Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant drastic change?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 03:03:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Debate (Moderator: Torie)
  Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant drastic change?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant the need for drastic change?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 26

Author Topic: Is there enough proof of global warming to warrant drastic change?  (Read 5911 times)
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: August 02, 2008, 10:08:00 AM »

Snowguy, we disagree on a lot (we agree on a lot too, but tell anybody), but I must say, you do a great job on the global warming issue.  Thank you for your input.  You could easily be a puppet like many others, but you've obviously done your research past what the Al Gore's of the world preach to you and came up with a reasonable position on the subject.  We need more people like you on your side of the aisle.  Again, thank you.

You're only praising his effort because you agree with him.  If he had shown the consensus opinion of scientists rather than a minority opinion, he could have also written long paragraphs and showed charts, but I don't think you would have praised him then.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: August 02, 2008, 10:13:45 AM »

There are two issues here:

First, is there a significant real long term increase in global tempratures (the evidence is at this time inconclusive, but this is probably not the case)

Second, if there is such an increase, how much of it is non-man made (i.e. solar activity, etc.)   

No, there are three issues. The two you mentioned and then whether it is better to adapt to increased temperatures or battle them.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: August 02, 2008, 03:00:28 PM »

Snowguy, we disagree on a lot (we agree on a lot too, but tell anybody), but I must say, you do a great job on the global warming issue.  Thank you for your input.  You could easily be a puppet like many others, but you've obviously done your research past what the Al Gore's of the world preach to you and came up with a reasonable position on the subject.  We need more people like you on your side of the aisle.  Again, thank you.

You're only praising his effort because you agree with him.  If he had shown the consensus opinion of scientists rather than a minority opinion, he could have also written long paragraphs and showed charts, but I don't think you would have praised him then.
No, he's obviously done his research.  Everybody that I've ever talked to that's done that sounds exactly like him.  He's a Global Warming Realist.  The goofballs that swallow Al Gore's BS and then parrot it about like it's gospel and "scientific consensus" are wrong and dangerous and we should tell them to shut the hell up.  Snowguy could have been lazy and bought into the hype too, but he didn't.

And yes, the Global Warming Enthusiasts can make nice long posts with graphs and big words, but what they can never do is refute the things the Realists have said.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: August 02, 2008, 03:00:45 PM »

Snowguy, we disagree on a lot (we agree on a lot too, but tell anybody), but I must say, you do a great job on the global warming issue.  Thank you for your input.  You could easily be a puppet like many others, but you've obviously done your research past what the Al Gore's of the world preach to you and came up with a reasonable position on the subject.  We need more people like you on your side of the aisle.  Again, thank you.

You're only praising his effort because you agree with him.  If he had shown the consensus opinion of scientists rather than a minority opinion, he could have also written long paragraphs and showed charts, but I don't think you would have praised him then.

What exactly is the consensus opinion, Harry?  You've never told me.

Oh yeah, the consensus opinion is that humans have increased the CO2 level to very high levels not seen in a very long time and that this is *almost certainly* having *some* effect on global temperatures, leading to an overall increase.

Again, as I've said before, it says nothing of how much.

The 2.5-5*C warming figures you get from the IPCC come from models put out in 2001 that don't take ocean currents into account.  In fact, they take almost no natural variability into account.  The only variable in these models are greenhouse gases.  They don't even take clouds into account.  That says nothing of solar output or multi-year/decade/century-long ocean/atmosphere oscillations.. many of which we dont' even really know about yet.

Now the planet has been cooling for 6 years despite a 3% increase in atmospheric CO2.  Some scientists are saying it was a switch in the Pacific Decadel Oscillation to its cold phase.. the same phenomenon that occurred from 1945-1976 and cooled the planet then, as well.

You have to subtract all other factors from the equation before you can single out greenhouse gases as the culprit.

The models have not done that.

Solar output was higher in the past 70 years than it has been in the past 1000 years.  You might say "Well, then if solar output has been high, but relatively flat for the past 70 years, then why are temperatures still rising"?  Well, they're not, actually... the peak occurred in 1998 and the temperatures have been falling since 2002.

