.


Outcome is worse when no action is taken?

you sir need to take a long gander at this site;

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~rxv/demcha/fallacy.htm

I could just point out to you the exact one you just used, but I have a feeling you should read that whole thing.

Eg :: doing nothing is a perfectly solid option that should NEVER be ignored. Reasoning that you need to observe more before you act is a sign of wisdom, too much of course leads to permanent inaction, and not enough leads to invasions of Iraq every few decades.
 
2009-05-26 08:17:59 PM
Blacksmithking: What if you play it safe and assume climate change is REAL, then you might actually help in solving the issue.

Have you heard? Tikbalangs have been dragging people away to the treetops. But if you buy this magical amulet, you'll be protected. If tikbalangs don't exist, you just wasted some time and money, but if they do, man, you're safe! It's like insurance!


...and surely the fight against GW will be cheap. No wait, it will probably cost billions that Obama says we 'don't have'. We're broke. The only way we can sell t-bills is to the FED!

It's the economy, the debt..... we can't afford to be taking chances with money we don't have....
 
2009-05-26 08:19:34 PM
I'm assuming NASA can be considered a neutral party. What do they have to gain by promoting either agenda?

This was written in 2005, Bush years, if you're looking for a bias, though I prefer to think it's probably pretty bias free.

NASA's Global warming info:

Global Warming

Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.

Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.

Causes of global warming

Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming. Human activities contribute to global warming by enhancing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect warms Earth's surface through a complex process involving sunlight, gases, and particles in the atmosphere. Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are known as greenhouse gases.

The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings. The burning of fossil fuels creates carbon dioxide, whose chemical formula is CO2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that slows the escape of heat into space. Trees and other plants remove CO2 from the air during photosynthesis, the process they use to produce food. The clearing of land contributes to the buildup of CO2 by reducing the rate at which the gas is removed from the atmosphere or by the decomposition of dead vegetation.

A small number of scientists argue that the increase in greenhouse gases has not made a measurable difference in the temperature. They say that natural processes could have caused global warming. Those processes include increases in the energy emitted (given off) by the sun. But the vast majority of climatologists believe that increases in the sun's energy have contributed only slightly to recent warming.

The impact of global warming

Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002.

Thousands of icebergs float off the coast of the Antarctic Peninsula after 1,250 square miles (3,240 square kilometers) of the Larsen B ice shelf disintegrated in 2002. The area of the ice was larger than the state of Rhode Island or the nation of Luxembourg. Antarctic ice shelves have been shrinking since the early 1970's because of climate warming in the region. Image credit: NASA/Earth Observatory
Continued global warming could have many damaging effects. It might harm plants and animals that live in the sea. It could also force animals and plants on land to move to new habitats. Weather patterns could change, causing flooding, drought, and an increase in damaging storms. Global warming could melt enough polar ice to raise the sea level. In certain parts of the world, human disease could spread, and crop yields could decline.

Harm to ocean life

Through global warming, the surface waters of the oceans could become warmer, increasing the stress on ocean ecosystems, such as coral reefs. High water temperatures can cause a damaging process called coral bleaching. When corals bleach, they expel the algae that give them their color and nourishment. The corals turn white and, unless the water temperature cools, they die. Added warmth also helps spread diseases that affect sea creatures.

Changes of habitat

Widespread shifts might occur in the natural habitats of animals and plants. Many species would have difficulty surviving in the regions they now inhabit. For example, many flowering plants will not bloom without a sufficient period of winter cold. And human occupation has altered the landscape in ways that would make new habitats hard to reach or unavailable altogether.

Weather damage

Extreme weather conditions might become more frequent and therefore more damaging. Changes in rainfall patterns could increase both flooding and drought in some areas. More hurricanes and other tropical storms might occur, and they could become more powerful.

Rising sea level

Continued global warming might, over centuries, melt large amounts of ice from a vast sheet that covers most of West Antarctica. As a result, the sea level would rise throughout the world. Many coastal areas would experience flooding, erosion, a loss of wetlands, and an entry of seawater into freshwater areas. High sea levels would submerge some coastal cities, small island nations, and other inhabited regions.

