Climate Change -- conspiracy theory or is it time we all drive a Prius?
+1Quote: AZDuffmanEven 500 years is nothing in the lifetime of a planet. Measuring temps over 50 years like we have and predicting "global warming" is same as predicting black will come up because red has the last 3 times.
It was funny earlier because Bingo unknowingly gave a good argument AGAINST his own position. lol
You know, that's quite convenient. Whether its hot or cold, its proof of global warming.
Case closed. I mean, who the hell am I to question a school teacher?
Quote: KeyserSozeMy son's school teacher (flaming liberal) told the class today that the recent severe low temps are proof of global warming.
You know, that's quite convenient. Whether its hot or cold, its proof of global warming.
Case closed. I mean, who the hell am I to question a school teacher?
Seems like the kind of guy who would insist going broke proves martingale works.
You do have to wonder how people like this manage to feed themselves much less get through college.
Quote: KeyserSoze
You know, that's quite convenient. Whether its hot or cold, its proof of global warming.
Because there's no science behind it, they say
whatever they want. They so badly want it to
be true, that's the funny part. They tell us how
bad it will be and they want it worse than anything.
Lunatics.
Quote: KeyserSozeMy son's school teacher (flaming liberal) told the class today that the recent severe low temps are proof of global warming.
You know, that's quite convenient. Whether its hot or cold, its proof of global warming.
Case closed. I mean, who the hell am I to question a school teacher?
And (facepalm) to the teacher.
It's like claiming a run of two sixes indicates a biased die. It clearly does not.
It's like two drinks. One with whole ice and one with small chipped ice of the same volume. The chipped ice is melting faster, and the drink is falling in temperature more rapidly, but the chipped ice drink will be all water sooner compared to the whole ice drink.
Too simplistic for climate change maybe? Yeah, probably, but still true crushed or chip ice will melt faster in a glass of water than whole ice.
Quote: rxwineI would assume if the Earth's ice is more fractured, there is more energy exchange. If there is more energy exchange it would likely mean ice is warming and but the Earth is also cooling.
It's like two drinks. One with whole ice and one with small chipped ice of the same volume. The chipped ice is melting faster, and the drink is falling in temperature more rapidly, but the chipped ice drink will be all water sooner compared to the whole ice drink.
Too simplistic for climate change maybe? Yeah, probably, but still true crushed or chip ice will melt faster in a glass of water than whole ice.
If it's true that melting sea ice will cause sea level change, then it must also be true that when the ice melts (chipped or whole) the glasses will overflow. Ba-dum-dum.
Quote: Sabretom2If it's true that melting sea ice will cause sea level change, then it must also be true that when the ice melts (chipped or whole) the glasses will overflow. Ba-dum-dum.
Just to further stir the pot, I've never cared for this argument. Antarctica is a continent. It is land. It just happens to be covered with a lot of ice. The concept of a cube floating in water isn't the same one that governs the ice on Antarctica, as the oceans are not supporting the ice.
Just, you know... here to cause trouble =p
Quote: AZDuffmanWe have had similar temperature change over the past 500 years more than once and the world has survived.
Absolutely not true. Here is a graph showing the average temperature has risen to its highest value and at a faster rate than anything over the last 1,000 years.
Data Sources for CO2: Law Dome ice core and Mauna Loa air samples. Data Source for Temperature: NOAA. - See more here.
Quote: AZDuffmanMeasuring temps over 50 years like we have and predicting "global warming" is same as predicting black will come up because red has the last 3 times.
That is a poor analogy since there is not a 50/50 chance of getting a result. These measurements have been made frequently and accurately over the last 50 years. Clearly there is strong indication that a phenomena is occurring here that we have not seen before in the last 1,000 years.
Quote: FaceJust to further stir the pot, I've never cared for this argument. Antarctica is a continent. It is land. It just happens to be covered with a lot of ice. The concept of a cube floating in water isn't the same one that governs the ice on Antarctica, as the oceans are not supporting the ice.
Just, you know... here to cause trouble =p
Yes, it is more like ice in water, AND ice frozen above the water to the glass rim. Once it all melts, the level will rise.
Quote: EvenBobBecause there's no science behind it, they say whatever they want.
But there is extensive science behind it. Here is a bibliography to show that you are wrong:
Climate Change Bibliography
And the consensus is overwhelming in support of climate change:
Climate Change Consensus
Quote: paisielloAbsolutely not true. Here is a graph showing the average temperature has risen to its highest value and at a faster rate than anything over the last 1,000 years.
