Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: jdjtcagle on January 22, 2008, 01:26:20 pm
-
Curious, is it man made or just another natural process?
-
Hey, you should add two options that say something along the lines of... "Global Warming is a stupid term." and "Global Warming isn't happening." :nod:
-
I have a confession to make. I am the cause of global warming. You see, it's all part of my plan to take over the world. I can't disclose the details on the forum, but in addition to global warming, the plan involves lots of Eugen Huber clones. So that's why, among other reasons, I voted "Man" the poll, although by the time I take over the world I won't technically be a human...
-
I have a confession to make. I am the cause of global warming. You see, it's all part of my plan to take over the world. I can't disclose the details on the forum, but in addition to global warming, the plan involves lots of Eugen Huber clones. So that's why, among other reasons, I voted "Man" the poll, although by the time I take over the world I won't technically be a human...
Really? Send me a PM, I'd love to get in on this. :drevil:
-
The cycle itself is natural, and we may, or may not, be having an effect.
Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....
-
Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....
That's only if you live in a low area. The world's oceans won't rise to the heights that a lot of GW activists claim, due to water displacement.
-
unfortunately its both man-made and natural , man being a part of nature then we could say that mans actions are natural so a part of nature
-
Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....
That's only if you live in a low area. The world's oceans won't rise to the heights that a lot of GW activists claim, due to water displacement.
Has any of the egg heads actually thought about the fact that icebergs, being ice and being mostly underwater, take up a bigger volume than water? If the ice melts and turns into water, the sea level will actually drop a little.
-
It's not simply a question of displacement though, and icebergs are not melted anyway, don't let the phrase 'Global Warming' trick you, the image painted of Earth becoming Mars is pretty unlikely, people seem to have been locked into the current problem of stopping the warming and not really knowing why.
The problem is not with the sea level rising as the bergs melt, it's the fact that the increased amount of cloud cover and reduced sunlight will eventually make the temperatures plummet back down again.
It's one of the favourite quotes of anti Global-Warming advocates that 20 years ago the scientists were saying we were on the edge of an Ice Age. A lot of people don't realise that, geologically speaking, we still are. No scientist ever gave a date, in fact, the closest approximation was 'within 20,000 years', it was the Media that blew it up into 'Any minute now....'. Evidence strongly suggests that each end of an interglacial period actually began with temperatures rising before dropping into a glacial stage.
Personally, I believe that is what we are looking at, but as for how soon that will happen, I couldn't say, I've no idea how fast these things happen, and neither does anyone else, but, once again, evidence suggests that once it starts, the switch-over is pretty fast.
-
I was going to choose "don't care" until I saw the option above it. :p
-
The part of global warming thats a hoax is the paranoia about man's causing it. The part that I am most disturbed about is calling carbon a pollutant. EVERYTHING living has carbon in it. Without carbon there would be no green environment. So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere. As for the increase in carbon levels related to increased temperature, the carbon increase lags behind the increase temperatures, and the temperatures and directly in line with solar cycles.
So anyway, global warming maybe happening, I wont contest that if it is or isnt but will not accept the premise that we are causing it. And since it is happening, who is to say thats a bad thing? Flawed computer models with incomplete data? But if there is one constant about our climate, it is change. What would be more worthy of time and money is not how to potentially stop warming and screw with the environment, but instead learn how our civilization should adapt to whatever conditions the world throws at us.
-
The cycle itself is natural, and we may, or may not, be having an effect.
carbon load in the atmosphere has gone from approx 200 million tons to 300 million tons since the industrial revolution, that kind of change cannot be explained by natural processes
-
The cycle itself is natural, and we may, or may not, be having an effect.
And it's just coincidence that CO2 levels dramatically increase during the industrial revolution? I think not.
Oh. It looks like Kazan already posted that. :( I'll post it anyway.
-
@DS9er
It's because most of that Carbon exists as one half of CO2, the famous 'Greenhouse Gas', so reducing the amount of carbon you release reduces the amount of CO2 that makes it into the atmosphere.
@Kazan
Agreed, we are pumping a lot of ****e into the atmosphere, there can be little argument to that, however, apart from the obvious health risks, no 2 scientists seem to be absolutely certain of the impact. It cannot be good for life in general, high levels of irritants in the Atmosphere are one of the main causes of lung-cancer, but, in my opinion, the important part is doing something with the situation at hand, otherwise we become like 90% of industry, more concerned with pointing fingers than fixing the actual problem.
Edit: To clarify, even if we did determine that it WAS accelerated by us, we all know what would happen next... 'Blame America! No! Blame China! No! Blame Russia! Where did that big wall of ice come from?'
-
Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....
That's only if you live in a low area. The world's oceans won't rise to the heights that a lot of GW activists claim, due to water displacement.
Has any of the egg heads actually thought about the fact that icebergs, being ice and being mostly underwater, take up a bigger volume than water? If the ice melts and turns into water, the sea level will actually drop a little.
You forgot the fact that by having a bigger volume than water with the same weight, it will partially float. So no, the sea level will not drop, it will rise.
-
Not to mention the fact that Greenland and Antarctica aren't floating in the sea.
-
The part of global warming thats a hoax is the paranoia about man's causing it. The part that I am most disturbed about is calling carbon a pollutant. EVERYTHING living has carbon in it. Without carbon there would be no green environment. So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere. As for the increase in carbon levels related to increased temperature, the carbon increase lags behind the increase temperatures, and the temperatures and directly in line with solar cycles.
