Global warming, right... (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter mattb
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
WOW! Before I get back to Jim Beam and the walleyes...
I was hardly serious about the temperature at Mille lacs... I was kidding.....
Independent research... Hmmm, well if that's the 'answer', do I take anti-oxidants or not? Do I want drug-coated stents or non-drug coated stents?!? Science is far from perfect...
Sure you didn't insult me, by insulting a certain party, of which a person that is involved in the conversation, you insult the part naturally when you insult the whole.
Back to the Beam!
I was hardly serious about the temperature at Mille lacs... I was kidding.....
Independent research... Hmmm, well if that's the 'answer', do I take anti-oxidants or not? Do I want drug-coated stents or non-drug coated stents?!? Science is far from perfect...
Sure you didn't insult me, by insulting a certain party, of which a person that is involved in the conversation, you insult the part naturally when you insult the whole.
Back to the Beam!
You really need to establish what people are claiming before debating any of this. I see some people sticking by the old line, "global warming - New York City should have been underwater by now" and some others using the "Global Climate change - hrmm the globe has cooled over the last 9 years - we might have made a boo boo. Let's rename it so that if anything changes at all we can claim it's man made."
I'd like to see the two or three people trying to debate via spam state which they claim is true -- global warming or global anything?
I'd like to see the two or three people trying to debate via spam state which they claim is true -- global warming or global anything?
OP
OP
If the melting of the polar ice caps are causing cold water bleaching, wouldnt we see this same result in the Indo-Pacific? (SSTs in Indo-pacific are within their seasonal variances).
Matt that is called "global current change":laugh: Also I saw a reference to einstein and hawking. Both smart individuals however keep in mind einstein was brilliant yet could not even tie his shoes.
. Yep Sagen is a expert on this considering he has been dead for how long and global warming er climate change or whatever you call it today has only been around for the last 5 years or so?
Wow only 17,200 scientists
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming
Also all studies show climate change through history. Warming trends cooling trends, for millions of years. But some have packaged it up and sold it to the most ignorant of people that we are to blame. BTW I got some oceanfront property in AZ for ya on the cheap! Hook, line, and sinker they suckered people into buying into it. Someone wants to claim studies on it , look at climate data for millions of years and you see the trends up and down up and down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. This whole farce is a agenda....
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming
Also all studies show climate change through history. Warming trends cooling trends, for millions of years. But some have packaged it up and sold it to the most ignorant of people that we are to blame. BTW I got some oceanfront property in AZ for ya on the cheap! Hook, line, and sinker they suckered people into buying into it. Someone wants to claim studies on it , look at climate data for millions of years and you see the trends up and down up and down. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out. This whole farce is a agenda....
Also I pose a question. Because people are the "expert" in their field does that mean they cannot be questioned? Meaning they are the authority on it so we should just accept it?
skip ahead, its worth it.
matt- I was not saying independent research was the answer, I'm only asking you what you consider viable data. You stated research by universities and countries wasn't valid, so I was asking what you think is reliable. I think any major peer reviewed publication is a good place to start.
about the icecaps causing the cooling--if you reread otolith's post, you'll see that he was using a silly idea as an example that blanket statements should not be gleaned from singular events.
I've already looked at the petitions for both sides and they're ridiculous. They are based on nothing more than the honor system. Peer reviewed journals are the best way to sort out the BS. a quick search of the journal science:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/search?src=hw&site_area=sci&fulltext=global+warming
you get abstracts like this:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has recently released its Third Assessment Report (TAR), in which new projections are given for global-mean warming in the absence of policies to limit climate change. The full warming range over 1990 to 2100, 1.4° to 5.8°C, is substantially higher than the range given previously in the IPCC Second Assessment Report. Here we interpret the new warming range in probabilistic terms, accounting for uncertainties in emissions, the climate sensitivity, the carbon cycle, ocean mixing, and aerosol forcing. We show that the probabilities of warming values at both the high and low ends of the TAR range are very low. In the absence of climate-mitigation policies, the 90% probability interval for 1990 to 2100 warming is 1.7° to 4.9°C.
