Global Warming again ....

[EdgeOfDarkness]

Last week it was unseasonably warm , all I heard on the News was how horribly wretched and monstrous Global warming has leaped upon us , they even had me so spooked I was looking under the bed for it. This week --- freezing as all {censored}, and not a peep about Global warming.....

Remember when it was El Nino 24/7 ?

[Phishmonkey]

What some people don't understand is that global warming doesn't cause just warmer temperatures . Rather, it creates abnormal climate and resulting from temperature changes. Global warming could end up resulting in global cooling . It's a lot more complicated than what many people think. Abnormal temps and abnormal weather can all be caused by global warming.

 

 

Very true, melted ice caps can allow the arctic winds to come right down to the states.

[EdgeOfDarkness]

Remember when the earth was covered in Ice ?..good times.

[nibsborg]

We need at least a couple hundred years more of solid climatological data to determine that the current global warming trend is truly anthroprogenic. Until then {censored} off the chicken little "scientists" who will come up with whatever conclusion suites their financiers. It's all bull{censored}.

[JBecker]

We need at least a couple hundred years more of solid climatological data to determine that the current global warming trend is truly anthroprogenic. Until then {censored} off the chicken little "scientists" who will come up with whatever conclusion suites their financiers. It's all bull{censored}.

Yup.


Do you know what that is? Apparently not according to your post. You realize most research, especially in this area, is government funded right...

Btw, the caption to that picture:

Ice sheets contain a record of hundreds of thousands of years of past climate, trapped in the ancient snow. Scientists recover this climate history by drilling cores in the ice, some of them over 3,500 meters (11,000 feet) deep. These photographs show experimental drilling on the Greenland Ice Cap in summer 2005. (Photographs copyright Reto St

[nibsborg]

How stupid could you {censored}ers get?

My answer is: maybe as stupid as you if we came to ANY sort of conclusion on anything based on this cheesy graph.

[Phishmonkey]

My answer is: maybe as stupid as you if we came to ANY sort of conclusion on anything based on this cheesy graph.

 

 

You're acting like every scientific conclusion is summed up by that graph, there's a lot of evidence you're ignoring.

[Reginald]

Hey everyone, lets abandon all logic and reasoning and listen to people like nibsborg instead of scientists....you know, those people with professional opinions and evidence on the subject.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

[nibsborg]

Hey everyone, lets abandon all logic and reasoning and listen to people like nibsborg instead of scientists....you know, those people with professional opinions and evidence on the subject. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

How do you know that I am not a scientist? And I do not deny that there is some evidence of global warming, just that there is NO evidence that it is caused by man.

Hell, 1000 years ago the scientific majority concluded that the earth was the center of the universe. 550 years ago the same swore that the earth was flat. The scientific majority has been proven wrong throughout history. I am not saying they are wrong about the current situation but to me thereseems to be an eagerness to come to a conclusion without sufficient data.

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

Not wanting to argue with you guys, and sorry if I offended anyone, I am going to bed now. Good night and I hope ya'all have a great day tomorrow.

[Phishmonkey]

How do you know that I am not a scientist? And I do not deny that there is some evidence of global warming, just that there is NO evidence that it is caused by man. Hell, 1000 years ago the scientific majority concluded that the earth was the center of the universe. 550 years ago the same swore that the earth was flat. The scientific majority has been proven wrong throughout history. I am not saying they are wrong about the current situation but to me thereseems to be an eagerness to come to a conclusion without sufficient data. Check this out: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html Not wanting to argue with you guys, and sorry if I offended anyone, I am going to bed now. Good night and I hope ya'all have a great day tomorrow.

 

 

You're ignoring the fact that science advances, scientists today are much more reputable than the ancient ones. BTW the ancient greeks were well aware that the earth was round.