Threats to human health

Tropical diseases, such as malaria and dengue, might spread to larger regions. Longer-lasting and more intense heat waves could cause more deaths and illnesses. Floods and droughts could increase hunger and malnutrition.

Changes in crop yields

Canada and parts of Russia might benefit from an increase in crop yields. But any increases in yields could be more than offset by decreases caused by drought and higher temperatures -- particularly if the amount of warming were more than a few degrees Celsius. Yields in the tropics might fall disastrously because temperatures there are already almost as high as many crop plants can tolerate.

Limited global warming

Climatologists are studying ways to limit global warming. Two key methods would be (1) limiting CO2 emissions and (2) carbon sequestration -- either preventing carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere or removing CO2 already there.

Limiting CO2 emissions

Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.

Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.

Alternative sources of energy are more expensive to use than fossil fuels. However, increased research into their use would almost certainly reduce their cost.

Carbon sequestration could take two forms: (1) underground or underwater storage and (2) storage in living plants.

Underground or underwater storage would involve injecting industrial emissions of CO2 into underground geologic formations or the ocean. Suitable underground formations include natural reservoirs of oil and gas from which most of the oil or gas has been removed. Pumping CO2 into a reservoir would have the added benefit of making it easier to remove the remaining oil or gas. The value of that product could offset the cost of sequestration. Deep deposits of salt or coal could also be suitable.

The oceans could store much CO2. However, scientists have not yet determined the environmental impacts of using the ocean for carbon sequestration.

Storage in living plants

Green plants absorb CO2 from the atmosphere as they grow. They combine carbon from CO2 with hydrogen to make simple sugars, which they store in their tissues. After plants die, their bodies decay and release CO2. Ecosystems with abundant plant life, such as forests and even cropland, could tie up much carbon. However, future generations of people would have to keep the ecosystems intact. Otherwise, the sequestered carbon would re-enter the atmosphere as CO2.

Agreement on global warming

Delegates from more than 160 countries met in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 to draft the agreement that became known as the Kyoto Protocol. That agreement calls for decreases in the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Emissions targets

Thirty-eight industrialized nations would have to restrict their emissions of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases. The restrictions would occur from 2008 through 2012. Different countries would have different emissions targets. As a whole, the 38 countries would restrict their emissions to a yearly average of about 95 percent of their 1990 emissions. The agreement does not place restrictions on developing countries. But it encourages the industrialized nations to cooperate in helping developing countries limit emissions voluntarily.

Industrialized nations could also buy or sell emission reduction units. Suppose an industrialized nation cut its emissions more than was required by the agreement. That country could sell other industrialized nations emission reduction units allowing those nations to emit the amount equal to the excess it had cut.

Several other programs could also help an industrialized nation earn credit toward its target. For example, the nation might help a developing country reduce emissions by replacing fossil fuels in some applications.

Approving the agreement


The protocol would take effect as a treaty if (1) at least 55 countries ratified (formally approved) it, and (2) the industrialized countries ratifying the protocol had CO2 emissions in 1990 that equaled at least 55 percent of the emissions of all 38 industrialized countries in 1990.

In 2001, the United States rejected the Kyoto Protocol. President George W. Bush said that the agreement could harm the U.S. economy. But he declared that the United States would work with other countries to limit global warming. Other countries, most notably the members of the European Union, agreed to continue with the agreement without United States participation.

By 2004, more than 100 countries, including nearly all the countries classified as industrialized under the protocol, had ratified the agreement. However, the agreement required ratification by Russia or the United States to go into effect. Russia ratified the protocol in November 2004. The treaty was to come into force in February 2005.

Analyzing global warming

Scientists use information from several sources to analyze global warming that occurred before people began to use thermometers. Those sources include tree rings, cores (cylindrical samples) of ice drilled from Antarctica and Greenland, and cores drilled out of sediments in oceans. Information from these sources indicates that the temperature increase of the 1900's was probably the largest in the last 1,000 years.

Computers help climatologists analyze past climate changes and predict future changes. First, a scientist programs a computer with a set of mathematical equations known as a climate model. The equations describe how various factors, such as the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, affect the temperature of Earth's surface. Next, the scientist enters data representing the values of those factors at a certain time. He or she then runs the program, and the computer describes how the temperature would vary. A computer's representation of changing climatic conditions is known as a climate simulation.