The chart is useless as we only have accurate temperature readings since about the 1860s in the USA, even those are not great as monitor stations moved over the years, and few countries kept as good of records as we did.
tQuote:That is a poor analogy since there is not a 50/50 chance of getting a result. These measurements have been made frequently and accurately over the last 50 years. Clearly there is strong indication that a phenomena is occurring here that we have not seen before in the last 1,000 years.
It was the best I could come up with in a hurry. But no scientist would accept data over 50 years. And there is no reason to believe what we have today, in the 1950s, or 1800s is the "right" temperature. The earth has warmed and cooled more than this many times over 4.5 Billion years. It will again over the next few billion until the sun dies.
Us who have been "deniers" all the time are finally swaying the masses, and it is driving the believers nuts. Heck, by now we were told kids would not be able to go sled riding, meanwhile a crew of "scientists" trying to prove global warming got stuck in ice IN SUMMER!
Reality is not being kind to the believers.
May you be touched by His noodly appendage.Quote: treetopbuddySimply put......as the number of Pirates decrease global temps rise. A simple correlation that has been missed
by the scientific community.
Quote: boymimboI'm still here.
Nah. Gr8hoven9th was referring to a young guy, IIRC a PhD candidate, maybe post-Doc who was here around 6 months ago. Tried to have a sane discussion but was on the wrong site...;-)
Astronomers "know" the distance to stars but they haven't actually measured it using a tape measure. They infer the distance using parallax, candle stars (Cepheids and Supernova), and Hubble's "Law" to relate the spectral shift in a star's light to its distance. Most if not all astronomers believe that these methods are acceptable, but a part of the astronomical community is working to better these methods to get more accurate figures.
Just like planetary scientists don't see planets around distant stars. They look at a star's wobble (the gravitational center of a solar system is not the center of the star) and changes in the light from the star over time to infer planets revoloving around the star. To be more accurate, they need more powerful instrumentation. From this, it is estimated that over half of the stars in this galaxy have planets around it. Most astronomers accept this though they haven't actually seen the planet.
Quote: s2dbakerMay you be touched by His noodly appendage.
Ramen
Quote: AZDuffmanThe chart is useless as we only have accurate temperature readings since about the 1860s in the USA, even those are not great as monitor stations moved over the years, and few countries kept as good of records as we did.
Not true. The "chart" is very useful because it shows a clear trend and it shows a strong correlation with CO2 concentration. Here is another version of the graph from the NOAA that includes the variation in measurements from different studies:
Any historical "inaccuracies" are not significant when compared to the clear warming trend of the last 50 years. As boymimbo pointed out, there are other ways to estimate past temperatures other than thermometer readings. So you are not being accurate there.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut no scientist would accept data over 50 years. And there is no reason to believe what we have today, in the 1950s, or 1800s is the "right" temperature. The earth has warmed and cooled more than this many times over 4.5 Billion years. It will again over the next few billion until the sun dies.
Not true. Scientists do accept data over 50 years. And they are not interested so much in what the right number is as what the trend shows. And the trend is pretty clear from the graphs.
You also jumped from 500 years to 4.5 billion years. The major difference in those time scales is that 100,000 years ago the human population and agriculture was a very small fraction of what it is today. Clearly climate change will have a significant impact on human society as it stands today. I refer you back to my previous posts that showed some information on this.
Quote: AZDuffmanUs who have been "deniers" all the time are finally swaying the masses, and it is driving the believers nuts. Heck, by now we were told kids would not be able to go sled riding, meanwhile a crew of "scientists" trying to prove global warming got stuck in ice IN SUMMER!
Now you have jumped back from 4.5 billion years to one year. Look at the data from the last 30 years at least. What is the trend that you see? Anyone who claims global warming or cooling from one event in one year is not understanding where the climate science is drawing its conclusions from.
Quote: boymimboThere is plenty of reasons to believe the temperature records > 50 years ago. There are plenty of other ways to infer global temperature without a themomenter. Scientists use a combination of tree rings, corals, ice cores, sediments, and historical documents and correlate all together to come up with a temperature record which most scientists agree is "acceptable" but of course it is open to debate and these numbers are published as estimates. A portion of climatologists (who would be employed anyway with or without climate change) work on writing papers to better the accuracy of this historical data in order to reduce the uncertainty.
