Interesting fact: halting deforestation of the rainforest would do a lot to slow climate change. Deforestation is, of course, a result of human activity.
Originally posted by: Enig101
Interesting fact: halting deforestation of the rainforest would do a lot to slow climate change. Deforestation is, of course, a result of human activity.
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Originally posted by: Enig101
Interesting fact: halting deforestation of the rainforest would do a lot to slow climate change. Deforestation is, of course, a result of human activity.
unless its a wildfire......
There are a lot of great investments you can make. If you are investing in tar sands, or shale oil, then you have a portfolio that is crammed with sub-prime carbon assets. And it is based on an old model. Junkies find veins in their toes when the ones in their arms and their legs collapse. Developing tar sands and coal shale is the equivalent. Here are just a few of the investments I personally think make sense. I have a stake in these so I?ll have a disclaimer there. But geo-thermal concentrating solar, advanced photovoltaics, efficiency, and conservation.
Originally posted by: Enig101
This made me chuckle. Global warming is based on scientific evidence showing an upward trend in global temperatures. Like, they measured the temperature and made a graph and hey.. it's going up. Hence, global warming.Originally posted by: Druidx
The whole basis for global warming comes from dozens of conflicting computer models used to predict the future impact of an incredible variety of factors. I'm sorry but if the best computer model can't predict with any certainty if it will rain next week, I'm not going to buy into the fact it can predict global mean temperature a 100 years from now.
The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
They do use models to predict the future effects sure, but they know that it's happening right now. It's naive to compare it to weather forecasting. This sort of prediction is a much more general one, and therefore more accurate. Obviously they can't figure out exactly what is going to happen though. The point is something will.
A side note, you talk about "theory" as if that means something. A scientific theory is a fact, not a guess.
The reason is a lot less important than the fact that it's happening, and it is related to the influence of mankind. Science never knows everything, but right now the smartest move based on what we do know would be to act to reduce global warming.Originally posted by: Druidx
Even the UN IPCC Panel report which is brought up in every discussion, list 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
A link would be nice to support the supposed "shakiness" of an international group of climate specialists.
My view on global warming is basically; "better safe than sorry". I really don't see how it is worth the risk. The effects would be devastating.
Why do people argue against global warming (beyond reason)? Money. Why do people argue for global warming? Concern.
I'm not trying to convince you global warming is real for some sort of malicious conspiracy. We are facing a serious issue here.
Originally posted by: silverpig
Originally posted by: Enig101
This made me chuckle. Global warming is based on scientific evidence showing an upward trend in global temperatures. Like, they measured the temperature and made a graph and hey.. it's going up. Hence, global warming.Originally posted by: Druidx
The whole basis for global warming comes from dozens of conflicting computer models used to predict the future impact of an incredible variety of factors. I'm sorry but if the best computer model can't predict with any certainty if it will rain next week, I'm not going to buy into the fact it can predict global mean temperature a 100 years from now.
The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
They do use models to predict the future effects sure, but they know that it's happening right now. It's naive to compare it to weather forecasting. This sort of prediction is a much more general one, and therefore more accurate. Obviously they can't figure out exactly what is going to happen though. The point is something will.
A side note, you talk about "theory" as if that means something. A scientific theory is a fact, not a guess.
The reason is a lot less important than the fact that it's happening, and it is related to the influence of mankind. Science never knows everything, but right now the smartest move based on what we do know would be to act to reduce global warming.Originally posted by: Druidx
Even the UN IPCC Panel report which is brought up in every discussion, list 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
A link would be nice to support the supposed "shakiness" of an international group of climate specialists.
My view on global warming is basically; "better safe than sorry". I really don't see how it is worth the risk. The effects would be devastating.
Why do people argue against global warming (beyond reason)? Money. Why do people argue for global warming? Concern.
I'm not trying to convince you global warming is real for some sort of malicious conspiracy. We are facing a serious issue here.
The earth warms and cools naturally. "Global Warming" is often used in place of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change. These terms are used because scientists have models which show that an increase in CO2 concentration due to human activities leads to the rise in temperature seen over the past several decades.
However, these models largely predict that the biggest mechanism for global warming is the oceans heating up, then releasing that heat into the atmosphere while acting as a heat sink (basically the sunny side of the earth heats up and stays hotter due to CO2 which heats the oceans, when then retain the heat better over the course of the year than the air/land, and thus this heats the planet).
However, the Argo data shows a COOLING of the earth's oceans.
If the models can't predict the single most important mechanism for global warming, then I contend that the models can't be used to show that man made CO2 is what is causing it.
Originally posted by: Duwelon
400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
One thing that can't be disputed, a lot of people are lying about the 'man-made' part of global warming.
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Duwelon
400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 (US Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works)
One thing that can't be disputed, a lot of people are lying about the 'man-made' part of global warming.
Hahaha suuuure. But remember, you just made this thread because you were looking for information.
When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate.
"So if there's no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?," Milloy asked.
Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said
that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.
Originally posted by: Enig101
...
A side note, you talk about "theory" as if that means something. A scientific theory is a fact, not a guess.
...
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Eskimospy, have you seen this?
First-Ever Survey of IPCC Scientists Undermines Alleged 'Consensus' on Global Warming; Poll Exposes Disagreement and Confusion Among United Nations Scientists
As you can see, i'm doing some research. I'm looking for the supposed scientific consensus that supposedly exists but i'm not seeing it.
From the IPCC survey:
When asked about the ideal climate, only 14% said that the ideal
climate was cooler than the present climate. Sixty-one percent said that
there is no such thing as an ideal climate.
"So if there's no agreement on what the target climate should be, what
precisely is the point of taking action on global warming? What is the
climatic goal at which we are aiming?," Milloy asked.
Another notable result is that an astounding 20% of those surveyed said
that human activity is the principal driver of climate change.
Well, they are pretty confident, which is about as good as it gets in science. We have a few hundred years of data, which is of course short, but the trend is way above anything that has occurred within that time period. It's kind of a gamble, and I think the stakes are too high. Obviously, not everyone agrees on that.Originally posted by: Spike
So, if I am understanding the thread correctly you are looking for information regarding the legitimacy of the global warming theory? From my perspective I don't think anyone can argue that man has caused an increase in CO2 levels, the entire debate focuses around what effect those additional particles have on the climate.
I'm not sure where I stand on this since our recorded history on the planet is so short that we really only have a small number of measurements on the climate. Yes, it is changing but is that a normal cycle or a cycle sped up by us adding CO2?
Ice is melting in the north pole and Greenland, ice is being added in Antartica, no one knows what the 'ideal' temperature is really supposed to be...
Man, it's times like this I'm glad to be a simple engineer, math is just so hard to argue with
I guess technically you are correct, though it is kind of semantic. Alright, it's factual then. If something is a theory, it means there is a lot of evidence to support it, it's been tested and re-tested, it can make predictions, etc. It's not a "belief", and it is definitely not a guess. I make this point heavily, because I am tired of seeing people refer to the word "theory" as if that means it is not credible.Originally posted by: Spike
Originally posted by: Enig101
...
A side note, you talk about "theory" as if that means something. A scientific theory is a fact, not a guess.
...
Sorry, have to call you on this one. From dictionary.com
"1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture. "
So no, a theory is not a fact, more of a belief backed up by evidence.
Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature that is supported by many facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.