In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group sponsored by the United Nations (UN), published results of climate simulations in a report on global warming. Climatologists used three simulations to determine whether natural variations in climate produced the warming of the past 100 years. The first simulation took into account both natural processes and human activities that affect the climate. The second simulation took into account only the natural processes, and the third only the human activities.

The climatologists then compared the temperatures predicted by the three simulations with the actual temperatures recorded by thermometers. Only the first simulation, which took into account both natural processes and human activities, produced results that corresponded closely to the recorded temperatures.

The IPCC also published results of simulations that predicted temperatures until 2100. The different simulations took into account the same natural processes but different patterns of human activity. For example, scenarios differed in the amounts of CO2 that would enter the atmosphere due to human activities.

The simulations showed that there can be no "quick fix" to the problem of global warming. Even if all emissions of greenhouse gases were to cease immediately, the temperature would continue to increase after 2100 because of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere.
 
2009-05-26 08:20:47 PM
olddinosaur: Anyone who still believes in global warming is advised to google Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Margaret Thatcher and one of the most distingiushed scientists in the world.

How is he one of the most distinguished scientists in the world if he has no scientific publications? Particularly, he has no scientific publications on climate.
 
2009-05-26 08:21:36 PM
ramblin: Who determines what the ideal temperature should be? Where do you measure it?

the ideal temperature is the degree that you cause a global snowballing (pun not intentional) of temperature variances. 1-3* over 100 years, not a big deal, Earth can handle it. 5-8* and we're looking at total feedback loop destruction. Get it?
 
2009-05-26 08:21:47 PM
trofl: CujoQuarrel: The theory of manmade CO2 (at a very small percentage of the green house gasses -- water vapor is number 1) having this major effect on termperature is hard to believe.

CO2 is number two. Water vapor varies with temperature, i.e. it feedsback to temperature changes caused by other means and acts to amplify these changes. CO2 absorbs and emits radiation in the same bands as most of the Earth. That is something that is as close as you can get to an absolute fact in science. So why is it so hard to believe that changing its concentration in the atmosphere will change the energy balance of the Earth (and therefore change temperatures)?

As far as why it's a bad thing, try asking a farmer what s/he thinks about having more years with either droughts or floods or pest problems. More CO2 and warmer temperatures may mean more plant growth, but not necessarily the right plants in the right places when it comes to food production.


Well, what part of the CO2 is man made? That's the only part that really counts to see if it's mankind or some other factor isn't it.

Here is an interesting analysis. It may be batshiate crazy, it may not. Look at it an poke holes in it.

Link

Farmers always remove the plants they don't want. AKA weeds.

Farming on top of glaciers is much harder.
 
2009-05-26 08:22:21 PM
olddinosaur: Anyone who still believes in global warming is advised to google Lord Christopher Monckton[...],

No, I'm waiting for the Pay Per View debate between Pielke Sr. and Steve Schneider

San Francisco Examiner (new window)

Both seem willing and able to debate the topic.
 
2009-05-26 08:22:28 PM
CujoQuarrel: And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.


I'm confused! Isn't that EXACTLY what the current consensus has been arguing with peer reviewed papers? Why, yes, it is! Climate change scientists have made their argument, it is by no means complete, but so far climate change deniers/skeptics have made very few coherent counter arguments and no peer reviewed papers (that I've seen). I see scientific consensus being countered with 90% wharblegarble.
 
2009-05-26 08:22:39 PM
hunternuttall.com

Science? Who needs it?
 
2009-05-26 08:23:54 PM
bberg

We should assume climate chage is real because of the thousands of discreet examples.

Mine drainage = bad

Nuclear waste = bad

Coal smoke = bad

Exploitation of rivers = bad

All the by-products of our current society are known to be harmful to us. Our current lifestyle keeps adding to to the shiat in the pot. You can't keep shiatting in the same pot and expect it to never overflow. Sometimes, you gotta flush.