Tree rings and ice cores give an estimate. Even if it is 1C off it is off this chart. It is like weighing a truck t each axle to get a total weight vs weighing the entire thing on one scale. You will come close but you are not going to be precise.
And this remains only one thing, there are still far more reasons to doubt global warming than to believe it. And there is no reason to believe today's temperature is the "best" one. Warmer is historically better.
Did anyone else see that the goofs in CA want "Global Warming Warning Labels" on gas pumps?
Quote: AZDuffmanTree rings and ice cores give an estimate. Even if it is 1C off it is off this chart. It is like weighing a truck t each axle to get a total weight vs weighing the entire thing on one scale. You will come close but you are not going to be precise.
Averages and errors can be mitigated by sampling a lot of trucks. For instance
Quote:And this remains only one thing, there are still far more reasons to doubt global warming than to believe it. And there is no reason to believe today's temperature is the "best" one. Warmer is historically better.
Aha, you see, the science is just showing there is an anthromorphic change (or at least it best fits the data). It's a different tack to say the effects are good or bad, and what the effects of an increase in average temperature will be.
Saying 'it doesn't matter' seems a reasonable (if I think misguided answer). Saying it's not happening given the wealth of information and debate requires a much more in depth explanation and dare I say it, scientific approach better than 'well, I don't think it's happening because the liberals say so, and it's all about the money'. Saying that your opinion is too much money and time is spent on the research and guessing on the effects is one thing, and again reasonable (if again I believe misguided), attacking the science with barely any counter evidence isn't the way science gets done, and makes the position lightweight and lacking.
Of course we won't change your mind.
Quote: thecesspitAverages and errors can be mitigated by sampling a lot of trucks. For instance
But in such a case you can actually measure the trucks (control) and figure how much you are off on most trucks and adjust. "Tree ring" measurements can never do this. Tree rings/ice cores/whatever can be measured, but they cannot take other factors into account. Perhaps there was a drought, perhaps there was a tree disease that year. Any of this could happen. When you are talking about a rise of 1-2C any such error is major in data collection.
What I find amusing is so many on the global-warming side will look at a guy in Kentucky who watches a preacher on TV and laugh at him for doing so. If he sends the guy some money they will laugh even harder. But when it comes to global warming if you question anything they say, "shut up and listen to the scientists, it is SETTLED!"
It is "Animal Farm" pure and simple, listen to Napoleon and the pigs because they know better and have your best interests at heart. Don't question anything. They are allowed to drink whiskey and live in the house because they have the burden of running things, the rest get to live in the barn.
And while I feel people are waking up to the fraud, too many still believe.
Because Science.Quote: AZDuffmanAnd while I feel people are waking up to the fraud, too many still believe.
Quote: AZDuffmanTree rings/ice cores/whatever can be measured, but they cannot take other factors into account. Perhaps there was a drought, perhaps there was a tree disease that year. Any of this could happen. When you are talking about a rise of 1-2C any such error is major in data collection.
Not true. You can correlate temperature with tree ring width which means the other factors can already be accounted for. The following graph for example from NOAA data shows this correlation is good between the years 1850 and 1980:
In addition there are other proxies that can be used: ice cores, pollen grains, corals, and lake and ocean sediments which all show this same correlation.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is "Animal Farm" pure and simple, listen to Napoleon and the pigs because they know better and have your best interests at heart. Don't question anything. They are allowed to drink whiskey and live in the house because they have the burden of running things, the rest get to live in the barn.
Another poor analogy. There is a well developed science that is open to inspection by anyone willing to take the time to do so. No one is going to be executed simply because they don't understand the science. Being skeptical and questioning things is not only fine but even necessary for any science to advance. But to question it relentlessly and objecting everything about it while knowing only a little about the subject is hubristic.
What a high class way to say JERK. I will definitely add hubristic to my vocabulary. Even though spell check seems not to have that word in it's vocabulary.
Quote: AZDuffmanBut in such a case you can actually measure the trucks (control) and figure how much you are off on most trucks and adjust. "Tree ring" measurements can never do this. Tree rings/ice cores/whatever can be measured, but they cannot take other factors into account. Perhaps there was a drought, perhaps there was a tree disease that year. Any of this could happen. When you are talking about a rise of 1-2C any such error is major in data collection.