So anyway, global warming maybe happening, I wont contest that if it is or isnt but will not accept the premise that we are causing it. And since it is happening, who is to say thats a bad thing? Flawed computer models with incomplete data? But if there is one constant about our climate, it is change. What would be more worthy of time and money is not how to potentially stop warming and screw with the environment, but instead learn how our civilization should adapt to whatever conditions the world throws at us.
Sorry...I have to bite. Yes everything is made of carbon and yes we breathe out CO2 but we aren't adding any carbon that isn't already in the atmosphere. The problem is when you take carbon thats been locked away (underground) for thousands or millions of years and suddenly release it in a short period of time (300 years). There's a difference between being carbon neutral and contributing in equal proportions to what is being taken out at the same time. The issue is with disrupting the cycle.
CO2 levels and temperature are closely linked on most of the graphs out there. Its not a perfect match because the are other greenhouse type gases that are also being dumped into the atmosphere. If the folks at NASA are to be believed then the solar cycle changes are contributing to a change in the range of a few tenths of a percent or in other words the difference is so small as to not factor in at all. That said the research on the solar cycle and its impact on climates on Earth and other planets is an ongoing and fascinating realm of research. They may end up showing that the overall solar cycle over a hundred thousand years may contribute to changes in Earths overall climate but I haven't read anything that wasn't.
Our past conversations suggest to me that you probably won't read/accept any of what I've written or read or even come half way , but I will. Not all of the "global warming" movement is suggesting changes for the better. If you believe what some of the "green" movement believe then the solution IS allot worse for human society than the problem. Most of those folks are radicals and like the radicals on the other side of the argument the goal for everyone else should be to largely ignore those people.
So ignore the global warming conspiracy theorists and ignore the ultra-green movement because the truth will lie somewhere in between. Maybe we're half the effect or a quarter of the effect or whatever...and you're right we need to spend time preparing for the inevitable changes in the climate one way or another. The problem will be is if what we're doing increases the speed of the change. All it takes is a nudge. All we need to do is keep an open mind.
-
The part of global warming thats a hoax is the paranoia about man's causing it. The part that I am most disturbed about is calling carbon a pollutant. EVERYTHING living has carbon in it. Without carbon there would be no green environment. So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere. As for the increase in carbon levels related to increased temperature, the carbon increase lags behind the increase temperatures, and the temperatures and directly in line with solar cycles.
So anyway, global warming maybe happening, I wont contest that if it is or isnt but will not accept the premise that we are causing it. And since it is happening, who is to say thats a bad thing? Flawed computer models with incomplete data? But if there is one constant about our climate, it is change. What would be more worthy of time and money is not how to potentially stop warming and screw with the environment, but instead learn how our civilization should adapt to whatever conditions the world throws at us.
Sorry...I have to bite. Yes everything is made of carbon and yes we breathe out CO2 but we aren't adding any carbon that isn't already in the atmosphere. The problem is when you take carbon thats been locked away (underground) for thousands or millions of years and suddenly release it in a short period of time (300 years). There's a difference between being carbon neutral and contributing in equal proportions to what is being taken out at the same time. The issue is with disrupting the cycle.
CO2 levels and temperature are closely linked on most of the graphs out there. Its not a perfect match because the are other greenhouse type gases that are also being dumped into the atmosphere. If the folks at NASA are to be believed then the solar cycle changes are contributing to a change in the range of a few tenths of a percent or in other words the difference is so small as to not factor in at all. That said the research on the solar cycle and its impact on climates on Earth and other planets is an ongoing and fascinating realm of research. They may end up showing that the overall solar cycle over a hundred thousand years may contribute to changes in Earths overall climate but I haven't read anything that wasn't.
Our past conversations suggest to me that you probably won't read/accept any of what I've written or read or even come half way , but I will. Not all of the "global warming" movement is suggesting changes for the better. If you believe what some of the "green" movement believe then the solution IS allot worse for human society than the problem. Most of those folks are radicals and like the radicals on the other side of the argument the goal for everyone else should be to largely ignore those people.
So ignore the global warming conspiracy theorists and ignore the ultra-green movement because the truth will lie somewhere in between. Maybe we're half the effect or a quarter of the effect or whatever...and you're right we need to spend time preparing for the inevitable changes in the climate one way or another. The problem will be is if what we're doing increases the speed of the change. All it takes is a nudge. All we need to do is keep an open mind.
QFT!
-
So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere.
So you're comparing the amount of CO2 made by breathing to the amount of CO2 made by, say, a coal fired power plant?
-
Ya know what's interesting..."The truth is somewhere in between"..
Is it? Statisticly? Maybe, I don't know..probably.
Will it be this time? I guess we'll see, won't we....
-
Ya know what's interesting..."The truth is somewhere in between"..
Is it? Statisticly? Maybe, I don't know..probably.
Will it be this time? I guess we'll see, won't we....
You mean "statistically" :)
Honestly you can pick almost any subject and you will have the people on the extreme sides of the issue but things are usually (although not in all occasions) somewhere right in the middle. Specifically where it falls is of course part of the debate but how often is something found to be so absolutely correct that everyone else is subsequently absolutely wrong. Only on my math tests from high school! :D
-
Careful now, the gray fallacy will bite you if you're not.
-
Careful now, the gray fallacy will bite you if you're not.
I had to look that one up because I've never heard of it before. Thats a strange one for me...but I'm not sure it applies. I can see it working for me at work where we have to choose between two software solutions and you can't have both so you can't play the down the middle game. I'm suggesting remove the outliers from the argument and focus on dealing with the outcomes rather than arguing if the ultra green or conspiracy theorists are absolutely right.