In a of ocean-atmosphere interaction that excluded biological processes, the oceanic uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) was substantially reduced in scenarios involving global warming relative to control scenarios. The primary reason for the reduced uptake was the weakening or collapse of the ocean thermohaline circulation. Such a large reduction in this ocean uptake would have a major impact on the future growth rate of atmospheric CO2. simulations that include a simple representation of biological processes show a potentially large offsetting effect resulting from the downward flux of biogenic carbon. However, the magnitude of the offset is difficult to quantify with present knowledge.
here's a rather succinct one: An international climate assessment finds for the first time that humans are altering their world and the life in it by altering climate; looking ahead, global warming's impacts will only worsen.
Yeah the good ole boy checks and balances system. I review yours and you review mine. You wouldn't exactly have your worst enemy peer review your work now would ya.
They don't have a choice, actually.
Peer reviewed does not mean that you give it to your friend and he says "hell yeah, that paper ROCKS!" It means that anything you put up is subject to incredibly intense scrutiny by a field of experts, most of whom are rather cut-throat; when discrepancies do show up, they are torn apart in a matter of days to months. Look at the cold-fusion debacle, for instance. If it's not repeatable or demonstrable it gets tossed out. That is what science is.
Last edited:
Prince Charles says we only have 18 months left to fix it! I also seem to recall the chief meteorologist for the NOAA Hurricaine prediction center saying that Al Gore and the rest of that crowd claiming a causal relationship between "man made global warming" and hurricaine activity were completely wrong and had no clue what they were talking about. I think he was actually a little more broad in noting that the global warming claims were specious at best.
I agree that contamination by persistent pollutants such as Mercury, DDT etc. are a real concern that have to be addressed but global warming, as it's presented, is a joke. At the same time I also strongly support every overall efficiency improvement we can make in any system, so long as it IS an improvement overall, unlike hybrid cars.
The sun does not provide a fixed energy output, in fact the drop in global temperature over the past year, yes there was not any global warming, not even holding temps, the global temperature dropped to levels near those prior to the industrial revolution. Why? Because the sun's activity level dropped.
I also fail to understand what all the hub bub is about with the melting of the ice caps. That's one of the major functions to the ice caps and the oceans in general, to act as an enormous thermal buffer for the planet and moderate any drastic overall system changes. If there is too much energy in the system, some of the ice melts to absorb that excess and moderate the temperature. When the excess energy is depleted by creation of too many Soy Mocha Lattes then ice formation increases at the poles. Where is this arrogant attitude coming from that suggests the earth is supposed to be in stasis? But the polar bears are threatened now! Here's a little lesson that I found a complete riot. Remember the spotted owl? The destruction of old growth forests was to blame for its decline and of course it was mans fault. Well guess what? It turns out that man had nothing to do with it after all. The current theory is that the spotted owl was vanishing because it was being out competed by the Barred Owl, a native of the east coast that has migrated west.
Odd, that sounds a lot like evolution in action. We, as a species, are here because the environment has changed over time and we've evolved over time to deal with those changes, as has every other living organism on the planet.
Smarten up and quit worrying about nonsense like global warming and focus your attention on real threats like mercury and other persistant contaminents, like those used in the manufacture of hybrid cars for example. Donate your money to Doctors without borders or famine relief groups that actually save people that may otherwise die, instead of enriching those that scream the loudest and need another vacation home. :greenguy: Worry about population control in the third world. Global warming, if we're lucky enough to really see it, will actually dramatically increase the food production capacity of the planet. There'll be a small loss in production near the equator but it will be dramatically offset by increases in both the northern and southern hemispheres. No I haven't proof read this so excuse the rough nature of it.
I agree that contamination by persistent pollutants such as Mercury, DDT etc. are a real concern that have to be addressed but global warming, as it's presented, is a joke. At the same time I also strongly support every overall efficiency improvement we can make in any system, so long as it IS an improvement overall, unlike hybrid cars.
The sun does not provide a fixed energy output, in fact the drop in global temperature over the past year, yes there was not any global warming, not even holding temps, the global temperature dropped to levels near those prior to the industrial revolution. Why? Because the sun's activity level dropped.
I also fail to understand what all the hub bub is about with the melting of the ice caps. That's one of the major functions to the ice caps and the oceans in general, to act as an enormous thermal buffer for the planet and moderate any drastic overall system changes. If there is too much energy in the system, some of the ice melts to absorb that excess and moderate the temperature. When the excess energy is depleted by creation of too many Soy Mocha Lattes then ice formation increases at the poles. Where is this arrogant attitude coming from that suggests the earth is supposed to be in stasis? But the polar bears are threatened now! Here's a little lesson that I found a complete riot. Remember the spotted owl? The destruction of old growth forests was to blame for its decline and of course it was mans fault. Well guess what? It turns out that man had nothing to do with it after all. The current theory is that the spotted owl was vanishing because it was being out competed by the Barred Owl, a native of the east coast that has migrated west.