What I find amusing is so many on the global-warming side will look at a guy in Kentucky who watches a preacher on TV and laugh at him for doing so. If he sends the guy some money they will laugh even harder. But when it comes to global warming if you question anything they say, "shut up and listen to the scientists, it is SETTLED!"
It is "Animal Farm" pure and simple, listen to Napoleon and the pigs because they know better and have your best interests at heart. Don't question anything. They are allowed to drink whiskey and live in the house because they have the burden of running things, the rest get to live in the barn.
And while I feel people are waking up to the fraud, too many still believe.
Droughts and tree diseases would be explained. Tree rings are taken from around the world from both hemispheres, not just from one forest, so disease and drought are factored out. And the tree ring data is correlated with all of the other data collection methods (ice cores, corals, etc) as well to reduce the error to well below 1 degree. When scientists publish studies, they also publish error bars to indicate their certainty based on scientific methods (such as the number of samples, measurement errors, etc). They actually understand that they are dealing with an inexact science based on estimates. That's why the graphs continue to get honed and changed as new data sets and studies are published.
And if you believe that is useless, then you might as well fire historians and archaeologists too as I guess the past doesn't matter.
I don't laugh at the preacher on TV, but I still waiting for evidence of the existence of Noah's ark.
I think it's great that there are climate change doubters. It keeps the scientists on their toes.
Quote: paisiello
Another poor analogy. There is a well developed science that is open to inspection by anyone willing to take the time to do so. No one is going to be executed simply because they don't understand the science.
The ones who get "executed" are not the ones who do not understand it but rather the ones who do now swallow the fish tale. In the 1960s scientists said we would be starving by now. In the 1970s they said we would be freezing in the dark because we would be out of oil by now. Fools fall for the new "scare" every 10-15 years.
The most sure sign it is false is how the believers will do all they can to not even let the other side speak anymore. From firing scientists to newspapers not publishing letters I stand by my "Animal Farm" reference. Al Gore lives in a mansion but you are supposed to live small.
No thanks, I'll take common sense.
Quote: AZDuffmanIn the 1960s scientists said we would be starving by now. In the 1970s they said we would be freezing in the dark because we would be out of oil by now.
And we would be, except that people believed them and did something about it. The reason you're not starving in front of a wood stove right now is because Norman Borlaug and a bevy of other engineers didn't listen to people like you, and you spit the fact that you're still alive back into the faces of the people who saved you.
You can have all the whiskey you like, but you keep pouring it out, saying it's the worst beer you've ever tasted.
Quote: 24BingoAnd we would be, except that people believed them and did something about it. The reason you're not starving in front of a wood stove right now is because Norman Borlaug and a bevy of other engineers didn't listen to people like you, and you spit the fact that you're still alive back into the faces of the people who saved you.
You can have all the whiskey you like, but you keep pouring it out, saying it's the worst beer you've ever tasted.
Actually we didn't really "do something about it" anymore than let things take care of themselves. Majors and wildcatters always drilled wells, and they kept doing so. Farmers always farmers always farmed and kept doing so. Methods improved but they had been improving for years.
Consider the following my common-sense position/manifesto on the entire global-warming hoax:
1. The temperature on the Earth has *never* been stable over more than a hundred years or so and never will be
2. Measurements before accurate readings cannot be compared to today's numbers
3. Even among accurate reading you have to be careful how you compare as in the 1950s weather stations started migrating from towns to airports which can easily cause a 1-2 degree difference, even for just a few miles.
4. You cannot take a trend of even 100 years in a 4.5 billion year old planet and get anything meaningful out of it. Humans like to think their lifetime has meaning, but we are but an irritation to the planet in our brief time here.
5. The Sun has more of an effect than CO2 and cannot be separated to get the effects of each. This is the case even when scientists guess as they have been on so-called global warming.
6. There is no reason at all to assume the temperature we are at today is the "right" temperature nor is there reason to assume just a little warmer will mean "severe" weather. Colder might mean more "severe" weather.
7. "Severe weather" has always happened. Global Warming believers make out that we never had a tornado, hurricane, wildfire, snow, or anything else before global warming was "discovered" in the early 1980s.
8. When "deniers" make fun of #7 then all of the sudden the believers say, "one event does not break the theory."
9. Since the 1980s I have heard we might not see snow or cold by now, it is still here. "The Future" always seems 30 years out yet the weather I feel has never changed. Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter all come on schedule. Sure sometimes we have a "late spring" or "Indian Summer" but this has always happened as Mother Nature does not follow our calendar but rather her own.