-
The thing is they could be absolutely right, we can't really prove or disprove it either way, so discounting the extreme posistions out of hand isn't a valid course of action.
-
has any one used the "if we aren't responsible and do something... if we aren't and don't... are and do... are and don't..." yet, I would hope with a thread full of people arguing Pascals wager that such logic would not sit right.
-
well it turns out that alot of green technology is more efficient than existing tech. in terms of both performance and economy. if it runs cleaner and for less, i dont see a problem with it. the whole controversy is important because its making people look at possibilities which may never have never been considered without the controversy. if the hippies and conservatives are gonna fight over it, so much the better because in the process many new technologies are being developed.
-
I would like to point out that if global warming was being caused by Mr Norris then we would all have baked to death long ago.
Also, global warming is BS! :hopping:
The people that do research have most likely sat in their warm houses all winter or live some place warm. Because if you have to spend a couple months outside in an area of this world that has a cold winter you will be calling BS too.
:Looks out the window to see if it is still snowing:
-
Also, global warming is BS!
Care to elaborate on that?
If it is BS then how do you explain why the Arctic ice cap is getting thinner? Slim fast?
-
I would like to point out that if global warming was being caused by Mr Norris then we would all have baked to death long ago.
Also, global warming is BS! :hopping:
The people that do research have most likely sat in their warm houses all winter or live some place warm. Because if you have to spend a couple months outside in an area of this world that has a cold winter you will be calling BS too.
:Looks out the window to see if it is still snowing:
When someone finally talks you down from your peyote trip, you should be aware that you did, in fact, just attempt to discredit global warming by asserting that those who research it have warm houses.
Don't worry about it, man. You should hear me after my third bong hit.
-
You forgot the fact that by having a bigger volume than water with the same weight, it will partially float. So no, the sea level will not drop, it will rise.
Funny. I seem to remember back from elementary school that with icebergs, and as far as I know, polar glaciers, the majority of the ice is underwater, hence the phrase 'the tip of the iceberg'. Or have I been lied to my whole life?
-
Millions upon millions of tons of ice are over land in Antarctica and Greenland and probably a few other places I'm not aware of. If that ice melts and flows into the ocean there will be more water in the ocean and it will rise. No one's concerned about icebergs melting since they make up a tiny percentage of the ice in the world and they melt when they get south enough anyways. Icecaps are what people are worried about so stop talking about icebergs.
-
K. Sorry. Didn't think about that. Pardons.
-
When someone finally talks you down from your peyote trip, you should be aware that you did, in fact, just attempt to discredit global warming by asserting that those who research it have warm houses.
Ironically he's not that far from many of the arguments I've heard against it. Lots of them take some tiny regional effect and claim it's proof against global warming.
-
I would like to point out that if global warming was being caused by Mr Norris then we would all have baked to death long ago.
Also, global warming is BS! :hopping:
The people that do research have most likely sat in their warm houses all winter or live some place warm. Because if you have to spend a couple months outside in an area of this world that has a cold winter you will be calling BS too.
:Looks out the window to see if it is still snowing:
I would like you to consider something, if you were a rational minded person who had there doubts about global warming, how would you react to realiseing that you were on the same 'side' as a person who says something like this?
I live in a warm house, therefore... ehr... somehow that relates to measurements I've made in the siberian highlands? I mean I can't even figure out what the suposed logic of this is suposed to be.
-
this is not the first time i lived in juneau ak, back when i was 7 or so (19 - 20 years ago) i was here for about a year. the local mendenhall glacier seems somewhat smaller than it used to be. granted my eyeballs were a different size back then.
-
actually, eyeballs mostly stay the same size.
they're just a bit higher off the ground now.
edit: also, it is still quite possible that the glacier is smaller
-
or maybe the rest of the terrain got bigger! :shaking:
-
The thing is they could be absolutely right, we can't really prove or disprove it either way, so discounting the extreme posistions out of hand isn't a valid course of action.
I suppose that in a hypothetical argument sort of way of looking at things that yes someone could be "absolute" but rarely does that happen with a real world issue that is combining politics, economics, and environmental science. The chances of global warming being 100% caused by humans or 100% not caused by humans is unlikely in my mind. I think the real argument is from 99% down :)
-
PST:
More energy in a meteorological system=> More instability => Greater thermal extreme delta => colder winters, warmer summers
just exactly what we're seeing.
-
Winter is hoter here in oklahoma, I'm not sure if it's normal but 60 to 70 degree every so often almost every other week.
-
Winter is hoter here in oklahoma, I'm not sure if it's normal but 60 to 70 degree every so often almost every other week.
obviously i was talking about long term trends there.. it also increases short term instability (an even greater amount)
like.. it'll be -12 tonight but 36 on sunday here
-
I'm not minding the mild winters we've had the last....5-6 winters actually. Although right now we're in a bit of a cold spell...its to be expected but really we've seen allot of rain this year and only a few major snowfalls. Nothing that calls for a snow day shut down the schools/university/businesses sort of day which is disappointing actually. But I do like the warmer winters we've been having :)
-
When someone finally talks you down from your peyote trip, you should be aware that you did, in fact, just attempt to discredit global warming by asserting that those who research it have warm houses.
:wtf: Yeah, Im aware of it. I dont see how its such a bad argument. People with no awareness of the harshness of the environment they live in should not be able to tell me that it is to warm
I would like you to consider something, if you were a rational minded person who had there doubts about global warming, how would you react to realiseing that you were on the same 'side' as a person who says something like this?
