Global warming

[TB]

Do you believe in global warming and the Armageddon-like prophecies? I guess the next question in this direction; is should the US ratify the Kyoto treaty?

[2952-0-0]

Oh no; we want the icecaps to melt and the climate to be screwed up so bad it snows in Africa. Who cares about famines, diseases, more hurricanes and desertification? Bush doesn't.

[Ebowed]

Yes, I believe in global warming.  I frankly have a bit of a hard time comprehending why fundamentalists (who believe that the earth is 6,000 years old) tend to dismiss the theory, on a side note.  Evolution is a story of progress while creation is a story of decay; evolution is a long-lasting process while in creation major things can happen quickly.  Global warming seems to much better fit the latter, and I wish that fundamentalists would abandon their blind support of President Bush (whose loyalty is to the corporations) and start caring more about the environment.  Quit paying attention to the potheads who think global warming is "junk science"; the temperatures are rising and we may as well do something about it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Arnold says global warming is real, but that doesn't stop Bush from having aides altering government reports.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/8/5110/14262

[Ebowed]

Arnold says global warming is real, but that doesn't stop Bush from having aides altering government reports.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/6/8/5110/14262

As I've said before, Bush is a deciever of the worst kind.  He's found a great way to keep his support of big corporations palatable to the religious conservatives whose support he needs.  The Kyoto treaty is bad for corporations, and Bush's implied rejection is that global warming is junk science.  It's perfect: the fundamentalists, who are unfortunately usually gullible (with exceptions), think that Bush is standing up against another piece of junk science.  Evolution may have taken over the world's thinking, but global warming won't!  They view Bush as a hero.  Just another instance where Bush's pretend religiousity is used to help the corporations-- his love of God and his creation cannot be sincere.

[TB]

Well first of all, I also believe in global warming. Future generations might face serious issues if we don’t take action soon. In the end there is only one looser in this game and that’s nature – which means all of us. Global warming will be a global problem, a problem that not even money can save. President Bush is controlled by large corporations and their interests, jut take a look at this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html

[KEmperor]

What a bunch of liberal backslapping here.  No, global warming is not an issue, and no, we should definately NOT sign the Kyoto treaty.

[John Dibble]

Global warming exists, but some of it is natural(the temperature on Earth has been much higher in the past, long before humans and industry were around). Also, the doomsday prophecies about global warming are exaggerations and falsehoods, at least for the most part. Also, when reading about global warming in news articles, be sure to watch out for political agendas - they exist on both sides of the debate.

[DanielX]

Global warming exists, but some of it is natural(the temperature on Earth has been much higher in the past, long before humans and industry were around). Also, the doomsday prophecies about global warming are exaggerations and falsehoods, at least for the most part. Also, when reading about global warming in news articles, be sure to watch out for political agendas - they exist on both sides of the debate.

^^^^^^^^^^

Indeed. As for agendas...

pro-environmentalists (esp. the rabid ones, as opposed to your average-joe eco-consious person) tend to be anti-capitalist.

anti-environmentalists tend to be either pro-corporate, pro-fundamentalist of a particular religion, or both.

[Joe Republic]

The worrying thing is that a lot of the people who "don't believe" in global warming also tend to be the ones who drive their SUV to the grocery store at the end of the street.

[Richard]

What a bunch of liberal backslapping here.  No, global warming is not an issue, and no, we should definately NOT sign the Kyoto treaty.

I agree with you on both accounts.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

"Global warming" is bullsh*t. But the climate *is* changing... and while the *overall* effect is a net rise in global tempretures... that doesn't really matter all that much. What matters is *where* the climate is changing and *how* the climate is changing.
Seems to me that there's a lot of arrogance on both sides of the debate; on the one hand we have people that seem to have that any change, no matter how major or slight, in the climate is soley the result of what humanity has done... while on the other side we have people that seems to think that we can pump all manner of sh*t into the atmosphere without it having even a tiny effect.

O/c in one sense this debate is meaningless; we're still in an inter-glacial period... and in a few thousand years the ice will return.

[Storebought]

Oh no; we want the icecaps to melt and the climate to be screwed up so bad it snows in Africa. Who cares about famines, diseases, more hurricanes and desertification? Bush doesn't.