[JBecker]

How do you know that I am not a scientist? And I do not deny that there is some evidence of global warming, just that there is NO evidence that it is caused by man. Hell, 1000 years ago the scientific majority concluded that the earth was the center of the universe. 550 years ago the same swore that the earth was flat. The scientific majority has been proven wrong throughout history. I am not saying they are wrong about the current situation but to me thereseems to be an eagerness to come to a conclusion without sufficient data. Check this out: http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html Not wanting to argue with you guys, and sorry if I offended anyone, I am going to bed now. Good night and I hope ya'all have a great day tomorrow.

 

 

I think it's important to note that the methodology current followed by science, the concepts of falsifiability, of experimental controls, etc, weren't really standardized into the Scientific Method until the Enlightenment. Look it up.

 

And thanks for ignoring my evidence about just how much climate data we have, I'm glad that you've made your mind up about a subject you don't know all the evidence for.

[Dark Angel]

You're ignoring the fact that science advances, scientists today are much more reputable than the ancient ones.

 

 

No, just like the ancient ones, they are generally shunned during their times for not believing what everyone accepts at face value.

 

Just so everyone realizes: we are experiencing a rather significant shift in our magnetic pole, which is due to the sun.

 

Magnetic pole vs car exhaust and asthma inhalers.

 

I just can't figure out which has more energy and actually affects every goddamn molecule on the planet. Nope, the sun doesn't do {censored}, and a little thing like a shifting magnetic field doesn't do {censored}. It's that little bit of air on the surface, and that little bit of that air (in parts/million) whose concentrations man MAY effect that is what dictates surface climates.

 

Get a grip on magnitude guys. You all give your species way, way too much credit.

[Phishmonkey]

No, just like the ancient ones, they are generally shunned during their times for not believing what everyone accepts at face value. Just so everyone realizes: we are experiencing a rather significant shift in our magnetic pole, which is due to the sun. Magnetic pole vs car exhaust and asthma inhalers. I just can't figure out which has more energy and actually affects every goddamn molecule on the planet. Nope, the sun doesn't do {censored}, and a little thing like a shifting magnetic field doesn't do {censored}. It's that little bit of air on the surface, and that little bit of that air (in parts/million) whose concentrations man MAY effect that is what dictates surface climates. Get a grip on magnitude guys. You all give your species way, way too much credit.

 

 

Care to back any of that up?

[JBecker]

No, just like the ancient ones, they are generally shunned during their times for not believing what everyone accepts at face value. Just so everyone realizes: we are experiencing a rather significant shift in our magnetic pole, which is due to the sun. Magnetic pole vs car exhaust and asthma inhalers. I just can't figure out which has more energy and actually affects every goddamn molecule on the planet. Nope, the sun doesn't do {censored}, and a little thing like a shifting magnetic field doesn't do {censored}. It's that little bit of air on the surface, and that little bit of that air (in parts/million) whose concentrations man MAY effect that is what dictates surface climates. Get a grip on magnitude guys. You all give your species way, way too much credit.

This figure shows historical CO2 (right axis) and delta-deuterium (a temperature [proxy]; left axis) records based on Antarctic ice cores, providing data for the last 650,000 years. Note that deuterium levels differ between Vostok and EPICA ice cores and are therefore plotted on separate scales to maintain the relative levels. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are on the same scale throughout.

Come on, I'm not even trying...

[Reginald]

And I do not deny that there is some evidence of global warming, just that there is NO evidence that it is caused by man.

 

Sorry, I must have misread what you said, although I don't agree, you can dispute whether or not the change is caused by man. It's those people who completely deny global warming is happening, they really piss me off.

 

 

EDIT: Nice graph AtarisPunk29

[Dark Angel]

Hey everyone, lets abandon all logic and reasoning and listen to people like nibsborg instead of scientists....you know, those people with professional opinions and evidence on the subject. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

If you want to talk about {censored}ty mathematical models, I know there are at least two people here that will bitchslap you and any honest climatologist on the topic. You're gonna need a pretty intense background in math, but it's up to you. And a little hint, climatologists are not generally mathematicians, so just because the believe a model doesn't mean they know anything about it, nomoreso than you know how a tv works because you can change the channel with the remote.