I live in a warm house, therefore... ehr... somehow that relates to measurements I've made in the siberian highlands? I mean I can't even figure out what the suposed logic of this is suposed to be.
:eek2: holy crap man! do you realize how cold it is in siberia?
I believe that the icecaps melting because of critical mass. The pressure of the the upper layers of ice are enough to force the lower layers back into a liquid or semi liquid state, thus making the ice "thinner". An inconsistence in pressure over the entire cap would lead to fissures and possibly chunks breaking off. :hopping:
-
the last 2 winters here were brutal, this one seems to be slacking off though. just some minor glazing a couple inches deep, no large plow mounds have accumulated on the sides of the streets. the melt will be early.
-
:wtf: Yeah, Im aware of it. I dont see how its such a bad argument. People with no awareness of the harshness of the environment they live in should not be able to tell me that it is to warm
It has nothing to do with their environment, or your environment. It's about the Earth's climate, and it has been repeatedly explained that global "warming" does not mean that everything is getting warmer; it means that global climate patterns are in a state of drastic upheaval. And that's to say nothing of the fact that by your logic a large portion of human intellectual endeavors are rendered invalid by reason of lack of personal experience.
I don't even know why I'm arguing this. God, my semester really needs to start.
-
global "warming" ... means that global climate patterns are in a state of drastic upheaval.
:rolleyes:
Yesh. Very drastic.
-
i got an idea, lets lob nukes at the ice caps and see what happens. if anyone questions it we will just say that the penguins and polar bears are plotting terrorist attacks on the us and its allys.
-
i got an idea, lets lob nukes at the ice caps and see what happens. if anyone questions it we will just say that the penguins and polar bears are plotting terrorist attacks on the us and its allys.
Sounds good... but it depends on whether or not we can figure out the correct spelling for the launch code sequences. :p
-
global "warming" ... means that global climate patterns are in a state of drastic upheaval.
:rolleyes:
Yesh. Very drastic.
in geologic terms... yeah
let's do some BASIC physics
M = Mass of Earth's Atmosphere = ~ 5.1480×10^18 kg
Temperature Increase: 1.5 C
We'll limit ourselves to the troposphere - which contains 90% of the mass of the atmosphere
the specific heat of the lower atmospheres is 0.24 (how much energy is required relative to that required for water)
Energy Requires to raise troposphere 1.5 C = .9 * .24 * (5.1480×10^18 kg) * 4.184 kJ * 1.5C
(4.184 kJ = Energy [in calories] required to raise 1kg water 1 degree)
6,978,711,168,000,000,000 kiloJoules = 1,938,530,880,000 kWh (1.9 exaWatt hours)
"In 2003, New York City’s forecasted peak electricity demand was 11,020 mega-watts." http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:SWkmPj3eXUgJ:nyc.gov/html/om/pdf/energy_task_force.pdf+new+york+city+peak+energy+usage&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a#17
so... 1,938,530,880/11,020 = 175,910 hours = 7330 days = 20 years
so.. the amount of energy required to raise the troposphere by 1.5 degrees C is enough to power New York City at PEAK demand for 20 years!
yeah... not a drastic amount of energy AT ALL
-
Do me a favor... go calculate the amount of energy a small volcano emits per second.
-
total energy released by the Krakatoa volcano explosion (which was a BIG one) was around 10^18 Joules
that's A LOT less than 6,978,711,168,000,000,000,000 Joules (10^21)
the global average temperature tends to go down after a volcanic event anyway - due to ash in the atmosphere
-
That poll is missing a crucial option.
Global warming (more accurately called climate change) is a natural process that has been accelerated by artificial means (e.g. industrialization and the consequences of altering atmospheric composition with previously unknown chemical catalysts).
Man is not causing climate change, but we're speeding it up. Changes that used to take thousands of years are now taking hundred. What used to take hundreds has been reduced to decades. And what used to take a decade is now occurring in less than a single year. Nowhere is this more visible than the Arctic.
That said, despite the doomsday prophets, this is not the end of life on this planet. Earth has suffered several mass extinctions. One of the most famous is the one that ended the dinosaurs, but in reality it was small. Another extinction, earlier in geological time, wiped out 95% of life on the entire planet, including in the oceans (which are usually unaffected by mass extinctions).
We are likely facing another period of climate upheaval in which we will see a number of species disappear, but I'm somewhat skeptical that we're going to see extinctions on the scale of what's come before anytime soon.
We could fundamentally alter the atmosphere away from an oxygen/nitrogen mixture and still life would survive (Earth's life began as sulphur fixaters; aerobes came much much later). Of course, whether or not humans would is another matter.
-
We are likely facing another period of climate upheaval in which we will see a number of species disappear, but I'm somewhat skeptical that we're going to see extinctions on the scale of what's come before anytime soon.
Unless of course the problems caused to humans by global warming trigger off a nasty enough war that even the cockroaches turn up their toes. :p
-
Some terminology suggestions and a possible solution...
Global warming = an increase in temperature of the global system.
Global cooling = an decrease in temperature of the global system.
Temperature = on the microscopic scale - "temperature is defined as the average energy of microscopic motions of a single particle in the system per degree of freedom"... so sayeth wikipedia anyway. Point is 'temperature' should be used in its microscopic definition, not the layman's.
Climate change = a change in the climate. Can be due to global warming, global cooling or other. Can occur on the global or regional scale. Macro and micro again - building a great big skyscraper affects the wind patterns, resulting in micro climate change but it hardly effects the global system.
