significant global warming is ocurring.

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

A lot of these studies that I look at can't seem to get past the whole "correlation doesn't equal causation" test. That is where science starts. You observe a possible correlation and then you start to establish if the two are related. Example: science has noted that in the last 100 or so years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen. Coincidently in the last 100 or so years temperatures have risen. Therefore A causes B.

But that is not good science. Especially when we know that in the past higher concentrations of CO2 have been present during ice ages. We also know that tempertures have fluctuated wildly in the recent geological past with no influence from man. We also know that CO2 concentrations have risen and fallen with out the influence of man. This is not to say that CO2 is not the cause of rising temps, nor is it to say that man is not influencing CO2 concentrations... but it's not evidence that it is either.

the thing is, we can keep track of the co2 we release. the increase in co2 in the oceans and atmosphere matches up with the co2 we are releasing.

higher concentrations of co2 cause higher temperatures. of course, there are countless other feedback factors influencing the worlds climate that could nullify the effect of co2.

but, humans are definitely perturbing the worlds natural co2 concentrations, and we know that co2 has played a major role in climate over the earth's history.

To an extent I agree. It's fairly easy to track how much CO2 we are releasing and how that affects the overall CO2 atmospheric content.

But to say that CO2 causes high temperatures is patently unprovable as we know that elevated CO2 conditions have occured during ice ages as well as periods of elevated temperature.

To say that CO2 causes warming is the same as saying that where we see "A" we also tend to see "B". Therefore A causes B. That is a fallacy without proof of causation, which we clearly don't have. Additionally we have correlation between high CO2 concentrations and cooler temperatures. Nobody is saying that A causes B in those known situations.

The one thing that is not arguable is that we live in a dynamic climate. The hows and whys of the dynamic nature of teh climate have many theories and observations as to how it all works. Hard science and evidence seem to be hard to come by though.

No, we do know CO2 increases temperature. Other factors can have the opposite affect though, such as high altitude particles such as Volcanic Dust which reflects sunlight. In fact a recent study shows that Manmade particles are decreasing and the fear now is that that decrease will accelerate the Global Climate change effect as more sunlight reaches the Earth.

 

[shoegazer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
But to say that CO2 causes high temperatures is patently unprovable as we know that elevated CO2 conditions have occured during ice ages as well as periods of elevated temperature.

To say that CO2 causes warming is the same as saying that where we see "A" we also tend to see "B". Therefore A causes B. That is a fallacy without proof of causation, which we clearly don't have. Additionally we have correlation between high CO2 concentrations and cooler temperatures. Nobody is saying that A causes B in those known situations.

The one thing that is not arguable is that we live in a dynamic climate. The hows and whys of the dynamic nature of teh climate have many theories and observations as to how it all works. Hard science and evidence seem to be hard to come by though.

if the system were simplified enough, say, an aquarium with lights over top. an aquarium with more co2 above it would have warmer water than one with less.

this is what greenhouse gasses do.

but, the earth system is ridiculously complicated, so it isn't that easy.

but, for the very short glaciation at the end of the ordovician that i think you're talking about, yes co2 cocentrations were much higher than they are now. but, nearly every land mass was very close to the south pole at this time which could lead to massive cooling by the ice albedo feedback. the reason this cooling was short lived was probably due to the high co2 concentrations.

co2 seems to have a definite impact on temperature. sometimes other forcings come into play though.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: shoegazer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
But to say that CO2 causes high temperatures is patently unprovable as we know that elevated CO2 conditions have occured during ice ages as well as periods of elevated temperature.

To say that CO2 causes warming is the same as saying that where we see "A" we also tend to see "B". Therefore A causes B. That is a fallacy without proof of causation, which we clearly don't have. Additionally we have correlation between high CO2 concentrations and cooler temperatures. Nobody is saying that A causes B in those known situations.