I could understand if we had Orion class nuclear ships that could carry small armies to mars and venus to terraform them. ( well mars, at least.) But even then another planet will just delay the inevitable. Coal and indeed all fossil fuels are finite and harmful to us.

It's time to start looking for alternatives, even if for no other reason than we can. Why can't I drink the same fuel my car uses? Why can't I get electricity from the paint on my roof instead of from some coal tower a hundred miles away? Why can't we have a productive forest here instead of allowing asshats to build mcmansions and shiat?

The people who will lose their jobs in the shift to a green economy starting now will lose them slowly. You won't see everyone put out on the street overnight, and the new tech will greate more jobs for the displaced people to move to gradually. Basically they'll fill the same role in a different way. If they hang on till the bitter end, we're gonna get tabletop cold fusion or something and see every other power source provider skillless and on the dole in under a year.

The economy is important, but a catostrophic economy collapse is just on paper. You can just say, fark it and start over. The environment is not rebootable. We can't just focus on people whose lives are dependent on killing us all slowly. At the same time, we can't ignore them either. Now is the perfect time to start making a more ecologically sound economy. It might hurt a bit, at first but it will hurt a lot less than waiting.
 
2009-05-26 08:24:57 PM
make me some tea, its global climate change, didnt you get the memo? You see, if we declare that the climate will change in any particular way, we can eventually be proven retared wrong. We dont want to end up like the Ice Age retards from the 70's (in congress apparently).
 
2009-05-26 08:25:10 PM
bberg: I've bolded the important part. How do we know that ice on the poles is how the planet is "supposed" to be?

It would help is it was even there. We're looking at an entire northern pole meltdown in a few decades, that sound like a normal planet change to you?
 
2009-05-26 08:28:24 PM
Road_Kill: Personally, I have come to believe the whole thing is being contrived to (a) give politicians more power and (b) separate me and my children from our money both current and potential.

Sure, they're trying to capitalize on it, but why is the ice at the north pole getting smaller?

I doubt it's because of the coming ice age.

Sat photos don't lie.
 
2009-05-26 08:29:13 PM
CujoQuarrel: Zeppelininthesky: To all you global warming deniers:

Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.

I am talking *real* evidence. No crap about how Al Gore is the antichrist or carbon credits suck.

I want real scientific evidence that can be tested and falsified in a lab. I also would like to see any scientific papers that are published in a respectable scientific journal.

/not trolling

And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.

The models are pretty much useless since they can't be verified. The theory of manmade CO2 (at a very small percentage of the green house gasses -- water vapor is number 1) having this major effect on termperature is hard to believe.

Average temperatures change. We get warmer. We get colder. We got no say so on the matter.

I'm glad it's not getting colder. We are overdue for another ice age.


Earth is warming is proven on multiple counts. What is your issue with them?
Humans are not causing it, increased atmospheric CO2 is. That atmospheric CO2 has increased is not controversial. That CO2 gas absorbs solar radiation is basic basic chemistry. And yes, humans have clearly added large amounts of CO2 via burning forests and fossil fuels. That is just basic chemistry of balancing equations.

Good or bad is not an issue of science. However, change is often disruptive and the pace of change is faster than anything in the geologic record with implications of historically unprecedented disruptions.

Interesting twist is that H2O is more significant than CO2 but it gets confusing as more H2O means more heat, more evaporation, until it rises and cools to clouds which reflect much incoming radiation yielding a buffering effect. However, this is dependent on the thermal gradients and produce more nasty things like hurricanes.
 
2009-05-26 08:29:29 PM
CujoQuarrel: Zeppelininthesky: To all you global warming deniers:

Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.

I am talking *real* evidence. No crap about how Al Gore is the antichrist or carbon credits suck.

I want real scientific evidence that can be tested and falsified in a lab. I also would like to see any scientific papers that are published in a respectable scientific journal.

/not trolling

And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.

The models are pretty much useless since they can't be verified. The theory of manmade CO2 (at a very small percentage of the green house gasses -- water vapor is number 1) having this major effect on termperature is hard to believe.

Average temperatures change. We get warmer. We get colder. We got no say so on the matter.

I'm glad it's not getting colder. We are overdue for another ice age.