Solar output increased dramatically from 1910-1950 and then remained at those high 1950 levels until very recently.  The ocean oscillations, which do not add or subtract energy to the atmosphere, but distribute it unevenly over different periods of time, acted as an energy sink from 1945-1976 as cold ocean water sucked up solar energy and kept the planet cool.  

Then, that warm water, heated up from the unusually strong sun, was let loose beginning in 1977 and the planet began to warm quickly until it reached equilibrium with the strong solar output.  Now the Pacific ocena has entered its cold phase again and it is once again acting as a sink, so the planet is cooling.  On top of that, now the sun is much weaker than it was during the last "cold" period, so temperatures will likely drop further than they did in the previous cold period (from 1945-1976).

So, once you subtract the solar output increase and adjust for decades long variances in global temperatures caused by oceanic cycles, you then get an underlying temperature.

We don't know what that temperature is because nobody has tried to figure it out.  INstead, they ahve completely ignored solar output variability, dismissing them.. saying they aren't big enough to have any effect on global temperature.

They've also dismissed oceanic cycles and have arbitrarily taken the temperature in 1900 and subtracted from the temperature in 2000 and attributed it all to a rise in greenhouse gases.  You should be comparing points in time where the ocean cycles were similar and then compare those two temperatures to find the real increase caused by other factors, such as greenhouse gases.  The oceanic cycles were similar in 1945 to what it was in 2007... both times were near the end of warm phases in the Pacific... and the increase wasn't nearly as great as it was from the coldest period to the warmest... but again, just arbitrarily measuring from the earliest records to the most recent is bad science.  That's like saying 8+3+3=11 and then saying "well we don't know much about that other 3, but we think it's unimportant so just leave it out.. the answer is 11, God damn it!!"

But scientists can't research the subject and introduce new material anymore, because the issue has been SO politicized that changing the message would be devastating to a lot of people that have a lot of money and influence on the science community.  So, instead of researching the subject and seeking answers, they are seeking evidence for their pre-determined outcomes.

Isn't science supposed to be about having a theory and then trying your best to disprove that theory until you can't disprove it anymore and thus accept it as almost certainly true?  Rather than starting out with a theory, politicizing it, and then forever trying to find proof that fits the desired outcome?  Maybe I have a different idea of what science is.

There's a good phrase when it comes to the computer models used to predict future global climate:  Garbage in, garbage out.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: August 02, 2008, 03:36:36 PM »

Snowguy, we disagree on a lot (we agree on a lot too, but tell anybody), but I must say, you do a great job on the global warming issue.  Thank you for your input.  You could easily be a puppet like many others, but you've obviously done your research past what the Al Gore's of the world preach to you and came up with a reasonable position on the subject.  We need more people like you on your side of the aisle.  Again, thank you.

You're only praising his effort because you agree with him.  If he had shown the consensus opinion of scientists rather than a minority opinion, he could have also written long paragraphs and showed charts, but I don't think you would have praised him then.
No, he's obviously done his research.  Everybody that I've ever talked to that's done that sounds exactly like him.  He's a Global Warming Realist.  The goofballs that swallow Al Gore's BS and then parrot it about like it's gospel and "scientific consensus" are wrong and dangerous and we should tell them to shut the hell up.  Snowguy could have been lazy and bought into the hype too, but he didn't.

And yes, the Global Warming Enthusiasts can make nice long posts with graphs and big words, but what they can never do is refute the things the Realists have said.

     I agree. I choose to believe in global warming because I find the idea useful in curtailing rampant pollution. However, the fanatics who want to sell us carbon offsets & electric cars are dangerous in my estimate, & ultimately counter-productive.

     Then again, I am a firm believer in the"noble lie," so regardless of the truth about global warming, I can use it to perfectly suit my ends. Wink
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: August 02, 2008, 03:59:41 PM »

PiT,

First, thanks for the honesty.

Second, from my experience, most alledged believers in 'global warming' are merely using that as a pretext for larger and more intrusive government, with less freedom.