Man made = human activity of pumping gases into the atmosphere, generating waste heat, etc... also stuff like the nuclear winter theory of cold war fame, the human equiv. of a dinosaur-killer comet. Can result in global warming or cooling.
The problem in a nutshell = it's by far easier to add energy to a system than remove it. On average, human activity adds energy to the system and has been doing so at an increased rate in the last 400+ years and the last 100 in particular. This is eventually unsustainable in terms of supporting human life.
Eventually = no-one knows. Pick sometime. I dunno.
My solution = Spaceships. Big ones. And small, fast, maneuverable ones that you can fly around blasting stuff in. And space stations. And moon bases. I think it's time we accepted that human activity is going to completely screw this planet eventually, therefore we should do the sensible thing and get off it as soon as possible and fly around in spaceships.
-
technically speaking "climate change" would be happening with or without humans. earths atmosphere is not and never was at any fixed state. so do natural cycles occure? yes. are wee accelerating or decelerating them? no not directly. What we are doing is throwing more variables into an already infinitely long equation. these variables may cause increases in some things such as temperature, but might also decrease some other phenomenons like the earths co2 scrubbing capabilities. so when humans are still applying their own forces on the environment, even after thermal peak of the atmosphere. are we gonna start calling it global cooling? i dont think any of the names proposed for whats going on are accurate. id call it something like "forced climatic interferance".
-
My terminology
global warming = bunk
claimant change= happens and we can do anything
scientists= are retarded sometimes
this whole thing = is blown WAY out of proportion !
-
I would highly recommend yielding to this man's Chaucerian wordsmithing before all you tree-huggers embarrass yourselves any further.
-
My terminology = wrong
There, now it all works.
-
global warming = bunk
so now you know more than the best scientists in the fields of meteorology and climatology?
please, explain to us your theory explaining the global temperature increase (Which is undeniably fact - we have stinking observation records going back more than 100 years) and accounting for variables such as the 50% increase in atmospheric carbon load since the industrial revolution.
you also need to account for why the atmosphere is retaining 6x10^21 Joules more energy
-
Global warming is a myth.
It's caused by light from Venus reflecting off a weather balloon and passing trough swamp gas.
We humans never harm nature or the planet in any way. Anyone saying otherwise is a traitor to the human race and will be punished as stated by the GTVA bull*** act, section 00-01blj.
-
I still think we need spaceships.
-
Pfft. I don't think the issue here was if Global Warming was happening or not. I think the issue here was whether it was man-caused, or significantly affected by man.
I think it's a cycle, warmer and colder about every 50 years) but that it's getting warmer from the last Ice Age.
-
Pfft. I don't think the issue here was if Global Warming was happening or not. I think the issue here was whether it was man-caused, or significantly affected by man.
explain the increase in atmospheric carbon load
-
I think it's a cycle, warmer and colder about every 50 years) but that it's getting warmer from the last Ice Age.
Oh, I didn't know you were an accredited climatologist. Praytell, from which university did you get your doctorate?
-
'Global Warming' is a physics theory, specifically an outgrowth of thermodynamics. Think thermodynamic modeling on a planetary scale - if there's a net increase in energy in the system then 'warming' is said to have occurred. If there is a reduction in the amount of energy in the system then 'cooling' has occurred. Global warming or cooling to a sufficient extent could potentially result in global climatic change to the extent it interferes with human activities).
You can't call it a 'hoax', or 'bunk', unless you want to tangle with Sir Newton laws of thermodynamics. Or unless you use a definition of global warming that is divorced from physics.
Man-made global warming is the issue of whether humans are adding enough energy to the global system to result in 'warming'. This is debatable.
Which just proves my argument that we need more spaceships. I'm not quite sure how but it does, just accept it.
-
I think it's a cycle, warmer and colder about every 50 years) but that it's getting warmer from the last Ice Age.
Oh, I didn't know you were an accredited climatologist. Praytell, from which university did you get your doctorate?
The same one where you got yours.
-
I am fully in favor of more and bigger spaceships. :yes:
-
Man-made global warming is the issue of whether humans are adding enough energy to the global system to result in 'warming'. This is debatable.
we're added green house gases, which allow the atmosphere to retain more energy
I think it's a cycle, warmer and colder about every 50 years) but that it's getting warmer from the last Ice Age.
Oh, I didn't know you were an accredited climatologist. Praytell, from which university did you get your doctorate?
The same one where you got yours.
he's not the one disagreeing with the top scientists in the field
Substantiate your claims that it's "Bunk" with evidence and forward an alternative theory explaining the facts or admit that you're wrong
Your position: political
Their Position: scientific
-
Your position: political
Their Position: scientific
I take issue with your claim that all scientists in all the related fields support Glow-Bell Warning. In fact, if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
-
Yes, just like if evolution were credible we wouldn't be having that discussion.
-
Yes, just like if evolution were credible we wouldn't be having that discussion.
Ah.. he gets it.
-
I take issue with your claim that all scientists in all the related fields support Glow-Bell Warning. In fact, if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
If total consensus was required in any scientific endeavor, civilization would have been technologically stunted centuries ago. The mere fact that a statistically significant number of scientists firmly believes this to be an issue should be enough to demonstrate a need to give the theory the benefit of the doubt.
The fact of the matter is that too many people - such as yourself - like to give completely unqualified and uninformed opinions as if they meant something, bogging down the issue with meaningless tripe. That is why we're having this discussion. :doubt:
-
*snip*
If total consensus was required in any scientific endeavor, civilization would have been technologically stunted centuries ago. The mere fact that a statistically significant number of scientists firmly believes this to be an issue should be enough to demonstrate a need to give the theory the benefit of the doubt.