The one thing that is not arguable is that we live in a dynamic climate. The hows and whys of the dynamic nature of teh climate have many theories and observations as to how it all works. Hard science and evidence seem to be hard to come by though.

if the system were simplified enough, say, an aquarium with lights over top. an aquarium with more co2 above it would have warmer water than one with less.

this is what greenhouse gasses do.

but, the earth system is ridiculously complicated, so it isn't that easy.

but, for the very short glaciation at the end of the ordovician that i think you're talking about, yes co2 cocentrations were much higher than they are now. but, nearly every land mass was very close to the south pole at this time which could lead to massive cooling by the ice albedo feedback. the reason this cooling was short lived was probably due to the high co2 concentrations.

co2 seems to have a definite impact on temperature. sometimes over forcings [edit: other forces?] come into play though.

Exactly

 

[dmcowen674]

10-14-2005 2005 set to be second hottest year on record

"1998 was the warmest ever, 2005 is looking at being second. It will be another very warm year generally, which is in line with global climate change research."

The trend adds weight to concern among many scientists that the world is hotting up and that human activity including burning of fossil fuels and generation of "greenhouse gases" by industry is playing a major part.

The vast majority of scientists would now say that there is a significant, substantial human effect on the environment," Craig Hutton, project manager at the GeoData Institute, University of Southampton, said on Friday.
============================================
Wow, the vast majority of scientists are obviously whackos according to Republicans and the President of the U.S.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, the vast majority of scientists are obviously whackos according to Republicans and the President of the U.S.

A vast majority of scientists once thought the world was flat.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, the vast majority of scientists are obviously whackos according to Republicans and the President of the U.S.

A vast majority of scientists once thought the world was flat.

The vast majority of scientists rejected Faraday.
The vast majority of scientists rejected Maxwell.
The vast majority of scientists rejected Pasteur.
The vast majority of scientists rejected Einstein.

In the entire history of science, it seems that consensus opinion has NEVER been right. That one lone voice, usually a renegade rejected by the whole because of low birth (Faraday) and/or inadequate education (Einstein), has always been the genius who changed the world. In the meantime, the aristocrats in their ivory towers furiously continue their bean-counting, and call it science.

 

[gimpsoft]

they don't believe because when they die they go to paridise just like when terrorist die they have 5 virgins waiting for them in paridise


pretty matching believes uh ? lol
this is why is dangers to bring religion to government


Republicans conservative christians are eco terrorist.....
they don't even see it will affect there decision wil have on there children and there children after ... that will still be live long after there gone...
and we get this crap about family and protection for children etc .... as long as there still a family living toxic environment it will still be ok for them


all i can say ones bush admin is out and we move on it will be written in history books
all the crap they did trying to move as back to middle ages

people look back and see what a faith based goverment did to this country and will never let it happen again ( just soon as 1 person runing for office and mention god talks to me lol (that what he said) be kick out office.

but i bet we will see this happen in future because people follow relegoin like sheep

i hope in time people stop taking this relegion thingy so serius use common sense ....... look how far we come
people use to think the sun as a god or that planets were move by angels or if it did not rain the gods were angry @ and that disaster are cause by god etc


religion leads to war and hate ..............................................
no matter how peaciful you are there people amongst you who will use it as a weapon



( i support the war on terror ) not the war for OIL or profit

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

Yes, there was but never on the fastest rise in temp over shortest period as we do now.

Not necessarily. Our records only go back to the late 19th century, and only since 1978 have we been able to measure with much accuracy. Besides, the global warming of the 1930s may not be quite on the level of nowadays, but it was close.

Furthermore, there's no solid evidence linking CO2 emissions with global warming.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Perhaps we should frame this sensational statement in proper context.

After 1998, the four hottest years globally were the last four years, according to Met Office data going back to 1861. The second hottest year was 2002, followed by 2003, 2004 and 2001

So we might be looking at the 2nd hottest year (depending on how the rest of the year turns out... people are already hyping it and the year isn't even over yet... now THAT'S good science!) in the last 144 years.