I am pretty sure if you look, you can find all kinds of scientific journals that have articles about how man is changing the environment. I also know that there are some experiments and models that show quite clearly man is causing the climate to change.

If you have evidence to that can falsify those claims, I am all ears.
 
2009-05-26 08:30:18 PM
CujoQuarrel: Zeppelininthesky: To all you global warming deniers:

Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.

I am talking *real* evidence. No crap about how Al Gore is the antichrist or carbon credits suck.

I want real scientific evidence that can be tested and falsified in a lab. I also would like to see any scientific papers that are published in a respectable scientific journal.

/not trolling

And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.

The models are pretty much useless since they can't be verified. The theory of manmade CO2 (at a very small percentage of the green house gasses -- water vapor is number 1) having this major effect on termperature is hard to believe.


As to A and B:

We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. If we take two glass boxes, fill one with regular air, and fill the other with a mixture of, say, 80% CO2 and the other 20% nitrogen, and heat both boxes with bright lights, the CO2-filled box will retain more heat for longer. Simple, easily verified experiment.

We also know that in the last two centuries humans have begun to produce previously unthinkable levels of carbon dioxide, and that in that same time period, average global temperatures have risen at a similar rate to greenhouse gas production. We can measure these things, and we have accurate records of them, and we know these facts to be true.

Perhaps it is truly a coincidence, but as a non-scientist who lacks the specific skills to do further research, I tend to side with Occam's razor. Gases which are known to cause higher temperatures presently occur in higher concentrations than they have throughout most of human history. Temperatures are higher than expected. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the production of the gasses had something to do with the change in temperature.

Thank you for proposing your skeptical viewpoint in a hinged and respectful manner, unlike the Brockways of the world who derive great pleasure from ignoring science to suit their viewpoints.
 
2009-05-26 08:30:38 PM
karmachameleon: rikkitikkitavi: Either you are a believer, or you're sane.

Fine. Show us the science that disproves anthropogenic global warming. I mean, that's not so hard, is it? That's how science works - show us the work that's been done that shows the theory of anthropogenic global warming is wrong, and it'll be accepted, I guarantee it. The theory will be discarded.

Show us that work. Show us. Please, get it over with. I'm waiting.


I don't claim to be a master at proofs, but I don't think that you can prove that something is not happening. It may, in fact, be occurring at such in infinitely slow rate that it is not possible to detect. Never the less, still occurring. Or it mayb not be occurring at all. Or the evidence is not in fact evidence. A dead body does not mean that someone committed murder. It merely means someone is dead.

As well, there could be an infinitely unknown number of contributors to the effects that you refer to as "Global Warming". Causal? Maybe. Coincidental? Possibly. Cyclical? Possibly. I don't think there's enough evidence to date to prove anything.

But for certain, you can't disprove anything here. I was joking along for the fun of it earlier, though. I think it's a silly argument.
 
2009-05-26 08:31:49 PM
CujoQuarrel: Well, what part of the CO2 is man made? That's the only part that really counts to see if it's mankind or some other factor isn't it.

Better question: What part of the change in greenhouse gas concentrations is man made? Because that's the part that counts when we're talking about changes in the energy budget.

Here is an interesting analysis. It may be batshiate crazy, it may not. Look at it an poke holes in it.

Link


I shouldn't have to poke holes in it, peer review would have done that already. Show me something published in a reputable journal.

Farmers always remove the plants they don't want. AKA weeds.

Or rainforest, if you're in Brazil. You've missed the point. If the local climate gets too hot, wet, or dry in a region, it can become next to impossible to turn a profit on farming.

Farming on top of glaciers is much harder.

The soil in a recently thawed region isn't going to be much better.
 
2009-05-26 08:32:15 PM
thisisarepeat: Quick, throw a bajillion in grants at them!

Quick, be an idiot who's never had the slightest notion of what a grant really entitles or what it takes to receive, oh wait...
 
2009-05-26 08:32:53 PM
Schmea: I'm assuming NASA can be considered a neutral party. What do they have to gain by promoting either agenda?

You should petition NASA to use windmill power the next time they want to launch something.

Because they'll be all over that idea.