Odd, that sounds a lot like evolution in action. We, as a species, are here because the environment has changed over time and we've evolved over time to deal with those changes, as has every other living organism on the planet.
Smarten up and quit worrying about nonsense like global warming and focus your attention on real threats like mercury and other persistant contaminents, like those used in the manufacture of hybrid cars for example. Donate your money to Doctors without borders or famine relief groups that actually save people that may otherwise die, instead of enriching those that scream the loudest and need another vacation home. :greenguy: Worry about population control in the third world. Global warming, if we're lucky enough to really see it, will actually dramatically increase the food production capacity of the planet. There'll be a small loss in production near the equator but it will be dramatically offset by increases in both the northern and southern hemispheres. No I haven't proof read this so excuse the rough nature of it.
Wow, lots to discuss there.
Quotes half-remembered or out of context don't really help. I don't think I'd trust a prince with a question deeper than "what's it like to be a prince?"
I think that global warming, as it is presented by the media, is a joke. I would never debate that they are inflationary and thrive on BS.
Yes, the sun plays a huge role in the climate of the earth, but this does not negate that we do, too.
The way you present ice caps melting as a buffer could still mean trouble down the road. Think of a reef tank. If you run down your alkalinity, what happens to your pH and then your livestock?
IMO, it is all about quality of life. I like the earth pretty much as it is, and would like to see it continue in a relatively normal fashion. I know another mass extinction is inevitable, but I'd rather not be at the helm. In my opinion the debate should be about what we like about our existence and how to help ensure that we're not steering it away from that ideal.
Again, I'd love to read any actual studies with evidence that this is a trivial issue.
Quotes half-remembered or out of context don't really help. I don't think I'd trust a prince with a question deeper than "what's it like to be a prince?"
I think that global warming, as it is presented by the media, is a joke. I would never debate that they are inflationary and thrive on BS.
Yes, the sun plays a huge role in the climate of the earth, but this does not negate that we do, too.
The way you present ice caps melting as a buffer could still mean trouble down the road. Think of a reef tank. If you run down your alkalinity, what happens to your pH and then your livestock?
IMO, it is all about quality of life. I like the earth pretty much as it is, and would like to see it continue in a relatively normal fashion. I know another mass extinction is inevitable, but I'd rather not be at the helm. In my opinion the debate should be about what we like about our existence and how to help ensure that we're not steering it away from that ideal.
Again, I'd love to read any actual studies with evidence that this is a trivial issue.
It's Dr. William Gray, he's said quite a lot about it, google away.
But you'd trust a politician looking for personal income?
We can agree there.
That's part of the problem with the whole "climate change" issue. It claims to know exactly what causes everything, and that cause is man while completely ignoring the largest factors, I would suggest essentially lying by omission about it.
There's the real crux of the problem. The earth will never stay as it is, no matter how much we'd like to think we can control our environment, it will keep changing despite us. Also your appreciated normal may not be what's appreciated by others and as I mentioned no matter how hard you try it will not remain in stasis. Hypotheticaly let's just pretend you could though. What would be the moral judgement with respect to all of those future species that may have evolved into something better that were prevented because you managed to control the climate and keep it from changing as it would have had you not been here? I'll add some other items to my previous list of real concerns, particulates, acid rain, top soil errosion, stripping of the environment to produce more water intensive products like ethanol and on a social level the repression and murder of millions by socialists and communists every year. Time to go back to work...
IMO, it is short-sited to think that we are not having an affect on the environment and the climate. How much, however, is debatable.
Should we expect the climate to change? Sure. Has it been to this date significant enough to worry? Don't know, and I don't think anyone does and we probably won't know any time soon.
Should we expect the climate to change? Sure. Has it been to this date significant enough to worry? Don't know, and I don't think anyone does and we probably won't know any time soon.
Don't you hate work? all keepin' you from conversation and such. bah!
I never ever said I'd trust a politician. In fact, I've stated exactly the opposite time and time again. I don't understand why these threads always wind up with people imposing political ideals on me. I'm just not into it.