*snip*
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, weren't a great deal of those scientists saying that the Earth was in danger of another ice age a few decades back? :nervous:
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, weren't a great deal of those scientists saying that the Earth was in danger of another ice age a few decades back? :nervous:
It's one of the favourite quotes of anti Global-Warming advocates that 20 years ago the scientists were saying we were on the edge of an Ice Age. A lot of people don't realise that, geologically speaking, we still are. No scientist ever gave a date, in fact, the closest approximation was 'within 20,000 years', it was the Media that blew it up into 'Any minute now....'. Evidence strongly suggests that each end of an interglacial period actually began with temperatures rising before dropping into a glacial stage.
Look it up, if you'd like.
What does it matter, anyway? What kind of idiot would discount a large portion of the modern scientific community just because some scientists may have been wrong 20 years ago? :wtf:
-
*snip*
*snip*
Look it up, if you'd like.
Anyway. A few years ago scientists also said CFCs were creating a hold in the ozone layer. They were correct. We listened to them and we managed to slow the process to nearly a halt. Imagine if people had just ignored the scientific community on the basis that, at one time, they were wrong. **** evidence! **** logic! You were wrong at one point, and we shall never listen to your kind again! Damn the consequences!
I was merely trying to point out that their track record seems questionable. In which case, calling someone else's opinion wrong because they aren't these same scientists seems a tad silly.
Of course, I have been wrong before....
Imagine if people had just ignored the scientific community [or anyone] on the basis that, at one time, they were wrong.
-
I was merely trying to point out that their track record seems questionable. In which case, calling someone else's opinion wrong because they aren't these same scientists seems a tad silly.
Their job is to study the nuances of the way the physical world behaves, not to get you a Happy Meal. Just because they aren't always right doesn't mean their views aren't worth astronomically more than every rhetorical masturbator who decides to contribute their equivalent of "THIS IS WUT I THINK ABOUT GLBOAL WAMRING LOL". Stephen Hawking was apparently wrong about the black hole information paradox. Guess we shouldn't ask that jackoff about black holes anymore.
-
Man-made global warming is the issue of whether humans are adding enough energy to the global system to result in 'warming'. This is debatable.
we're added green house gases, which allow the atmosphere to retain more energy
Of course we have and are. But is it enough to result in drastic global climate change to an extent that our lives will be directly impacted? I think it is but I'm no expert so I'm happy to be wrong.
However, the economic-impact argument against cutting/altering high-polluting industry to reduce GW effects (i.e. it would cost too much and adversly effect the ecomony) is largely bunk in my view - cost of doing so if GW/CC false = medium, cost of doing so is true = low. Cost of doing nothing if false = negligible, cost of doing nothing if true = extremely high.
The conservative, risk minimisation, least impact approach leads to the doing something option just in case. Being a risk averse is worth it in this particular case.
Spaceships however, are a perfectly acceptable alternative - let's use the last of Earth's resources to colonise the solar system and that way when this wonderful blue planet of ours finally turns glowing toxic green we'll all have a fantastic view of it out the earth-side windows of our comfy space-homes while downing a Bosch Beer or ten.
-
I still think we need spaceships.
:yes:
global warming = bunk
so now you know more than the best scientists in the fields of meteorology and climatology?
please, explain to us your theory explaining the global temperature increase (Which is undeniably fact - we have stinking observation records going back more than 100 years) and accounting for variables such as the 50% increase in atmospheric carbon load since the industrial revolution.
you also need to account for why the atmosphere is retaining 6x10^21 Joules more energy
how old is the plant? and we only have 100 years of records. :doubt:
Ok, did anybody take into account that the earth's magnetic field is in the process of flipping its poles (north will be south)? of course its going to be warmer. Of course its going to have more energy, as the amount of radiation being absorbed by the atmosphere increases .
Fearless Leader is awesome in bed
I know, thank you.
-
You mean the pole flip that started over 1000 years ago?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but, weren't a great deal of those scientists saying that the Earth was in danger of another ice age a few decades back? :nervous:
Weren't a great deal of the scientists who say global warming is real but not man made saying that global warming wasn't real at all a few decades back?
-
You mean back when the other ones were whining about global cooling? Nah. Don't think so.
-
how old is the plant? and we only have 100 years of records. :doubt:
i was only counting direct observations - we can infer the global temperature record back several billion years based on indirect evidence found in ice cores, fossils, rock formations, etc
none of the global warming detractors has yet put forward their own theory explaining all the facts and taking into account that the atmosphere has 150% of the carbon it had before the industrial revolution and is retaining 6*10^21 Joules.
-
Your position: political
Their Position: scientific
I take issue with your claim that all scientists in all the related fields support Glow-Bell Warning. In fact, if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
using name calling is really furthering your position
You can take issue with the claim all you want, but unless I accidentally forgot to I always prefix that with "Respectable"
just because some oil-industry-paid right-wing fanatic who got a science degree says "no! all the top experts in the field are wrong!" doesn't make it so.
Global warming is happening, evidence strongly suggests that humans are playing a major roll in it.
The Solution? Don't be just polluting jackasses
I don't really get what the right-wing has against admitting that we're ****ing up our environment
oh right... because then corporations would have to take some responsibility for their actions.
-
Your position: political
Their Position: scientific
I take issue with your claim that all scientists in all the related fields support Glow-Bell Warning. In fact, if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
using name calling is really furthering your position
Are you seeing things?