/that was fun to write!
 
2009-05-26 08:34:12 PM
I welcome global warming if it means disasterous climate changes, rising sea levels, and the end of civilization. I'm goddamn sick and tired of this world and most of the people in it. Bring on the apocolypse. I can shoot, track, survive in the wild, and I know for a fact that taking human life doesn't bother me. I figure my chances for better than even.

/I'll be in my bunker
 
2009-05-26 08:34:15 PM
wademh: CujoQuarrel: Zeppelininthesky: To all you global warming deniers:

Please give evidence that man made global warning is not happening.

I am talking *real* evidence. No crap about how Al Gore is the antichrist or carbon credits suck.

I want real scientific evidence that can be tested and falsified in a lab. I also would like to see any scientific papers that are published in a respectable scientific journal.

/not trolling

And the reverse is? Need proof of
'A' The earth is warming
'B' Humans are causing it this time instead of whatever caused it to happen in the past

And also
'C' This is a bad thing.

The models are pretty much useless since they can't be verified. The theory of manmade CO2 (at a very small percentage of the green house gasses -- water vapor is number 1) having this major effect on termperature is hard to believe.

Average temperatures change. We get warmer. We get colder. We got no say so on the matter.

I'm glad it's not getting colder. We are overdue for another ice age.

Earth is warming is proven on multiple counts. What is your issue with them?
Humans are not causing it, increased atmospheric CO2 is. That atmospheric CO2 has increased is not controversial. That CO2 gas absorbs solar radiation is basic basic chemistry. And yes, humans have clearly added large amounts of CO2 via burning forests and fossil fuels. That is just basic chemistry of balancing equations.

Good or bad is not an issue of science. However, change is often disruptive and the pace of change is faster than anything in the geologic record with implications of historically unprecedented disruptions.

Interesting twist is that H2O is more significant than CO2 but it gets confusing as more H2O means more heat, more evaporation, until it rises and cools to clouds which reflect much incoming radiation yielding a buffering effect. However, this is dependent on the thermal gradients and produce more nasty things like hurricanes.


The thing is, we are dumping more CO2 into the atmosphere then nature can ever add. We are also adding methane to the atmosphere, which is a a more significant greenhouse gas.
 
2009-05-26 08:37:11 PM
Moncton was on Michael Savage's The Savage Nation last night and he made excellent sense as far as I could see.

You Farkers would have a hard time explaining why global temperatures rose an average of 4.0 degrees C. between 1690 c.e. and 1715 c.e., when no new technology was invented, population of the world was the same, and the burning of wood for fuel was somewhat decreased by the end of the "Little Ice Age" of 1600.

The fact is, Earth heats and cools in 400-year cycles, and since we are at the peak of a hot phase, it is not at all surprising that it is hot out there, much the same way as it is not surprising that it is hotter in July than in January, at least in the northern hemisphere.

From 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled precipitously, leading many people to believe we had peaked in the warm cycle and were headed into a prolonged era of cold weather; from 1970 to 2000 temperatures heated again, leading to the Global Warming Hysteria and subsequent panic. Since then, temperatures have been flat or off slightly, putting the lie to Gore's balderdash.

In addition, the Soviet Union collapsed in the mean time, and their careful measurements of the weather were no longer available; take out the 25% of the coldest readings, and it will appear the earth is hotter.

The Chinese Navy circled the Arctic in 1421 c.e., and reported no ice to speak of.

No responsible scientific evidence proves global warming even exists, let alone that it is man-caused. Does the rooster's cackadoodling cause the sunrise?
 
2009-05-26 08:37:39 PM
Deacon Blue: /I'll be in my bunker

Won't you be, my neighbor?
 
2009-05-26 08:38:49 PM
I don't pay attention until the Zombie mod for the map comes out.
 
2009-05-26 08:38:54 PM
I'm still baffled as to how Brockway doesn't get bored with repeating the exact same thing over and over, resulting in exactly the same responses.

I'll reluctantly admit that trolls aren't necessarily stupid - they're conversation vandals and attention whores, but not necessarily stupid so... given that he may have a measurable IQ, why doesn't Brockway get bored and change his shtick?
 