Then they don't even provide numbers to compare to anything in the article.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
what i'm saying is that you can't prove scientific theories. so asking me to prove anthropogenic global warming or ozone depletion due to CFCs is like asking me to prove the theory of gravity. you can't do it. a scientific theory is falsifiable.

Yes, but we can use logic to judge how likely a theory is to be true. In the case of gravity, we are practically certain it exists. With global warming and CO2, we are much less so. In fact, given our limited (however advanced, it still falls short of adequate) measurement technology, it's quite possible the mean surface temperature isn't rising at all!

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

Yes, there was but never on the fastest rise in temp over shortest period as we do now.

Not necessarily. Our records only go back to the late 19th century, and only since 1978 have we been able to measure with much accuracy. Besides, the global warming of the 1930s may not be quite on the level of nowadays, but it was close.

Furthermore, there's no solid evidence linking CO2 emissions with global warming.

What do you think was going in the late 1920's & into the 30's???

We were smelting like mad. Pittsburgh, Gary Indiana, Allentown and Birmingham were so filled with soot that everything turned black for hundreds of miles east from these cities.

The proof is there for all the world to see, only because Republicans are in power is it covered over and hidden for their agenda.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Genx87
Id feel better if we knew why there was global warming in the past.

Yes, there was but never on the fastest rise in temp over shortest period as we do now.

Not necessarily. Our records only go back to the late 19th century, and only since 1978 have we been able to measure with much accuracy. Besides, the global warming of the 1930s may not be quite on the level of nowadays, but it was close.

Furthermore, there's no solid evidence linking CO2 emissions with global warming.

What do you think was going in the late 1920's & into the 30's???

We were smelting like mad. Pittsburgh, Gary Indiana, Allentown and Birmingham were so filled with soot that everything turned black for hundreds of miles east from these cities.

The proof is there for all the world to see, only because Republicans are in power is it covered over and hidden for their agenda.

So what were we doing in the 60's & 70's when the temp was falling?

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

A lot of these studies that I look at can't seem to get past the whole "correlation doesn't equal causation" test. That is where science starts. You observe a possible correlation and then you start to establish if the two are related. Example: science has noted that in the last 100 or so years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen. Coincidently in the last 100 or so years temperatures have risen. Therefore A causes B.

But that is not good science. Especially when we know that in the past higher concentrations of CO2 have been present during ice ages. We also know that tempertures have fluctuated wildly in the recent geological past with no influence from man. We also know that CO2 concentrations have risen and fallen with out the influence of man. This is not to say that CO2 is not the cause of rising temps, nor is it to say that man is not influencing CO2 concentrations... but it's not evidence that it is either.

Exactly! Global warming may indeed be occurring, and human-driven CO2 emissions may be causing it in some way. However, until that relationship is shown to be likely, I don't believe we should as a society be limiting technological progress and dragging down the general quality of life.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
What do you think was going in the late 1920's & into the 30's???

We were smelting like mad. Pittsburgh, Gary Indiana, Allentown and Birmingham were so filled with soot that everything turned black for hundreds of miles east from these cities.

The proof is there for all the world to see, only because Republicans are in power is it covered over and hidden for their agenda.

Since when does smelting cause global warming? Are you saying smelting causes increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, which in turn cause global warming? Because, if so, I can assure you the carbon dioxide levels in 1920-1940 were not rising anywhere near as quickly as they have in the last decade. source

 

[arsbanned]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

A lot of these studies that I look at can't seem to get past the whole "correlation doesn't equal causation" test. That is where science starts. You observe a possible correlation and then you start to establish if the two are related. Example: science has noted that in the last 100 or so years atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen. Coincidently in the last 100 or so years temperatures have risen. Therefore A causes B.

But that is not good science. Especially when we know that in the past higher concentrations of CO2 have been present during ice ages. We also know that tempertures have fluctuated wildly in the recent geological past with no influence from man. We also know that CO2 concentrations have risen and fallen with out the influence of man. This is not to say that CO2 is not the cause of rising temps, nor is it to say that man is not influencing CO2 concentrations... but it's not evidence that it is either.