10. The biggest preachers of lowering my "carbon footprint" whatever on earth that is supposed to be live in mansions and fly on private jets. Sorry if I do not give them a pass for "offsets.:"
I could go on and on and could even write a book. Of course I expect the reply to be "STFU and listen to the scientists! FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BETTER!"
I'm not going to say "shut up and listen to the scientists." I'll say "listen to the scientists until you can explain exactly where they're wrong." All you or anyone else are coming up with is intuition and conspiracy theories. If you can't do that, don't complain when people believe them over you.
Don't listen to talking heads and act like you've got the full story. So Al Gore is a massive hypocrite - so what? Even if, as you denialists seem to think, it had been him who started the whole ball rolling, it wouldn't alone make him wrong. (And I know parts of his movie were fudged, that's not the point either; the point is Gore's not important.) I know talking heads (and, yes, a handful of cranks) are all you folk have, but that doesn't mean it's the best the other side has to offer.
I'll admit I engaged in a bit of hyperbole before, but do you not realize how much energy efficiency and agriculture have advanced in the past fifty years? Why do you think that is? Yes, most of them were motivated by self-interest, but that self-interest came from taking into account the looming squeeze in their research rather than sticking their fingers in their ears when the "intoxicating vanity" of ecological reality went against their preconceptions. It's called the "invisible hand" - perhaps you've heard of it?
Quote: 24Bingo
I'm not going to say "shut up and listen to the scientists." I'll say "listen to the scientists until you can explain exactly where they're wrong." All you or anyone else are coming up with is intuition and conspiracy theories. If you can't do that, don't complain when people believe them over you.
I explained in my list why I am not buying into the entire thing, if it is not "exact" enough well I cannot help you there. I do not see where I put out a "conspiracy theory" but if you see one in one of my points please point it out and I will be man enough to debate it and perhaps refine the wording to better explain myself. Of course you are free to believe them over me, but I do repeat don't just "believe the scientists" but rather look at things and decide for yourself. So many people are not. And many "believers" I have talked to (and I am not saying it is you at all) have told me they think CFCs cause global warming and think CFCs are still in spray cans. They just want to "do something." This part of the population is the problem.
Quote:Don't listen to talking heads and act like you've got the full story.
I do not take my belief from talking heads. I have developed it on my own through a lifetime of experiences.
Quote:I'll admit I engaged in a bit of hyperbole before, but do you not realize how much energy efficiency and agriculture have advanced in the past fifty years?
And that is my point. Even if the climate is changing, and I do not concede man is doing it, then things will adapt and life will move on. Man has about 1,000 years left on this planet by my estimates. We will adapt and the way to do it is not to try and change the weather, which we cannot do. It is to adapt to the weather, as we have done for 10,000 years.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is to adapt
Adapting is certainly an option for several kinds of problems.
Quote: AZDuffmanI explained in my list why I am not buying into the entire thing, if it is not "exact" enough well I cannot help you there. I do not see where I put out a "conspiracy theory" but if you see one in one of my points please point it out and I will be man enough to debate it and perhaps refine the wording to better explain myself. Of course you are free to believe them over me, but I do repeat don't just "believe the scientists" but rather look at things and decide for yourself.
#1-6: Do you honestly think that the state of science is sloppy enough that these things aren't accounted for?! This is you!
#7-10: Tilting at windmills. This is what I meant by "talking heads."
("Conspiracy theories" referred to other posts, especially those where you bring out cranks.)
(Incidentally, if global warming was "invented" in the 80s, Frank Capra must have been psychic. Now, just to be clear, since I know you'll say I'm contradicting myself, I'm talking here about general perception, not the state of science, since that's all you seem to be concerned with.)
Quote: AZDuffmanI do not take my belief from talking heads. I have developed it on my own through a lifetime of experiences.
In a word, intuition. In human affairs, a day of experience can trump a library of books, but in natural science, a thousand lifetimes can't hold up to a well-sourced paragraph.
Quote: AZDuffmanAnd that is my point. Even if the climate is changing, and I do not concede man is doing it, then things will adapt and life will move on. Man has about 1,000 years left on this planet by my estimates. We will adapt and the way to do it is not to try and change the weather, which we cannot do. It is to adapt to the weather, as we have done for 10,000 years.