2009-05-26 08:41:09 PM
I want to Favorite Brockway, but what color should I make him?
Bright red - Stop DO NOT READ
Orange - Caution Read at your own risk
Yellow - Burns with the light of a thousand suns
Light Blue - Cool and Refreshing Viewpoint
Dark Blue - Ice Cold as in Blind Man's Bluff.
 
2009-05-26 08:43:54 PM

Perhaps it is truly a coincidence, but as a non-scientist who lacks the specific skills to do further research, I tend to side with Occam's razor. Gases which are known to cause higher temperatures presently occur in higher concentrations than they have throughout most of human history. Temperatures are higher than expected. Therefore it is logical to conclude that the production of the gasses had something to do with the change in temperature.

Thank you for proposing your skeptical viewpoint in a hinged and respectful manner, unlike the Brockways of the world who derive great pleasure from ignoring science to suit their viewpoints.


Thing is I could more easily see that global warming would cause increased CO2. Warm water holds less gas. There is some indication that the warming was historically preceeding the rise in CO2.

I see too much politics here to believe the science. It seems for any problem the world has the 'world' politicans have only one answer. The west must transfer large sums of money to the poorer countries. The IPCC was a political body more than a scientific one.


I don't trust computer models , mainly because I write them. Trust me. They'll return the data you were expecting because of the assumptions you made writing the model. Until you can test them versus real world data you got bupkus.

I've also noticed that the've ratched up the scare mongering as this has gone on and people have said 'I can live with that' they'll go "No No did I say the temp would go up 3 degrees over the next hundred years?? I meant 12 degrees over the next 5. And the oceans, they won't rise 3 cm like I first said but 12 meters. Overnight!!"
 
2009-05-26 08:47:35 PM
Ah, good old Brockway and his graph. As predictable as it is hilarious. Here's a better one:

upload.wikimedia.org

Note typical timescales for observable variations on the x axis. Choose the right start point for a decade long data set and you can fit whatever you like.

I'm not even going to *start* on the idiocy of blindly fitting straight lines to things.
 
2009-05-26 08:48:02 PM
Let us look at the last 100 years and we will see that even with the start of all mordern industry and gigantic leaps in the human population we didn't even affect the 1% change on the first graph.

One giant solar flare or a few volcanos screws up the chart more than anything mankind can do. We are not gods and don't fool yourself than man can control the weather.

Follow the grant money...
 
2009-05-26 08:49:29 PM
feanturi: Most people aren't looking at the issue correctly. We've apparently somehow been split into alarmists and deniers. As soon as you've declared such a distinction you've completely missed the whole thing. Fact is that climate change is real, and it's been going on for billions of years, and tons of lifeforms have died because of it. Another fact is that those species were not prepared to handle the extreme changes. And neither are we. This is because we are spending all our time aruging about whose fault it is and pretending that we can somehow fix it. It is this hubris that will end us. We need to acknowledge that the global climate is changing in ways that are going to affect how future generations survive, and that's what we need to plan for. Trying to hold in our farts, or come up with graphs showing how many farts need to be contained, is not going to provide us with what our descendants will need. We'll just be a race of bloated, gassy people freezing to death.

As far as I can tell, CO2 levels now radically exceed that of any time we've been able to measure in atmospheric history. Even if we were to contain emissions, it's not clear to me that that would stop warming unless we were actually able to reduce atmospheric CO2 anyway.

In short, we're all doomed. We're all going to die. The oceans are going to boil off into space, and pretty soon Ozymandias will be the smartest guy on the cinder.
 
2009-05-26 08:51:25 PM
Deacon Blue: I welcome global warming if it means disasterous climate changes, rising sea levels, and the end of civilization. I'm goddamn sick and tired of this world and most of the people in it. Bring on the apocolypse. I can shoot, track, survive in the wild, and I know for a fact that taking human life doesn't bother me. I figure my chances for better than even.

/I'll be in my bunker


You bring up a good point....they (the Gov't and their ecoweenie pawns) may be so distracted and occupied.....that they might start to leave us alone......

Niiiiiiice.......
 