And yes, the right-wingers don't want the corporations to take responsibility for their actions. And the lefties want everything so choked with government regulations as to make a living impossible, freedom a joke, and the USSR a tea party.
Or perhaps those are the extremes.
Hmm...
-
Interesting link I found.
http://www.nysun.com/article/70114 (http://www.nysun.com/article/70114)
Warming May Curb Hurricane Landfalls in U.S.
By Bloomberg News
January 24, 2008
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
The warming of the world's oceans may reduce the number of Atlantic hurricanes that make landfall in America, government researchers found.
Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration analyzed Atlantic storms between 1854 and 2006. They found that higher ocean temperatures increase the vertical wind shear of a system, or the rate at which wind speeds vary with altitude, NOAA said in a statement on its Web site. That, in turn, correlated with a decrease in the number of storms that strike land.
"We found a gentle decrease in the trend of U.S. land-falling hurricanes when the global ocean is warmed up," an oceanographer at the center, Chunzai Wang, said in the statement. "This trend coincides with an increase in vertical wind shear over the tropical North Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico." The study, which appeared yesterday in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, may influence future predictions of how global warming will affect America. Scientists with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that rising temperatures will cause storms to intensify. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005, caused more than $41.1 billion in insured damage.
-
Scientists with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that rising temperatures will cause storms to intensify. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005, caused more than $41.1 billion in insured damage.
Meaning that when they hit, they will hit a lot harder, causing much more damage than they normally would.
-
Scientists with the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said last year that rising temperatures will cause storms to intensify. Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans in 2005, caused more than $41.1 billion in insured damage.
Meaning that when they hit, they will hit a lot harder, causing much more damage than they normally would.
Not necessarily true. In that article the NOAA suggests GW will reduce the number of hurricanes, but strengthen the existing storms. Their reasoning is IMO much more clear than say Al Gore's reasoning. All in all it would make a lot more sense considering with a changing climate would likely create more shear thus destroying more hurricanes or reducing the strength of most of them by a good bit, but possibly strengthening the ones that get through the cracks of shear with the higher water temps.
Now if we take in account the past two years of hurricane activity in the Atlantic, 2006 was nearly normal, below in some cases, 2007 on the other hand had more than average storms, but most of them were crap, the only two big storms were Dean and Felix. So in essence, if we use the past two years as an analog it supports their theory. However if we use the years 2003-2005 we had far more storms, both major and crap. Which would go against their reasoning.
However, it is easy to see their reasoning is much different than Al Gore's who says GW will increase the number of hurricanes. So I'm interested in which way most people on this forums lean, is GW(whether man made or not) increasing hurricane activity or decreasing it.
-
one would think it would increase it, but the (infinitesimally small amount of) data suggests otherwise.
-
Winter is hoter here in oklahoma, I'm not sure if it's normal but 60 to 70 degree every so often almost every other week.
obviously i was talking about long term trends there.. it also increases short term instability (an even greater amount)
like.. it'll be -12 tonight but 36 on sunday here
A little late, but I see extremely little proof that short term variability means either for or against global warming.
Personally, I've seen it be in the 30's one day and then have 60's or 70's next with Svr weather. Why did that happen? Low pressure system spun up, a 60kt LLJ at 850mb flooded us with WAA. Along and north/south of a warm front, temp changes can be massive. All that massive temp changes over a short period show is a system forming nearby. If this is not normal, that just shows a local change(trough a little deeper, warm/cold air a little thicker) or maybe a short-term synoptic scale pattern caused by something like an La Nina or El Nino.
PST:
More energy in a meteorological system=> More instability => Greater thermal extreme delta => colder winters, warmer summers
just exactly what we're seeing.
Also not entirely true, obviously a temp increase at the sfc will mean little to the main pattern as the "weather makers" sit much higher up in the atmosphere. The Jet Stream sits at 200-300mb and the most common way of forecasting troughs and ridges is by looking at the charts at the 500mb level. So adding energy=>variability is not always the case.
-
how old is the plant? and we only have 100 years of records. :doubt:
i was only counting direct observations - we can infer the global temperature record back several billion years based on indirect evidence found in ice cores, fossils, rock formations, etc
none of the global warming detractors has yet put forward their own theory explaining all the facts and taking into account that the atmosphere has 150% of the carbon it had before the industrial revolution and is retaining 6*10^21 Joules.
Before the industrial revolution? How do we measure that? What methods are used, and was the same equipment used?
How do you infer information? it should be able to speak for its self, that is IF it holds any proof.
Inferring is not scientific
-
Before the industrial revolution? How do we measure that? What methods are used, and was the same equipment used?
How do you infer information? it should be able to speak for its self, that is IF it holds any proof.
i was only counting direct observations - we can infer the global temperature record back several billion years based on indirect evidence found in ice cores, fossils, rock formations, etc
Deciphering paeleoclimates is very possible, as Kaz described. First-hand observations are certainly not required in measuring climate over thousands or millions of years, you just need to know where to look. You're just being anal if you believe there is a major difference between measuring climate first hand and measuring climate by looking at its effects on the surrounding environment.
-
You mean back when the other ones were whining about global cooling? Nah. Don't think so.
I mean when global warming was just getting started. I even saw programs from these people claiming that the world wasn't actually getting any warmer. After another 10 years the evidence became overwhelming and their position switched from "Global Warming - Doesn't exist" to "Global Warming - Exists but we aren't doing it."
So if you're going to make claims about credibility I suggest you apply the same standards to those people saying the argument you (mistakenly) choose to believe.
Besides the stuff about a new ice age has been explained several times on this page. It's blown out of proportion by idiots who can't tell the difference between Earth cooling in 20,000 years and Earth cooling in 10 years.