Well, sure, we'll adapt. We'll do everything in our power to adapt as painlessly as possible, and you know what? I've got some faith that we'll be able to do it painlessly enough that your successors in fifty years will be squawking just like you are now. But all the while, you'll be actively trying to hamper them by mischaracterizing the problem because its nature doesn't agree with your humble intuition.
Quote: AZDuffmanActually we didn't really "do something about it" anymore than let things take care of themselves. Majors and wildcatters always drilled wells, and they kept doing so. Farmers always farmers always farmed and kept doing so. Methods improved but they had been improving for years.
Consider the following my common-sense position/manifesto on the entire global-warming hoax:
1. The temperature on the Earth has *never* been stable over more than a hundred years or so and never will be
2. Measurements before accurate readings cannot be compared to today's numbers
3. Even among accurate reading you have to be careful how you compare as in the 1950s weather stations started migrating from towns to airports which can easily cause a 1-2 degree difference, even for just a few miles.
4. You cannot take a trend of even 100 years in a 4.5 billion year old planet and get anything meaningful out of it. Humans like to think their lifetime has meaning, but we are but an irritation to the planet in our brief time here.
5. The Sun has more of an effect than CO2 and cannot be separated to get the effects of each. This is the case even when scientists guess as they have been on so-called global warming.
6. There is no reason at all to assume the temperature we are at today is the "right" temperature nor is there reason to assume just a little warmer will mean "severe" weather. Colder might mean more "severe" weather.
7. "Severe weather" has always happened. Global Warming believers make out that we never had a tornado, hurricane, wildfire, snow, or anything else before global warming was "discovered" in the early 1980s.
8. When "deniers" make fun of #7 then all of the sudden the believers say, "one event does not break the theory."
9. Since the 1980s I have heard we might not see snow or cold by now, it is still here. "The Future" always seems 30 years out yet the weather I feel has never changed. Spring/Summer/Fall/Winter all come on schedule. Sure sometimes we have a "late spring" or "Indian Summer" but this has always happened as Mother Nature does not follow our calendar but rather her own.
10. The biggest preachers of lowering my "carbon footprint" whatever on earth that is supposed to be live in mansions and fly on private jets. Sorry if I do not give them a pass for "offsets.:"
I could go on and on and could even write a book. Of course I expect the reply to be "STFU and listen to the scientists! FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BETTER!"
1. The earth's temperature has never changed this much over a 100 year period without an explanation. The explanation of the earth's temperature changing with greenhouse gas emissions is pretty freaking obvious.
2. Sure they can.
3. That's been accounted for quite nicely.
4. I wish you would take the same point of view to your current president. He's only going to be president for 8 years. You like to think your lifetime has meaning, but the current president is but an irriration to the planet in our brief time here. Our lifetime does have meaning. We, in the past hundred of so years, have been responsible for the extinction of millions of species due to our thoughtlessness.
5. Of course the Sun has more of an effect than CO2. But the sun is remarkably effective at keeping its solar output constant enough to have very little effect on temperature over time. A gigantic volcanic eruption or a large number of nuclear explosions would also have a greater effect than CO2.
6. Climate projections have explained that more energy in the atmosphere leads to more extreme weather. A warmer planet is more apt to have severe weather.
7. True.
8. True.
9. I've never heard the 1980s projections that we might not see snow or cold, as a 1 degree difference in global temperature over thirty years would not mean "no more snow"
10. Agreed.
Please write a book.
Quote: 24Bingo#1-6: Do you honestly think that the state of science is sloppy enough that these things aren't accounted for?!
Yes, I do. Given that they have gone from a new ice age coming in my lifetime to we will all boil to death; as well as who knows how many other "shucks, we had it backwards" things I have seen in my lifetime I think they are that sloppy.
Quote:(Incidentally, if global warming was "invented" in the 80s, Frank Capra must have been psychic.
I am saying "invented" as to when it hit the news and popular culture, which was the 1980s.
Quote:Well, sure, we'll adapt. We'll do everything in our power to adapt as painlessly as possible, and you know what? I've got some faith that we'll be able to do it painlessly enough that your successors in fifty years will be squawking just like you are now. But all the while, you'll be actively trying to hamper them by mischaracterizing the problem because its nature doesn't agree with your humble intuition.
