Originally posted by: OrByte
eskimospy, rainsford. I'd ignore this bait. Just how many baiting threads do we need around here?
Hopefully they're not as scared of thinking for themselves as you are.
Originally posted by: OrByte
eskimospy, rainsford. I'd ignore this bait. Just how many baiting threads do we need around here?
Originally posted by: Enig101
There is plenty of evidence for global warming. A diverse and global group of scientists agree on this. Strong correlation evidence shows an upward trend in CO2 levels and temperatures worldwide. No, this is not a direct proof, but the correlation is straightforward enough to cause concern.
The people who know what they are talking about believe there is enough evidence to warrant preventative action. Really, that should be enough. People need to listen to scientists more.
The ice caps hold a special place in the cold hearts of the global warming advocates who are all too quick to insist that our ice caps are currently melting at an unprecedented rate. We suspect that they will not be particularly thrilled to learn that a paper has just appeared in Geophysical Research Letters entitled ?A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.? The article is by scientists with the British Antarctic Survey and the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada; the work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the U.S. National Science Foundation. In case you think that the Desert Research Institute in Nevada would have little interest in Antarctica, recall from geography classes you?ve had that Antarctica receives little precipitation and is regarded by climatologists as a frozen desert.
We have covered Antarctica many times in past essays, and despite literally thousands of websites claiming that some calamity is occurring in Antarctica related to global warming, we side with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in this matter. Magazine covers have wonderful pictures of melting of the Antarctic, but IPCC in their 2007 report clearly states ?Antarctic sea ice extent continues to show inter-annual variability and localized changes but no statistically significant average trends, consistent with the lack of warming reflected in atmospheric temperatures averaged across the region? (in fact, Antarctic sea ice extent has recently set record highs for both total areal extent as well as total extent anomaly (see here and here)). Furthermore, IPCC tells the world (and we wonder if anyone is listening) ?Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall.?
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...
There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.
But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.
If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.
I lead with those questions because they're the most obvious questions that need answers. If there is no proof that global warming is occurring because of my light bulbs, neither you or anyone else has no right to tell me i can't have them in my home.
You've obviously got your mind made up though, so what's another debate?
There are answers, there is proof. The fact that you seem able to cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening" doesn't change reality. You know when my mind gets made up on something? When a bunch of experts in the field get together and agree on something, and no serious expert opposes it.
Scientific evidence? Provable? Demonstrable?
If you want more than correlation you will be disappointed. People have already explained in this thread that it is impossible. The thing is, this doesn't mean it's unsound. If you look at a chart of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, there is a very striking trend beginning shortly after the industrial revolution. If you assume this is a coincidence, I would call that pretty reckless. There is a lot at stake here, and the correlation is strong enough to take action.Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Enig101
There is plenty of evidence for global warming. A diverse and global group of scientists agree on this. Strong correlation evidence shows an upward trend in CO2 levels and temperatures worldwide. No, this is not a direct proof, but the correlation is straightforward enough to cause concern.
The people who know what they are talking about believe there is enough evidence to warrant preventative action. Really, that should be enough. People need to listen to scientists more.
I have no problem with 'global warming' per se. I haven't heard of many scientists saying temperatures are not going up, but you bring up something interesting about this in a completely forward and honest way, and it's very commendable. Actually eskimospy hinted at this too but he didn't feel it necessary to expound on his statement.
The problem I have is the "man made" part. You mentioned the correlation of CO2 and temperature increase. We've all heard the cliche' of "correlation does not mean causation" i'm sure. Before I start giving in to enviornmentalists, they better have more than just a correlation and they better answer the critics too.
Another problem I see with the whole "climate change" movement is that nobody really knows what the correct world temperature is. Obviously we don't all of antarica melting or anything though.
I have learned one thing out of this thread, that the belief in man made global warming is because of a correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature change. Fine.
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Duwelon
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Duwelon
...
This is not an Anti-Global warming thread. This is a fact finding thread. Is there real scientific evidence for it or is there not?
...
There are facts, and they aren't hard to find if you make the slightest effort to do so.
But I'll bet you aren't really interested in "fact finding", because if you were, you wouldn't start an incendiary thread about the topic. Instead, I think you're trying the oldest trick in the book, asking leading questions you already know the answers to in order to make it look like there is a debate where none exists.
If you really want facts, Google "global warming science". If you just want to try to argue against it without actually presenting any scientific evidence, feel free to, you know, NOT do that.
I lead with those questions because they're the most obvious questions that need answers. If there is no proof that global warming is occurring because of my light bulbs, neither you or anyone else has no right to tell me i can't have them in my home.
You've obviously got your mind made up though, so what's another debate?
There are answers, there is proof. The fact that you seem able to cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening" doesn't change reality. You know when my mind gets made up on something? When a bunch of experts in the field get together and agree on something, and no serious expert opposes it.
Scientific evidence? Provable? Demonstrable?
