Global Warming

[That_one_guy]

i won’t say climate change or “global warming” is a myth, however i do take issue with the al gores of the world scaring people with what i would call flat out lies. not to mention his enormous hypocrisy as he spends $10,000 a month for electricity for his mansion. or morons like leonardo dicrapio who fly around in a private jet and harp on me about my “carbon footprint” that private jet will use more gas in one flight to europe than i will in probably a lifetime. so it’s not like cynics like me don’t like the earth, i’m a hunter, outdoorsman, i love the outdoors. it’s just hearing it from hypocrites, left wing whiners, and hippies leaves a bad taste in my mouth…

if global warming is a myth, it’s a good one as it gets people motivated to get off of fossil fuels which keep us mired in the middle east. once off foreign oil the situation in the middle east will become as important to us as the situation in myanmar…

plus i think the push towards a “greener earth” will be a great job creator in the next generation, which is also a good thing.

I agree:thumbsup: kudo’s!

 

[ChristIsLord]

I won’t dispute that, I am sure it motivates some.
But I really never saw many hybrid vehicles on the road until gas went over $2.00 per gallon.

Global warming scaring people may have worked for some, but economic conditions seem to work for many more.

Besides, if the logic is really that the fear motivates people into a greener lifestyle, what are we all going to do when people realize the global warming hoax? Will the bottom drop out of the alternative fuel market?

combination of both then, i would say the alternative fuel market won’t bottom out if it gets appropriate support from the federal government. the government needs to provide unprecedented backing to the alternative fuels market. without that i can’t see a huge drive towards alternative fuels succeeding. i would see a collapse of our entire economy before that happened, big oil is “too big” for any competitors to set up shop and compete with them without government intervention which is always a touchy subject in the usa.

the writings on the wall, we have to get off foreign oil. if you believe in conspiracies you could beleive that glocal warming was promulgated by our government in an effort to begin weaning folks off the oil spicket…

 

[Calliso]

Your making my argument so easy.
They explain the obvious, that climate can be predicted based on knowledge of what outside factors are doing, then elaborate on what these factors are.
And they list a finite set of factors.
Now I’m no genius, but it would seem to me that the factors involved in predicting climate for a range of 50 years would be near endless.

Perhaps they are still naive enough to believe that they can accurately predict an outcome without knowing all of the factors involved.

While you can attempt to stave off the argument concerning the rain in the forecast (the rain finally came today)…you cannot escape the analogy.
The climate predictions are not reliable for the same reason the weather forecast is not reliable…the scientists do not fully understand the factors involved in the outcome.

Well here is a site one I wanted to link to last night but it was down begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html it might explain it a bit better. Now I wish I could explain it better myself but I am no expert on this stuff at all. I also know what what I have read they take into account quite a few different factors research.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html. And another interesting post on whether or not climate modeling is science or not I thought was a good read. realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/is-climate-modelling-science/

And of course all of this isn;t 100% accurate but it is getting better and better with time.

 

[Calliso]

I fully understand the difference between the two terms and that short term differences do not reflect a trend in either direction. The pros stopped calling it Global Warming because the “trend” has been a decrease in temperatures for the last ten years. As I have said many times before on this site… ten-twenty years is a blip in Geologic History, for us mere mortals to project global catastrophe based on what has occured in the last thirty years is absurd. Does that mean that we should abuse the earth? No! We should be stewards of what God has given us. We should use our resources wisely in an environmentally sound manner. The pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and has to come back towards the middle. I would like to see the explanation that you refer to. Until then.

Yours in Christ from the frozen northeast.

Trend based on what? from what I have read a lot of this so called cooling trend is based off measuring from 1998 which was an unusually warm year do to an El Nino is I am remembering correctly. Now if it continues for another decade or so then you might be able to claim a cooling trend. scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/04/warming-stopped-in-1998.php tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/31/garbage-is-forever/http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archive
s/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/ And actually according to one link even measuring from 1998 still gives you a warming trend.

As for terminalogy it seems scientists donlt all agree the problem seems to be coming up with a term that really describes what is happening. And it seems to some at least global warming is a bit too simplistic. yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2007/10/call-it-climate-change-strike-that-lets-call-it-global-warming-strike-that-lets-call-it/ . But really getting scientists to agree 100% on just about anything is probably impossible… But no from what I have read the change in terminology has nothing to do with a supposed cooling trend.

 

[vz71]

begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html it might explain it a bit better. Now I wish I could explain it better myself but I am no expert on this stuff at all.

Your link explains much.
‘Likely’
‘Probably’
‘Usually’
‘Possibly’
etc…

Throughout the explanation of the climate model, the vocabulary of inaccuracy is pervasive.
Proponents of Global Warming lay claims that their models say may only be ‘likely.’