-
There's only one thing I need to know:
Fox News claims we ain't doing it. (and IIRC; before that it claimed that GW was a sham)
Ergo, we MUST be doing it then.
Fox news simply can't be right. They never have been.
-
Trashman's logic is impecable.
However, be fair dude, FOX News produces excellent news that is actually fair, balanced and unbiased. It's just that there's only 5 minutes of it a day and the rest is unsubstantiated opinion.
-
it's my fault for allowing this side subject to start
let's get back on track
jr2... how exactly do you explain the information right in front of our face
Fearless: Ice cores are EXCELLLENT for measuring atmospheric carbon load because they actually have bubbles of atmosphere trapped in them that cannot interact with the free atmosphere - so you get samples of "old air" - they can date this air using it's contents and the contents of the ice surrounding it (yay radioisotopes)
just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean the science is invalid.
-
it's my fault for allowing this side subject to start
let's get back on track
jr2... how exactly do you explain the information right in front of our face
Fearless: Ice cores are EXCELLLENT for measuring atmospheric carbon load because they actually have bubbles of atmosphere trapped in them that cannot interact with the free atmosphere - so you get samples of "old air" - they can date this air using it's contents and the contents of the ice surrounding it (yay radioisotopes)
just because you don't understand the science doesn't mean the science is invalid.
Do you understand the science that says that the rest of the planets in our Solar System are warming, as well? Have we somehow polluted the sun, and made it produce too much heat?
-
Do you understand the science that says that the rest of the planets in our Solar System are warming, as well? Have we somehow polluted the sun, and made it produce too much heat?
IIRC, 3-4 planets are warming, the others are cooling. And let's not forget that we know jack s*** about the climate shifts on other planets.
Solar influence has been dismissed by scientists as a large factor in GW.
-
And many of the warming planets have long, highly elliptical orbits that are bringing them to their closest point to the Sun, we have an almost circular orbit compared to the outer planets.
-
And many of the warming planets have long, highly elliptical orbits that are bringing them to their closest point to the Sun, we have an almost circular orbit compared to the outer planets.
:yes:
try again jr2
-
So far, he's bounced from one cliche anti-Global Warming argument to another, so I doubt he's got any real reasoning behind his opposition for us to debate. It's like whack-a-mole!
-
exactly
Jr2 can you put forward any valid reason for your objection, and any valid alternative explaination that hasn't already been considered and found lacking
-
Personally I find that most peoples real objection to accepting that GW/CC is an issue is actually an objection to environmentalists and their actions.
Another interesting thing about environmentalism is the coming conflict with groups they have traditionally been associated with - like animal rights groups like PETA etc.
Here's a real case: the genuine fur trade is by far environmentally friendlier than the fake-fur trade as fake-fur is essentially made from an oil by-product. So killing animals for their skins helps saves the planet.
Eco-terrorism is also particularly interesting, something groups like Sea Shepard step dangerously close to committing in their high-seas hijinks.
-
i still believe we need more information. surly the quality of scientific data has increased over time. the data seems to point in a particular direction, but i question the long term models that they have come up with. that does not mean im against the whole eco friendly movement (not necessarily the crazy hippies who think that typical maggots should be protected from human interference).
-
The longterm models people come up with for things like global warming are only one step removed from looking into a crystal ball or reading tea leaves, because there are far too many variables in the process. It would break the computer to try and run an accurate model, and you can just forget even creating it.
-
it's a bit more accurate than "reading tea leaves" when you're talking about large scale effects
more greenhouse gasses means more energy retained means higher temperature... simple equation
and yes some environmentalists are nutjobs - and we all know what arguentum ad hominem is
-
From memory, the top 5 most powerful supercomputers on the planet are all designed for weather modeling.
and yes some environmentalists are nutjobs - and we all know what arguentum ad hominem is
Hahahaha! Yeah damn tree hugging hippies ;-)
-
From memory, the top 5 most powerful supercomputers on the planet are all designed for weather modeling.
If that is the case, we need more horsepower. ;)
-
...killing animals for their skins helps saves the planet.
**finds his new mission**
-
i still haven't heard any alternative explainations that cover all the facts
-
One flawed argument against global warming is that it's all part of a natural cycle. The flaw: there have been natural cycles, but the current rising trend exceeds the natural cycle's steepest rate and highest level by huge amounts. Also the CO2 + other gas levels from the previous warm periods, iirc, are not quite as high.
-
One flawed argument against global warming is that it's all part of a natural cycle. The flaw: there have been natural cycles, but the current rising trend exceeds the natural cycle's steepest rate and highest level by huge amounts. Also the CO2 + other gas levels from the previous warm periods, iirc, are not quite as high.
hmmm...
maybe its simple. more people = more body heat & CO2 (because we breathe it out)
think about it, the dinosaurs were cold blooded and after they ruled the earth there was an ice age
-
nope.. we don't pump out enough body heat or CO2 to explain the increase
-
/facepalm @ Fearless
-
hmmm...
maybe its simple. more people = more body heat & CO2 (because we breathe it out)
think about it, the dinosaurs were cold blooded and after they ruled the earth there was an ice age
Nah, that ice age is widely believed to have been caused by an asteroid impact.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater)
-
A Global Warming thread? Again?
Should I bother to write something about the industrial side of this? The things about this phenomenom are not as black (being the greedy industry) and white (being the good scientists that serve the public trust) as most people here tend to think.
Mika
-
/facepalm @ Fearless
:ick: