Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

Originally Posted by commiecat

This discussion is about climate, not weather.

Mark Twain said,"Everyone talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it."

I'm here a little late for the one year reunion of my last post in this thread. It's heart warming to see progress being made

It's disturbing that you can explain that GW is about average temperatures, and then have someone come straight back with another story about one data point.

At least come back with something like:

"the scientists are fabricating the temperature data."

At least then you would have demonstrated that you know what an average is. That you might even be competent enough to calculate an average. That you can read and understand an argument. That you know how to present a counter point.

Currently I see an excellent demonstration of people sticking fingers in their ears, saying "LA LA LA".

Originally Posted by jcd

It's disturbing that you can explain that GW is about average temperatures, and then have someone come straight back with another story about one data point.

At least come back with something like:

"the scientists are fabricating the temperature data."

At least then you would have demonstrated that you know what an average is. That you might even be competent enough to calculate an average. That you can read and understand an argument. That you know how to present a counter point.

Currently I see an excellent demonstration of people sticking fingers in their ears, saying "LA LA LA".

I don't think that anyone with a half of a brain can argue that the earth has been warming since the last solar minimum.
We will know in short time if some of the opposition to the anthropogenic part of that argument was correct being that the minimum we are in now is particularly noteworthy.
If astronomers and other scientists, not part of the concensus group on global warming are correct we will know soon.

Well said Bob.

Thanks,
Mike

Originally Posted by TexasBob

It all depends on the time scale you want to consider.

On the largest scale (billions of years) the Earth is much cooler now then it was when it finally cooled down enough for water vapor to condense and fill the oceans.

On a nearer scale (millions of years) there were several major Ice Ages between then and now where the Earth obviously cooled then warmed as the Ice Ages came and went. During the age of dinosaurs the Earth was much warmer than it is now.

At a more moderate scale (~ 10,000 years) we are coming out of a big ice age that did things like carve out the Great Lakes and create Long Island. (These are very young features.) People get concerned about the melting glaciers but as they melt we see signs of iced over habitation. I.e. we are returning to an earlier temperature profile. We are still coming out of the last Ice Age. If the glaciers weren't melting there would be no New York City, for example. Note that 10,000 years covers only part of human habitation on this planet.

At a short scale (hundreds of years) we are pretty much out of the Little Ice Age (16th through 19th centuries) that followed the Medieval Warm Period (800-1300).

On a very short scale (tens of years) we are 10 years into a cooling trend that began near the turn of the century. This correlates very well with sunspot activity. Note that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere trails temperature change so can hardly be the cause of it. It probably has more to do with how the oceans absorb or emit gases depending on temperature.

I doubt humankind had much to do with any of that.

In 20 years we'll have enough evidence one way or the other. Studying trends means the observer can cook the numbers into a brew to their liking either way. I, personally, think the evidence points toward a correlation between CO₂ ( I wrote CROx out of habit) and change.

However I don't think if we don't stop all carbon emissions right now we are doomed to a scorched planet and we'll all be driving armored cars and wearing shoulder pads and speaking in gruff, Australian accents.

I think it's something we should study, unfortunately it's politicized and that means if it's bad it'll never get dealt with and if it's not bad it'll get way more attention than it ever needed.

Originally Posted by jcd

It's disturbing that you can explain that GW is about average temperatures, and then have someone come straight back with another story about one data point.

They're not reading you. They're just focused on their talking points.

I spent a good bit of time reading through the whole of this thread. I tried to read every post, and re-read quite a few to make sure I was getting it. I find it quite interesting that for many of us, we seem to actually agree about more than we're admitting.

While the generalized question this thread brings up is true vs false, It's really far to simplistic an argument. It's easy to see in the replies that we are all thinking beyond the simple true/false regardless of which side you may choose. What is really important are those many questions we have given either answer, and for me that's where things get interesting.

It would appear that everyone in this thread does in fact believe in climate change (even if only .01 degrees F), but the extent to which they believe it will change and the reasons why are the great divide.

Is climate change man made or not man made?
Is the sky falling or will we experience only a slight change if any?

We see a range of other subjects discussed as well that are often linked or directly tied to "Climate Change".

Are corrupt politicians furthering their own political and economic agendas?
What of our reliance on fossil fuels?
What needs to be done regarding sustainable and renewable sources of clean energy?
What can and should we do to prevent extinction of wildlife and habitat?
Will we experience a change in quality of human life? (for better or worse and why?)
What is the cost to change climate and global temerature from both a monetary and lifestyle perspective?

Regardless of whether you believe man has caused a climate change, or how drastic you expect it to be, these other issues are the ones that we ought to be paying attention to. I'm sure as a group we could come up with many others. I believe that in answering the many questions associated with either side of the issue, we will likely find common ground on many topics.

We all want to improve our quality of life as humans. This is a highly subjective matter as quality time to one person means something completely different to another. The questions we might ask become more complicated though as we must make sacrifices to elements of our daily lives to make significant changes. If the climate of the earth changes how will it affect the quality of human life? How much money, time, and sacrifice would we have to make to see a measurable change in global climate in either direction? How many individuals would need to assist in implementing that change for it to be worthwhile? What sort of incentives would entice people to work towards the goal of preventing (or inciting) change?

I think these are the kinds of questions that really outline the major issues for "Joe Blow". Regardless of whether we can weigh in on the science of climate change, we can all tell you with certainty how many of our tax dollars we're willing to devote to it. I for one think if we started discussing these other questions we'd find a lot more common ground.

- Sean

New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming
Alert Print Post comment Retweet Facebook
'Important to get these things right', says scientist

New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming • The Register

Originally Posted by niftyshaving

New NASA model: Doubled CO2 means just 1.64°C warming

yeah yet another 'theory' - shows you how much those scientists are worth. just stop wasting money on them and all that spending by the big government. use the money for tax cuts, so that businesses can open new jobs for all these newly unemployed climatologists where they can be paid what the market sees fit.