So how do you get a ‘this will happen’ from a ‘this is what the current model says is likely’

They would love you at the craps table in Vegas.

 

[ChristIsLord]

i just read in the paper today that the federal government is using 400 million of taxpayers bailout money to research climate change. so whoever is stating that money has nothing to do with the situation is being a bit naive i think.

 

[mesurman]

Your link explains much.
‘Likely’
‘Probably’
‘Usually’
‘Possibly’
etc…

Throughout the explanation of the climate model, the vocabulary of inaccuracy is pervasive.
Proponents of Global Warming lay claims that their models say may only be ‘likely.’

So how do you get a ‘this will happen’ from a ‘this is what the current model says is likely’

They would love you at the craps table in Vegas.

Like I said before-NO real proof. Just supposition and inuendo.

When I was in college in the early 80’s it was all about the coming ice age. By the way it was 5 below zero this morning. 15 degrees below the average. Hmmm??

 

[Neolithic]

I wonder why people are so hellbent on rejecting something as obvious as Climate Change. Contributors are so perplexed by terms like “possibly,” “maybe,” “likely,” and so on when offered an explanation for the impending disaster, they write it off, despite overwhelming evidence, as trickery by scholars looking for notoriety and riches. That’s incredibly shortsighted and risky.

Climate Change is fact. No person with so much as a clue will tell you any different. The dissension concerns whether the cause is man, or if it’s a natural cycle. Suppose it’s the former and Government heeded the advice of you nay-sayers, what are we to do then?

Thankfully, we now have a president who will follow the advice of the experts. What’s more is that if McCain had won, I’d be saying the same thing.

MORE PROOF

 

[vz71]

I wonder why people are so hellbent on rejecting something as obvious as Climate Change.

Don’t know. Perhaps the title of the thread offers a clue.
“Global Warming”
Seems that “Climate Change” has been gone over several times in this thread, and the majority agree that climate change happens. However there are an extreme few that insist blindly that “Global Warming” is taking place. They insist that it is fact, and we must institute policies that can readily cripple the economy to stop it. There is little evidence to prove it is happening, and there is even less that man is responsible, and even less then that man can stop it. Yet there is blind insistance that it is a catastrophe of global proportions, that it will jeapordize life on this planet, that we are responsible, that we MUST act now to stop it.

Contributors are so perplexed by terms like “possibly,” “maybe,” “likely,” and so on when offered an explanation for the impending disaster, they write it off, despite overwhelming evidence, as trickery by scholars looking for notoriety and riches. That’s incredibly shortsighted and risky.

Not at all.
Were no consequences for the actions purported to be necessary to stop it, then that would be a valid point.
But it is not at all without consequence.
Economic policies that cripple nations, economic policies that cripple families, actions purported to alter the climate in ways as yet unknown.
Sorry, but I need rock solid evidence that the action is required for my survival before I cut my arm off.

Climate Change is fact. No person with so much as a clue will tell you any different. The dissension concerns whether the cause is man, or if it’s a natural cycle. Suppose it’s the former and Government heeded the advice of you nay-sayers, what are we to do then?

If the government heeded the advice of these ‘nay-sayers’ I would be thankful that my government wants all of the evidence and rock solid proof before taking actions that will hurt so many people.

Thankfully, we now have a president who will follow the advice of the experts.

The evidence shown thus far by the President and his men do not pursuade me that they will look at any evidence beyond whatever proof-text is available to support their preconceived policies.

 

[greystoke]

Apparently Mars is suffering global warming, without the presence of Bush, oil companies, loggers etc. Presumably the driving force is the Sun, which has been fairly active in recent decades.

The temperature records before 1850 are very patchy, or are inferred from dendrochronology, ie tree rings, also isotope ratios in ice cores etc.

The warming trend since 1850 may simply be the result of coming out of the “little ice age”, no bad thing.

In the “midieval warm period” or “climate optimum” before the little ice age, southern Greenland was suitable for some agriculture such cattle rearing, as the Viking settlers found. I wouldn’t invest in a cattle farm there today.

The worst of the little ice age seems to correspond to a solar minimum, with little or no sunspot activity.

Now for what I think is the real problem:

What we spew into the atmosphere(and of course removing the Earth’s “lungs” by deforestation and polluting the sea) may be the “straw that broke the camel’s back”. Thus complex systems are inherently chaotic. They do not proceed in a linear fashion for too long. They can become very sensitive to a small change in conditions precipitating an essentially unpredictable and catastrophic outcome.

There are several positive feedback loops that could spell disaster such as the release of methane from melted permafrost, or methane hydrates on the sea floor. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Switching from beef to kangaroo meat because their farts are more benign might not be enough.