2009-05-26 08:53:02 PM
CujoQuarrel: I've also noticed that the've ratched up the scare mongering as this has gone on and people have said 'I can live with that' they'll go "No No did I say the temp would go up 3 degrees over the next hundred years?? I meant 12 degrees over the next 5. And the oceans, they won't rise 3 cm like I first said but 12 meters. Overnight!!"

I find usually that's only what gets reported in the media. Remember, we live with the FEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR!!! Media, and the EVERYTHING HAS TWO SIDES!!! media. If a debate is stable, and agreed upon, that's not a story... so they'll find the one study that says "this'll kill you even MORE than you thought!" and air that. Or they'll find the 1% that disagree, and air that as a dissenting opinion across the table from the 99% majority on equal footing, as though it's an equal debate within the community. It's all media hype to sell a story, since consensus and steady "yup... we all still agree we need to do something." won't bring in viewers.
 
2009-05-26 08:53:16 PM
Unsung_Hero: I'm still baffled as to how Brockway doesn't get bored with repeating the exact same thing over and over, resulting in exactly the same responses.

I'll reluctantly admit that trolls aren't necessarily stupid - they're conversation vandals and attention whores, but not necessarily stupid so... given that he may have a measurable IQ, why doesn't Brockway get bored and change his shtick?


I change the graphic each month when the new data comes out showing that the trend for this entire century is still for cooling. LOLZ! So this "shtick", as you so ignorantly call it, is never more than about a month or so old.
 
2009-05-26 08:53:39 PM
In before morons who have absolutely no clue how scientific funding works!


...



mellon101: The best way to kill your department's funding is to release findings that the financiers do not want.

Not much anti global warming money out there, I wouldn't think.



lol, just kidding.
 
2009-05-26 08:56:06 PM
olddinosaur: Moncton was on Michael Savage's The Savage Nation last night and he made excellent sense as far as I could see.

You Farkers would have a hard time explaining why global temperatures rose an average of 4.0 degrees C. between 1690 c.e. and 1715 c.e., when no new technology was invented, population of the world was the same, and the burning of wood for fuel was somewhat decreased by the end of the "Little Ice Age" of 1600.

The fact is, Earth heats and cools in 400-year cycles, and since we are at the peak of a hot phase, it is not at all surprising that it is hot out there, much the same way as it is not surprising that it is hotter in July than in January, at least in the northern hemisphere.

From 1940 to 1970 the earth cooled precipitously, leading many people to believe we had peaked in the warm cycle and were headed into a prolonged era of cold weather; from 1970 to 2000 temperatures heated again, leading to the Global Warming Hysteria and subsequent panic. Since then, temperatures have been flat or off slightly, putting the lie to Gore's balderdash.

In addition, the Soviet Union collapsed in the mean time, and their careful measurements of the weather were no longer available; take out the 25% of the coldest readings, and it will appear the earth is hotter.

The Chinese Navy circled the Arctic in 1421 c.e., and reported no ice to speak of.

No responsible scientific evidence proves global warming even exists, let alone that it is man-caused. Does the rooster's cackadoodling cause the sunrise?


Don't be such a tool. That 4 degree change is a microfluctuation. The science of global warming is not the reactionist "everything people do is bad" variant of Greek philosphical notion of humans being corrupted in our separation from nature even though various chicken littles pick up on the science and try to use it to support that very philosophy. Please keep the 2 separate.
 
2009-05-26 08:56:14 PM
Brockway: But hey, why let a little thing like the, you know, actual scientific data get in the way of your religion, Chicken Little.

if you're looking for an effect that's only visible on long timescales, why are you restricting your data to short ones?
 
2009-05-26 08:58:06 PM
Global warming or not - why shouldn't we as a nation focus on doing more with less resources and focus on conservation?

Seems like a pretty good way to fight wildly shifting energy costs, reductions in fresh water availability and that whole clean air, land and ocean thing. What a concept!

Cast in point - The Pacific Northwest hasn't increased energy consumption in 30 years, and the Seattle area hasn't increased total water consumption amount since the early 1960's - even though we've doubled in population size. We're doing pretty good with conservation while having thriving businesses.
 
Displayed 50 of 523 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report