I don't think any studies done are actually neglecting the sun as the major factor in climate. Never have I seen a study done that claims to know everything about what we're doing. Something like that would never make it in any reputable journal. It would completely negate the scientific process.
When I refer to liking the earth as it is, I include the natural fluctuation due to global processes. I can see how you would think I was advocating an attempt at stability. I assure you, though, I am not. The only constant is change. I think we can affect the rate of change, however, and I believe we have some control over some very vital factors.
I do think you hit on a problem with the discussion, one that I think explains why I always get pegged as "spewing leftist propaganda" and such. We immediately see an arbitrary judgment when we hear this topic. I have never said that it would be "good" or "bad" if there were massive amounts of heating or cooling. Things would change, and in a way that is different because of our actions.
Sure, they can be questioned, and are. In fact, that's what the peer-review process exactly is. Now, you would look pretty silly questioning such experts, because the extent of your background on the subject probably does not come from any formal training, it seems a lot more likely that your info comes from strident, biased, cherry-picked sources.
However, Red, debating the subject with you is simply a non-starter when the peer-review process gets labelled with a dismissive wave of the hand as a "good ole boy network". I find that sort of blanket statement profoundly uninformed and curiously resonant with AM talk radio themes. What a convenient refuge to run to when one doesn't like what one hears: "They're all in cohoots!"
So, we get to decide when we want to listen to and trust the experts (DDT, mercury = bad) and when we just think they're trying to screw us all over? Way too black helicopter for me.
I can visualize the hands lunging towards their keyboards right now: "But we have PROOF that DDT and mercury are harmful! There's no PROOF that CO2 and global climate are linked!!" And such an assertion would demonstrate more ignorance. There is a ton of empirically collected data that show such a relationship exists, and FWIW, these same data are also in league with Milankovich's forcing hypothesis, which, ironically, is a favorite fallback position to global warming deniers: the earth is continually going through cycles; there's no way humans could alter such cycles. Yes! Milankovich apprears to have been right; a complex relationship of solar variance, axial wobbling, and other factors all work together to create long-term climate trends, and one of these forcing factors is greenhouse gas concentrations. And, in this 600,000+ year sample of climate data, there has never existed a natural source of carbon dumping that even comes close to what has occurred in the past 150 years. The largest volcanos are a mere duck fart (methane, bad analogy) compared to what has been introduced by humans. So the issue isn't about whether the earth will enter another such cycle, it is about the rate at which such a cycle is being forced. Very, very bad for ecosystems. And I find the assertion that "this rapid warming will be GOOD for us!" arrogant and equally uninformed.
But, ears plugged, la-la-la, science doesn't have a shred of evidence upon which to base any assumptions. Or so says a small and shrinking contingent of people with deceptively shrill voices. (And note that a vanishingly small proportion of them can be considered members of the climate scientist community, "good ole boys" or not.)
the only non-website citation in that paper was an ad hoc committee. It doesn't even say what committee, who was there, etc... That is a pretty shoddy excuse for a scientific paper. Credentials are not even listed for the one and only author. Here's an actual citation:
6 "Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick'
This is not a paper I would put any trust in. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but it is built on very, very thin ice (no pun intended).
SPPI is a conservative think tank comprised of individuals brought together because of their unified political beliefs. I do not trust their work and find it narrow sighted and biased.
6 "Ad Hoc Committee Report on the 'Hockey Stick'
This is not a paper I would put any trust in. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be offensive, but it is built on very, very thin ice (no pun intended).
SPPI is a conservative think tank comprised of individuals brought together because of their unified political beliefs. I do not trust their work and find it narrow sighted and biased.
Now that's a rational opinion, one that's virtually non existent in the public sphere. It's likely we have had some impact, but in the same rational manner you must also acknowledge something else that has as much logical merit but will be deeply terrifying to the standard Climate Change advocates. That it's just as possible that our impact on "global warming" has actually been beneficial to the global climate. The premiss that any change must be bad is baseless.
Although simply speculation on my part is it possible that if there hadn't been any "global warming" that the recent drop in global temperatures would have been even more dramatic and actually caused widespread food shortages and massive starvation problems? There seems to be as much evidence to support this claim I just created as any other climate change claim.
Should we expect the climate to change? Sure. Has it been to this date significant enough to worry? Don't know, and I don't think anyone does and we probably won't know any time soon.
Well said, now if only the great scientific global concensus would recognize the limited scope of our true understanding.
- Status