Conversely, attempts at techno-fixing our way out of the problem with say seeding the oceans with iron sulphate to stimulate photoplankton, could be disastrous too. Just when we had engineered a downward temperature trend, an ill-timed large volcano or two could precipitate an ice age!

We certainly live in interesting times

 

[vz71]

There are several positive feedback loops that could spell disaster such as the release of methane from melted permafrost, or methane hydrates on the sea floor. Methane is a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Switching from beef to kangaroo meat because their farts are more benign might not be enough.

Conversely, attempts at techno-fixing our way out of the problem with say seeding the oceans with iron sulphate to stimulate photoplankton, could be disastrous too. Just when we had engineered a downward temperature trend, an ill-timed large volcano or two could precipitate an ice age!

We certainly live in interesting times

Perhaps the best thing to do is simply adjust to the coming climate and do not attempt to adjust it at all.

Adaptation has worked well for makind so far.

 

[Ender]

The warming trend since 1850 may simply be the result of coming out of the “little ice age”, no bad thing.
…
What we spew into the atmosphere(and of course removing the Earth’s “lungs” by deforestation and polluting the sea) may be the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

“Warming trend” and atmospheric “pollution” are not phrases that are mutually reinforcing. There may be a warming trend in surface temperatures but in the atmosphere (lower troposphere), where warming is supposed to occur first because of “spewed” CO2, the warming trend is not nearly so obvious. In fact 2008 was slightly cooler than 1980 so I would say that the trend is not obvious at all.

Ender

 

[Appleby]

It is snowing in Saudi Arabia.
It is snowing in Lebanon.
It is snowing in Baghdad.
It is snowing in South Africa.

And much to the shock of the people of Ontario, IT IS SNOWING IN CANADA!

Europe is having the worst winter it has had in 30 years. People are freezing to death because Russia and Ukraine are shutting off their heat.

It is snowing in Florida.
It is snowing in Arkansas.
It is snowing in Atlanta.

IT IS SNOWING EVERYWHERE.

Global Warming is a myth. It is one more Chicken Little way for the enemies of Capitalism to scare the bejebers out of people who know nothing at all about science and have not lived long enough to realize that we go through these phases every 30 years or so.

I have no more to say on this subject. I have to go shovel my driveway.

 

[Valke2]

I love the fact that people see snow on the ground and think everything is ok.

 

[mpi]

I love the fact that people see snow on the ground and think everything is ok.

What evidence do you have that all (most) of mankind would be worse off if the planet warmed up?

 

[jean8]

This factoid would be mildly interesting if it had anything to do with identifying the cause of the warming. The battle is not being fought over whether the earth has warmed but whether man is responsible because of increased CO2 output. It is not the effects but the cause that is at issue.

Ender

ender,
I live in Minnesota.( at times I wonder why) if you spent a week up here in Jan. you would soon know global warming is a myth. Last week we had temps below zero for five or six days running. it was frigid. Then it warmed up to 10 above. a regular heatwave.
When we have 40 to 50 temps above, in Jan. Feb. and Mar. I’ll take a second look at global warming.

Jean8

 

[ChristIsLord]

I love the fact that people see snow on the ground and think everything is ok.

i love the fact that some people see a photo of a polar bear on a floating piece of ice and think the sky is falling…

 

[Neolithic]

Everything vs said was entirely false. There is tons of evidence to suggest that the Earth is warming.

And the crippling of the economy is better than the destruction of the world.

Either way, I’m done debating this issue with ideologues. Thank God we now have a president who will ignore you nay-sayers.

 

[Appleby]

Everything vs said was entirely false. There is tons of evidence to suggest that the Earth is warming.

And the crippling of the economy is better than the destruction of the world.

Either way, I’m done debating this issue with ideologues. Thank God we now have a president who will ignore you nay-sayers.

Yep, with a wave of his Magic Wand, SuperBarak will solve all your problems. How nice for you.

 

[Calliso]

Umm why does doing something about global warming whether it is trying to cut carbon emissions or prepare for possible and or likely changes suddenly mean our economy will be crippled? You know I find it funny us AGW people are so often accused of alarmism…but there is alarmism on both sides.

And I should clarify something…I do not think the models can predict with 100% accuracy the future. If I gave the impression I thought that I am sorry maybe I wasn;t paying enough attention to what I was writting. I do however think they can predict what will likely happen. And while I can understand wanting 100% proof we probably aren;t going to get that until things are actually happening. Besides I am pretty sure proof as most here would think of it doesn;t really exist in Science…I read somewhere once that many issues that the public takes as 100% fact are still debated among scientists for example.