Third, if you take a look at developments over the past couple of generations in the United States, you will see remarkable progress on water pollution (which is far more critical than air pollution).
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: August 02, 2008, 04:19:25 PM »


     Not a problem. Smiley

Second, from my experience, most alledged believers in 'global warming' are merely using that as a pretext for larger and more intrusive government, with less freedom.

     Hence why I view the extreme evironmentalists as dangerous. Not to mention carbon offsets are really useless anyway. They're just taking care of the Carbon Dioxide from smoke, without doing anything about the Carbon Monoxide or the Hydrocarbons.

Third, if you take a look at developments over the past couple of generations in the United States, you will see remarkable progress on water pollution (which is far more critical than air pollution).

     Not to mention that since the late 1800s, huge progress has been made in all forms of pollution. Nevertheless, there is still progress to be made, & air pollution still exists. I would support some concessions to combat pollution, like signing the Kyoto Protocol.

     Nevertheless, we shouldn't make it such a big priority that we tear down our economy to destroy all pollution. There will be more ways in the future to further reduce pollution.
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: August 02, 2008, 06:16:37 PM »

PiT,

Another thing that bugs me about the 'global warming' nuts is their grabbing at a handful of dubious numbers and coming to unfounded conclusions.

If anyone bothered to study the history of the earth (geoscienes) they would find that there have been a large number of significant warming and cooling periods.

Indeed, some major Russian scientists have suggested that the earth will be entering a cooling cycle in this century.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: August 02, 2008, 06:53:29 PM »

PiT,

Another thing that bugs me about the 'global warming' nuts is their grabbing at a handful of dubious numbers and coming to unfounded conclusions.

If anyone bothered to study the history of the earth (geoscienes) they would find that there have been a large number of significant warming and cooling periods.

Indeed, some major Russian scientists have suggested that the earth will be entering a cooling cycle in this century.

     Not to mention that there is a huge buffer zone between where we are now (70 oF, 20 oC) & an unliveably hot planet (120 oF, 50 oC). If it turns out that the Earth continues warming up because of Carbon Dioxide, there will be more than enough time to recognize this & take drastic action.
Logged
7,052,770
Harry
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 35,217
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: August 02, 2008, 07:12:33 PM »

I hereby retire from debating on global warming.  It's clear that (thankfully a minority) of forumites absolutely refuse to listen to scientific thought on the issue, and have decided to believe libertarian talking points instead, and nothing I say will get through to them.  Thankfully neither presidential candidate, nor very many members of Congress share their viewpoint.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2008, 07:54:35 PM »

Well, Good.. because to date you've answered none of my questions instead defaulting to platitudes put out by politicians.

You've also been very quick to dismiss what I've said without ever realizing that this "consensus" you speak of isn't nearly as specific or as wide reaching as you allege... or even realized taht I don't disagree with the consensus that humans are to blame for all warming caused by greenhouse gas buildup.

The question is not whether, but by how much.

I am not stupid.  I can't sit here and say "well, we know that sulfur dioxide cools the planet, but CO2 just sits up there and doesn't do a damned thing".. because that's not true.  But scientists haven't found a figure for the actual warming caused by increased greenhouse gases... and the models are horribly incomplete.

If you dismiss all I have to say because I don't agree with Nancy Pelosi or Al Gore and blame Hurricane Katrina or the heatwave in the plains on global warming... then you ahve a very poor understanding of the issue.

isolated weather events≠Global Warming
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2008, 08:33:25 PM »

This is an interesting paper highlighting the effect that the sun's rotation about the center point of the solar system has on the earth's rate of rotation and various atmospheric/oceanic oscillations that drive global temperatures up and down.

It is, of course, no surprise that following this process, it leads to show that the past 30 years were in fact rather unusual in a way that supports unusual warming of the planet.  That unusual "warm cycle", if you will, has recently reversed as the asymmetry of the sun around its central rotation point changes.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf

Edit:  You won't find this in the climate models.
Logged
Smid
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,151
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2008, 11:43:50 PM »

I hereby retire from debating on global warming.  It's clear that (thankfully a minority) of forumites absolutely refuse to listen to scientific thought on the issue, and have decided to believe libertarian talking points instead, and nothing I say will get through to them.  Thankfully neither presidential candidate, nor very many members of Congress share their viewpoint.