It already snows in Africa, and has for millenia, you (blank)

Trying to tie together human misfortune to 'global warming' is spiritism of the worst sort.

[John Dibble]

O/c in one sense this debate is meaningless; we're still in an inter-glacial period... and in a few thousand years the ice will return.

Well, if the icecaps melt, the thermohaline circulation will change and we'll have an ice age early anyways. Problem solved.

Futurama:
 Fry: "I'm glad global warming didn't happen"
 Leela: "Oh, it did, but luckily nuclear winter canceled it out"

[??????????]

O/c in one sense this debate is meaningless; we're still in an inter-glacial period... and in a few thousand years the ice will return.

Well, if the icecaps melt, the thermohaline circulation will change and we'll have an ice age early anyways. Problem solved.

Futurama:
 Fry: "I'm glad global warming didn't happen"
 Leela: "Oh, it did, but luckily nuclear winter canceled it out"

Correct. And the Al Gore movie got it right!! NY under Ice..coming in 2020!

[Colin]

Global warming exists and is happening but it is probably due to the natural changing of the Earth's temperature than any man-made factor. I believe this current warming trend is a normal warming period much like the Earth has had in the past. In the early 1400's, before the climatological event known as the Little Ice Age, ships were able to sail around Greenland, which is impossible today, and the maximum extent of pack ice in the Southern Ocean was much less than it is today. By the late 1400's though a period of global cooling occured which dropped world temperatures between .5-1 degree centigrade. This caused the pack ice around both poles to expand and for harsh winters in Europe, Asia and North America. Ever since the 1500's we have slowly been getting warmer as the temperatures tried to normalize with pre-Little Ice Age temperatures. Even before this event we can see small changes in the Earth's temperature before, this often explains the cycle of droughts and wet periods in the equitorial regions. My final thought on Global Warming is to say that it is definitely happening but it is more likely, in my mind, that it is caused by natural enviromental factors than my man-made/artificial factors.

[??????????]

Global warming exists and is happening but it is probably due to the natural changing of the Earth's temperature than any man-made factor. I believe this current warming trend is a normal warming period much like the Earth has had in the past. In the early 1400's, before the climatological event known as the Little Ice Age, ships were able to sail around Greenland, which is impossible today, and the maximum extent of pack ice in the Southern Ocean was much less than it is today. By the late 1400's though a period of global cooling occured which dropped world temperatures between .5-1 degree centigrade. This caused the pack ice around both poles to expand and for harsh winters in Europe, Asia and North America. Ever since the 1500's we have slowly been getting warmer as the temperatures tried to normalize with pre-Little Ice Age temperatures. Even before this event we can see small changes in the Earth's temperature before, this often explains the cycle of droughts and wet periods in the equitorial regions. My final thought on Global Warming is to say that it is definitely happening but it is more likely, in my mind, that it is caused by natural enviromental factors than my man-made/artificial factors.

Do you know about "The Year without a summer" in the early 1800s?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsb.html

[Colin]

Global warming exists and is happening but it is probably due to the natural changing of the Earth's temperature than any man-made factor. I believe this current warming trend is a normal warming period much like the Earth has had in the past. In the early 1400's, before the climatological event known as the Little Ice Age, ships were able to sail around Greenland, which is impossible today, and the maximum extent of pack ice in the Southern Ocean was much less than it is today. By the late 1400's though a period of global cooling occured which dropped world temperatures between .5-1 degree centigrade. This caused the pack ice around both poles to expand and for harsh winters in Europe, Asia and North America. Ever since the 1500's we have slowly been getting warmer as the temperatures tried to normalize with pre-Little Ice Age temperatures. Even before this event we can see small changes in the Earth's temperature before, this often explains the cycle of droughts and wet periods in the equitorial regions. My final thought on Global Warming is to say that it is definitely happening but it is more likely, in my mind, that it is caused by natural enviromental factors than my man-made/artificial factors.

Do you know about "The Year without a summer" in the early 1800s?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsb.html

No I didn't. Very interesting though. Shows you how much mother nature can shift the weather patterns in just a single year.

[John Dibble]

O/c in one sense this debate is meaningless; we're still in an inter-glacial period... and in a few thousand years the ice will return.

Well, if the icecaps melt, the thermohaline circulation will change and we'll have an ice age early anyways. Problem solved.

Futurama:
 Fry: "I'm glad global warming didn't happen"
 Leela: "Oh, it did, but luckily nuclear winter canceled it out"

Correct. And the Al Gore movie got it right!! NY under Ice..coming in 2020!

I'm assuming you're talking about "The Day After Tommorow". That's a sensationalist disaster movie, though. In truth, the thermohaline cycle would take about a decade to change, so it wouldn't be this big, instant disaster.

[Jens]

Global warming exists and is happening but it is probably due to the natural changing of the Earth's temperature than any man-made factor. I believe this current warming trend is a normal warming period much like the Earth has had in the past. In the early 1400's, before the climatological event known as the Little Ice Age, ships were able to sail around Greenland, which is impossible today, and the maximum extent of pack ice in the Southern Ocean was much less than it is today. By the late 1400's though a period of global cooling occured which dropped world temperatures between .5-1 degree centigrade. This caused the pack ice around both poles to expand and for harsh winters in Europe, Asia and North America. Ever since the 1500's we have slowly been getting warmer as the temperatures tried to normalize with pre-Little Ice Age temperatures. Even before this event we can see small changes in the Earth's temperature before, this often explains the cycle of droughts and wet periods in the equitorial regions. My final thought on Global Warming is to say that it is definitely happening but it is more likely, in my mind, that it is caused by natural enviromental factors than my man-made/artificial factors.

While it is quite true that the global climate has changed in the last 1000 years - The golden age of the vikings in Scnadinavia was probably caused by some exceptional warm centuries - the problem is the tempo in which the changes are happening. The Icecap in Greenland has given us and indication of the developments in temperature in the last 250.000 years, that shows some very speedy changes, but not anything like the effect  the last 2000 years where the temperature has been on a constant rise unlike anything seen before

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Global warming exists and is happening but it is probably due to the natural changing of the Earth's temperature than any man-made factor. I believe this current warming trend is a normal warming period much like the Earth has had in the past. In the early 1400's, before the climatological event known as the Little Ice Age, ships were able to sail around Greenland, which is impossible today, and the maximum extent of pack ice in the Southern Ocean was much less than it is today. By the late 1400's though a period of global cooling occured which dropped world temperatures between .5-1 degree centigrade. This caused the pack ice around both poles to expand and for harsh winters in Europe, Asia and North America. Ever since the 1500's we have slowly been getting warmer as the temperatures tried to normalize with pre-Little Ice Age temperatures. Even before this event we can see small changes in the Earth's temperature before, this often explains the cycle of droughts and wet periods in the equitorial regions. My final thought on Global Warming is to say that it is definitely happening but it is more likely, in my mind, that it is caused by natural enviromental factors than my man-made/artificial factors.

Do you know about "The Year without a summer" in the early 1800s?

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsb.html

No I didn't. Very interesting though. Shows you how much mother nature can shift the weather patterns in just a single year.

Yes, it had some major temporary effects.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

[J. J.]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

[Jake]

Global Warming? I could care less. As for ratifying the Kyoto Accord, good one. Lets severly over regulate the economy, hurting it badly, to fix something that may be a problem and certainly won't be one until we're all dead.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Where's J.J. to argue no statistical correlation, since the correlation must be less than 95%? LOL.

Well, since we are not really discussing the long term data, or statistics, at this point, it's not relevent, though JFRAUD's posts seldom are.

We have a record of global temperature changes, long term.  The "Little Ice Age," which occured in historical times, has already been noted.  We've also seen cooler periods, which lasted for several decades during the last century (and yes, in my lifetime).

I heard the argument about a new glacial period and global cooling in the late 1970's.  I'm still waiting for the wooly mamoth to make a comeback.

Remember our temperature/CO2 arguments? We never did figure out the exact correlation, but you seem to think that you can't have statistical significance at the 95% confidence level with a correlation below 95%. You had 5 months to figure out that you were wrong. For simple linear regression, a correlation of 94% will be statistically significant even for 5 data points.

The correlation is below 95%, but it's definitely statistically significant, which doesn't prove causation, but labrotory experiments have shown that.