Do you raise this issue about general relativity? Do you doubt that general relativity offers a pretty good explanation of the laws of physics in accelerating reference frames? And if you don't doubt, why? I'll bet you haven't analyzed the evidence, yet you "believe." How come you're not demanding proof? I'll bet it's that you're aware that there's a strong consensus among qualified scientists that general relativity is accurate.
So we have evidence that you trust what a consensus of scientists tells us is true.
So the real question is: What's so different about the theory of anthropogenic climate change - for which there is a VERY strong consensus among climatologists - that leads you to disregard what the scientists are telling us? What's so special about this one area of science that you appear to believe that there's some huge conspiracy of misinformation?
Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Lets face it, we are not advanced enough in science to understand and predict global climate trends, and all the variables that impact those trends. The MMGW crowd ran too aggressive of a campaign, and a backlash is starting to be the result of it. Whether CO2 influences global warming or not is unknown, but we should still take measures to reduce it, along with any other atmospheric emissions. However, we should take a slow and steady approach rather than the typical kneejerk reactions that environmentalists want. Look at the rush to biofuels and food prices to see the results of kneejerk, feel good responses to problems. People have died as a result of increased food prices spurred by this biofuel rush designed to enrich the corn lobby.
That isn't as great a bell wether as you proclaim it to be.Originally posted by: Enig101
As for world temperature, the easiest way to see a change is in the fact that ice is receding further each year. This means it is warmer (on average) each successive year. If on-land ice begins to melt into the ocean in large quantities, it will raise the sea level. A small rise would be enough to flood towns and cities near rivers or the coast (almost all of civilization is near rivers or the coast).
Read this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...r4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
Originally posted by: DuwelonThere was once a concensus that the earth was flat.
That really wasn't the most important point in my post.Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That isn't as great a bell wether as you proclaim it to be.Originally posted by: Enig101
As for world temperature, the easiest way to see a change is in the fact that ice is receding further each year. This means it is warmer (on average) each successive year. If on-land ice begins to melt into the ocean in large quantities, it will raise the sea level. A small rise would be enough to flood towns and cities near rivers or the coast (almost all of civilization is near rivers or the coast).
Read this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...r4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
The snow caps on Mt. Kilimanjaro have been decreasing since at least the 1920 (there is photographic evidence from back then that proves this.) It has actually been going on for over a 100 years.
The decrease has NOTHING to do with warming. The ice isn't melting, it is evaporating. And because of the dry conditions around the Mt. the ice isn't being replaced via new snow fall. link
I believe there are also studies that show that the ice caps in Antarctica are actually growing thicker in some places. The problem is perception. When the ice caps in one part of Greenland recede and show the remains of some 1000 year old village it is very apparent to the world what is happening. But when another ice sheet goes from being 100 ft thick to 101 ft thick you really don't notice the difference.
"Kilimanjaro is a grossly overused mis-example of the effects of climate change," said University of Washington climate scientist Philip Mote, co-author of an article in the July/August issue of American Scientist magazine.
Mote is concerned that critics will try to use the article to debunk broader climate-change trends.
He hastens to add that global warming is, indeed, responsible for the fact that nearly every other glacier around the globe is melting away. Kilimanjaro just happens to be the worst possible case study.
Even though the mountain presents an interesting scientific puzzle, it's an anomaly compared to what's happening with other glaciers, said Douglas Hardy, a paleoclimatologist at the University of Massachusetts. The new article will be seized on by "global warming naysayers" and could give people the mistaken impression that it calls global warming into question, Hardy predicted.
"What value to society does that serve?" he asked.
Mote, who as Washington's state climatologist travels the Northwest to warn of global warming's regional impacts, said he worried about the article being misused but decided to go ahead.
"Science is a process of getting to the truth," he said.
Even when the truth has unexpected twists like this: Models predict global warming will increase rainfall in Eastern Africa, which could actually be the thing that saves the "shining mountain's" snowy crown.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Duwelon
I am a big fan of efficiency. If you can build a widget that is better and more efficient than the last one, more power to you. I am also a fan of the enviornment as far as curbing polution levels go. I don't think we should ever allow our air to ever become polluted to the point of Mexico City or some Chinese cities.
However, the Global Warming crap has gone on long enough. We need some real evidence that all scientists can agree on. Don't even get me started on Al Gore. That lunatic wants to crucify anyone for asking simple questions.
Where is the real, scientific (READ: Demonstratable, Repeatable, Obserable) evidence that
1) Carbon Dioxide as released by humans and human activity causes a direct or indirect increase or decrease on the earth's temperature.
2) Obviously a big source of temperature on earth is the Sun. If there is real evidence for one, how does it compare to that of the sun?
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Druidx
Actually I'm not dismissing the possibility of global warming, I am only dismissing the fanatical environmentalist and alarmists view it's caused by man and the sky is falling. That is an incredibly simplified view but is what's accepted by the general population. My point is, Mt. St. Helens in one day created more green house gases than Man has in our whole history.
I don't have any problem with conservationist or environmentalist in general, to me it's only common sense to not waste our limited resources or not try to limit unnecessary pollution.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off what I think are the bigger subjects. ( conservation and reasonable pollution controls ).
Many projections put the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than the
percentage of error in the temperatures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.