I am not "mischaracterizing" a problem because we do not yet have a valid problem. And problems will be local, not global. For example, if storm activity increases in an area then building codes can be changed to the new situation. Currently the answer is more taxes and less freedoms because of a big "maybe." No thanks.
Quote: boymimbo1. The earth's temperature has never changed this much over a 100 year period without an explanation. The explanation of the earth's temperature changing with greenhouse gas emissions is pretty freaking obvious.
We do not know that because we do not have valid measurements. But the CO2 thing is making an assumption, and a big one.
Quote:2. Sure they can.
Garbage in. garbage out. Take a guess of a number compared to an accurate measurement and you get a guess.
Quote:3. That's been accounted for quite nicely.
Again by guessing.
Quote:4. I wish you would take the same point of view to your current president. He's only going to be president for 8 years. You like to think your lifetime has meaning, but the current president is but an irriration to the planet in our brief time here. Our lifetime does have meaning. We, in the past hundred of so years, have been responsible for the extinction of millions of species due to our thoughtlessness.
Species go extinct all of the time, and they went extinct long before man walked the earth.
Quote:6. Climate projections have explained that more energy in the atmosphere leads to more extreme weather. A warmer planet is more apt to have severe weather.
They are still guessing as this cannot be tested with a control. I see today and I have seen stories of the Little Ice age. I will take warmer.
Quote:9. I've never heard the 1980s projections that we might not see snow or cold, as a 1 degree difference in global temperature over thirty years would not mean "no more snow"
This was from 2000, not the 1980s:
However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Quote: AZDuffmanYes, I do. Given that they have gone from a new ice age coming in my lifetime to we will all boil to death; as well as who knows how many other "shucks, we had it backwards" things I have seen in my lifetime I think they are that sloppy.
Who. Who said it. You freely muddle yellow journalism and humanitarian ego trips with science - which was it.
What do you think science is? Do you think it's some game played in white coats? Do you think an entire field has somehow managed to schmooze with mathematicians and physicists from a complete black hole of rigor? Do you even know what "rigor" means? Do you think it never occurred to them "hey, guys, we should find a way to put some error bars on this"?
I'm tempted to actually dig up papers explaining where the level of certainty comes from, and why your six objections are nonsense, and I probably will in the nearish future, but it's two in the morning, I'm on tomorrow, and you're not worth it. Not as long as you could dream, as you pound away at your computer, powered by almost inconceivably fast and precise manipulations of the electric fields in hundreds of millions of semiconductor junctions arranged on a comparatively tiny motherboard, the results of a forever increasingly honed understanding of effects in depletion zones measured in nanometers, that the people who got us to the point where this is possible are just letting their colleagues turn out research precise to "plus or minus whatevs yo." And yes, I know there are people from other disciplines who are (ahem) "speaking up," but when you bring out these six points, you suggest a world in which they wouldn't have to.
Quote: AZDuffmanI am saying "invented" as to when it hit the news and popular culture, which was the 1980s.
...what the hell do you call The Unchained Goddess if not pop culture?!
Of course they want more coverage, how can you get support to raise more taxes and take more freedoms if people are not aware of a problem that really does not exist? Perhaps even the lamestream media is tired of hyping this so much?
The reports also sites the Arctic ice continues to melt and Antarctic ice continues to build.
Does this mean we are sinking in space?
Here in Lexington, KY the official temperature readings are taken at the Blue Grass Airport. Approximately 18 months ago the temp gauge was replaced.
Bill Meck a local TV Meteorologist has been reporting the weather here locally for 15-20 years? He has pointed out many times that the readings from the airport seem to be off. "somethings not right.....oh well" Daytime highs immediately after new gauge was installed were 2-3 degrees higher and nighttime lows were running 2-3 degrees warmer.
Lexington temps now run closely with Louisville temps. Everybody and their uncle knows that Louisville is warmer than Lexington. Ohio river plays a part in Louisville temps.
Conspiracy? Probably not. Just saying'
Seems I might have been more correct than I knew!
Misleading statement since there has been no consensus on this.Quote: AZDuffmanI said here earlier that there was no reason to believe warmer weather means more "extreme" weather.
No consensus.
Why would you think that?Quote: BuzzardI thought the next consensus wasn't until 2020.
Plus that's what Roseanne Roseannadanna told me !
http://www.jpost.com/Enviro-Tech/Israeli-US-Australian-researchers-effects-of-aerosols-on-clouds-climate-change-uncertain-339421