The "scientific thought" on the issue is far from conclusive, indeed there are scientists who are sceptical of the claims made about global warming cataclysm who are shouted down by global warming fundamentalists. Indeed, it seems the only people interested in curtailing debate on global warming are those who believe in it - sort of a case of "freedom of speech, freedom of debate, so long as you believe in global warming" There isn't any real discussion of the evidence and people who question the evidence are accused of being in denial, rather than having their questions answered with real, physical, actual evidence. The scientist quoted at the beginning of this thread is one example of someone questioning the evidence, another one would be geophysist Phil Chapman:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

Political commentator Andrew Bolt ( http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/columnist/0,21997,25717,00.html ) often discusses global warming from a political perspective, but the global warming fundies have a tendency to shout him down rather than debate him on the evidence. If there was really overwhelming evidence for global warming, surely it wouldn't be so hard to debate him with proof instead of accusing him of of being in denial.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: August 03, 2008, 12:18:52 AM »

Be careful Smid.. using "if, then" statements when discussing science is dangerous.

It's not that the people here from the pro-global warming crowd don't ahve the evidence to back up their claims.. it's just a combination of not really knowing the issue well and laziness.

There are plenty of good arguments for the greenhouse theory... including the planet Venus.. it's a perfect example of greenhouse warming run amok.

My stance is that we have not finished the research, and we don't fully understand the climate system, and thus we are assigning the observations only to known variables, rather than assuming that there are not-yet-known variables which very well could be responsible for most of our current warming.

This is evident by the fact that we have seen high greenhouse concentrations in the past on earth with very cold temperatures... just as we've seen very warm temperatures on earth with lower greenhouse gas concentrations.

My beef is that most of the warming of the past century is actually due to natural causes and that only a fraction of it (though more and more significant as we progressed through the century) is due to manmade causes... and if we don't do anything at all, our impact will soon become noticeable and will begin canceling out the natural climate variables that could save our butts in the next 30 years.

And not to worry... I still think Inhofe and the other global warming deniers are nuts... they're just as bad as the Boxers and Pelosis who have done absolutely NO research on the issue but are ready to give you an earful.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,078
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: August 03, 2008, 12:24:48 AM »

I hereby retire from debating on global warming.
Sure you do Mr. Favre.
Logged
Ban my account ffs!
snowguy716
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,632
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: August 09, 2008, 03:45:20 PM »

Here is some data from International Falls, Minnesota on the Canadian border.  Northern Minnesota has been a target by many environmentalists when it comes to documenting climate change because so much of the region is still wilderness and it was expected that this area of the country would warmer more and faster than many other parts of the lower 48.

The region has had some interesting trends in climate though, and a new cooling trend is becoming evident, especially during the summer growing season.

Here is the May-July period, or the first 3 months of our 4-5 month growing season.  You can see that the warming trend was clear during the 1970s and '80s, but has since flattened and temps have even declined somewhat.  Notice the unusual cold from 2004 and this year that was rather unprecedented.



Here is the most recent 6 month period (Feb-July) from 1948-2008.  Notice how much of an outlier 2008 has been compared to the past 30 years.  Also notice that while there was an obvious warming trend from the 1950s to the 1980s, since then there has been no obvious trend.



While it is clear that there isn't an obvious reversal in trends, it is clear that other natural climate variations are playing a bigger role than the most ardent Global Warming pushers would admit.
Logged
Torie
Moderator
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: August 10, 2008, 06:54:07 PM »

No! Not if global warming means man made global warming.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: August 11, 2008, 03:09:29 AM »

There's enough proof of it to believe it is happening, but 'drastic change' would require too much sacrifice, so it won't happen.  Nor would I support it if I had to give up air conditioning or a big car.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.05 seconds with 14 queries.