We cannot currently model the weather on a global scale. Period. You have to understand in order to model, and we don't understand. We literally make {censored} up to put in the model. You need to calibrate the model to make sure it replicates history. Not only do we not have the data, we can't predict repeatable local patterns.

Even a 100% accurate history of oxygen, CO2, sulfur, O3, and temperature going back millions of years is only a few thousand parameters short and 1/10th the duration you'd want to replicate hiccups and trends.

[Dark Angel]

Come on, I'm not even trying...

 

 

That much is evident, I agree. And I've told you before that ice-cores contain volatile data. Researchers have admitted to severe cherry picking, where measurements had 100% variance. I've also told you, which you can easily verify, that CO2 changes chase, not follow, the temperature changes we have observed since before the last ice age.

 

And to the guy that said care to back up any of that: The magnetic pole shift is only a few clicks away for you. I'm not gonna pull some {censored} like that out of thin air. Solar storms are as well.

[JBecker]

That much is evident, I agree. And I've told you before that ice-cores contain volatile data. Researchers have admitted to severe cherry picking, where measurements had 100% variance. I've also told you, which you can easily verify, that CO2 changes chase, not follow, the temperature changes we have observed since before the last ice age.

 

Didn't realize we've ever spoken on the subject. I'd like to see any information on cherry-picking you claim occurs.

 

I'm tired and have a lot to do tomorrow but I'll leave you with this-- I'm studying chemistry at an Ivy League school, I've taken several geology courses while here, and I attended a conference in Germany this summer with 19 Nobel Laureattes in Chemistry (well 16 chemists, 3 physicists) and an entire day was dedicated to a discussion panel about Global Warming.

 

Let's just say I've done my hw.

 

To not recognize global climate change as an issue is to ignore science even Exxon is now admitting is overwhelming.

[***1776***]

I just wish more people would have the real debate and not just saying "Global Warming is coming" end of topic, thats just silly..


I posted this video up a couple days ago for the debate and sadly the environmental types NEVER commented on the video..

Im still not 100% sure about Global Warming, i think the data is all over the place but i think we should do everything as a people/human race to be environmenta aware..

[JBecker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M I just wish more people would have the real debate and not just saying "Global Warming is coming" end of topic, thats just silly.. I posted this video up a couple days ago for the debate and sadly the environmental types NEVER commented on the video.. Im still not 100% sure about Global Warming, i think the data is all over the place but i think we should do everything as a people/human race to be environmenta aware..

No one is going to say that a serious debate about Global Warming occurs between Bill Nye (and I think it was an MIT professor?) and a climatologist. That's ridiculous. What is worth commenting on?

[Reginald]

If you want to talk about {censored}ty mathematical models, I know there are at least two people here that will bitchslap you and any honest climatologist on the topic. You're gonna need a pretty intense background in math, but it's up to you. And a little hint, climatologists are not generally mathematicians, so just because the believe a model doesn't mean they know anything about it, nomoreso than you know how a tv works because you can change the channel with the remote.

Are we talking CRT, LCD or Plasma T.V.'s

I'm very aware of the fact that models aren't perfectly accurate. The fact is, models are made to attempt to predict outcomes with a high degree of accuracy. I would also bet money on the fact that climatologists have fairly good mathematical training as weather is generally modeled as a stochastic process (differential equations and such). I'm sure they don't just magically get graphs and data and believe it automatically.

[JBecker]

I'm gonna take these two gentleman's (who were quite awesome to engage on the issue) word on the issue.

Prof. Rowland has attended the Lindau Meeting in 1998, 2005 and 2006. Due to the rotation of disciplines the Laureates will be invited every three years. The 2nd interdisciplinary Meeting was held in 2005.

 

 

Born Junie 28th, 1927 in Delaware, Ohio; 1943-1945, studied chemistry at the Ohio Wesleyan University, 1948-1952 at the University of Chicago; Ph.D. in radiochemistry; 1952-1956, research work at Princeton University; 1956-1964, research work at the University of Kansas; 1964, Chairman and Professor of Chemistry at the University of California in Irvine.

 

Nobel Prize for Chemistry 1995 together with Paul Crutzen and Mario J. Molina for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone; the research findings, which were able to demonstrate for the very first time that even apparently minimal emissions can have a major effect on the environment, led to the Montreal Protocol covering the ban of fluorochlorinated hydrocarbons CFCs in 1987.

 

Prof. Crutzen has attended the Lindau Meeting in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2006. Due to the rotation of disciplines the Laureates will be invited every three years. The 2nd interdisciplinary Meeting was held in 2005.

 

 

Born in Amsterdam on December 3, 1933 into a working class family, Crutzen entered secondary school directly after the end of the second world war. He studied science, but developed initially his greatest interest in foreign languages. For reasons of ill health during the final examination, his grades were not good enough to receive a stipend to study at the university. Instead, he went to a school of civil engineering and subsequently worked as a bridge construction engineer. After his marriage he moved to Sweden, where he initially worked as an employee in a construction company. In 1959 the Institute of Meterology of Stockholm employed him as a computer programmer. This job enabled him to take up academic studies. In 1968 he became a

[Renmauzo]

Let me start out by saying, yes, I am an American. But no, I don't follow news media outlets without a whole heaping handful of salt.

 

Anyone you see on the TV or hear on the radio or read about in a magazine is only there because someone can pay to put them there, regardless of their own beliefs. That financeer ALWAYS has their own opinion, which they will force down your throat through the influence of their money.

 

Having said that, yes, I do believe in GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE, but it's a fact of nature. Any action is reacted to with an equal and opposite force. I mean, most people think there was one ice age and yes, for the most part that was true. But what caused it? A gigantic meteor disturbing natural balance and pumping the atmosphere full of galactic {censored}. Overheating lead to overcooling, which eventually resulted in balance. It's that simple and it's a recurring fact throughout the entire universe.

 

Since nothing of that magnitude has happened since then, there hasn't been anything that drastic. But you have to look at facts. The way most countries treat the environment is not exactly the most healthy thing that they could do, so eventually, yes, our actions are going to lead to a global climate change that will be faster and more erratic than if we weren't doing what we do best -- being parasites.

 

I just kinda wish that the focus wasn't so much on America in this conversation. Has anyone looked into the fact that China is currently the world's largest polluter all the way across the board?

 

We can blame anyone we want, we can fight all day, but when everyone's tired or living in a state of nuclear winter the only thing left to blame is our nature. Try as we can to RATIONALIZE everything, but it really doesn't matter.

 

I'm not a doctor, I'm not a scientist, but regardless I hope I've added something with this long-assed post. Whatever. I'm going to watch Hannity and Colmes and continue to laugh my ass off. G'day.

[JBecker]

It's very simple, we're way off the charts with atmospheric CO2, a gas we know we're releasing in the air, a gas we know traps heat. We know that we've been oxidizing carbon that's been reduced to fossil fuels for millions of years and sending that out into the air. We know that the Earth has no system to absorb CO2 as fast as we are producing it.

 

Correlations have been shown between natural cycles of CO2 and temperature.

 

It's very easy to figure it all out.

 

I won't even touch the fact that it's moot point since environmental consciousness has a lot more important supporting facts than the eminent danger to mankind, we're gonna take care of ourselves before the Earth totally {censored}s us.

 

The issue is when people pretend that this climate change is going to {censored} the Earth. It's not. The Earth is fine and will be fine for several billion years. It's US that this threatens. Our way of life is going to have to change drastically if we want to stick around through the changes we've accelerated.

[klvanzu]

global warming is complete bull{censored}. it's just a marketing ploy to make the world become more "green." now cutting pollution is not a bad idea by any means but give me a break, there is no such thing as global warming.