Exactly! Global warming may indeed be occurring, and human-driven CO2 emissions may be causing it in some way. However, until that relationship is shown to be likely, I don't believe we should as a society be limiting technological progress and dragging down the general quality of life.

You ain't gonna have no "quality of life" if we wait too long.

 

[Vic]

:Q The sky is falling!! :Q

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Global warming may indeed be occurring, and human-driven CO2 emissions may be causing it in some way. However, until that relationship is shown to be likely, I don't believe we should as a society be limiting technological progress and dragging down the general quality of life.

You ain't gonna have no "quality of life" if we wait too long.

And your scientific explanation for this claim is....?

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou

Global warming may indeed be occurring, and human-driven CO2 emissions may be causing it in some way. However, until that relationship is shown to be likely, I don't believe we should as a society be limiting technological progress and dragging down the general quality of life.

You ain't gonna have no "quality of life" if we wait too long.

And your scientific explanation for this claim is....?

GW is the Left's religion. They don't need proof... they have faith.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

(edit)

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Residents of Cleveland are praying for global warming.

Ever spent a winter there ?

Haha, Cleveland ain't jack. I've lived in Buffalo for the past 15 yrs.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Residents of Cleveland are praying for global warming.

Ever spent a winter there ?

Haha, Cleveland ain't jack. I've lived in Buffalo for the past 15 yrs.

I live in interior Alaska. /thread

BTW... Steve Milloy weighed in on the Times Article.
Link

At JunkScience.com, we analyzed surface temperature data collected by NASA?s Goddard Institute of Space Studies and prepared temperature graphs to underscore this point.

If you look at the temperature trends for the Arctic region since 1880, it appears that the Arctic generally warmed somewhat until about 1938. From 1938 until about 1966, the Arctic cooled to about its 1918 temperature level. Then, between 1966 and 2003, the Arctic warmed up to just shy of its 1938 temperature. But in 2004, the Arctic temperature again spiked downward.

Now if the 1880-1938 warming trend had continued up until this day, there certainly would be some significant warming in the Arctic region to talk about. From 1918 to 1938, alone, the Arctic warmed by 2.5 degrees Centigrade. But the actual temperature trend is much different, showing that there?s been hardly any overall temperature change in the Arctic since 1938.

Not only does the temperature data contradict the claim that global warming is overtaking the Arctic, but data on greenhouse gas concentrations ought to drive a spike through the heart of the claim.

During the warming period from 1880 to 1938, it?s estimated that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide ? the bugbear of greenhouse gases to global warming worriers ? increased by an estimated 20 parts per million. But from 1938 to 2003 ? a period of essentially no increase in Arctic warming ? the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide increased another 60 parts per million. It doesn?t seem plausible, then, that Arctic temperatures are significantly influenced by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases.

And even when the Arctic re-warmed between 1966 and 2003, the warming occurred mush less aggressively (about 50 percent less) than the 1918-1938 warming and at about the same rate as the period 1880-1938, despite much higher greenhouse gas levels in the 1966-2003 time frame.

Global warming worriers can take no comfort from South Pole data either.

Over the last 30 years, atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide increased by about 15 percent, from about 328 parts per million to about 372 parts per million. But the Antarctic temperature trend for that period indicates a slight cooling. This observation contrasts sharply with the relatively steep Antarctic warming observed from 1949 to 1974, which was accompanied by a much more modest increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

The hypothesis of global warming alarmism posits that increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide should lead to increasing temperatures, particularly with respect to Antarctica?s super-cold, super-dry air mass. But the data seem to indicate just the opposite.

Getting back to the New York Times article, so why is the Arctic ice cap shrinking if air temperatures aren?t really warming in any significant way? Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor wrote that ?Arctic sea ice has undergone significant changes in the last 1,000 years, even before the mid-20th century ?greenhouse enhancement.? Current conditions appear to be well within historical variability.?

 

[Ferocious]

The changes our model predicts are large enough to substantially disrupt our economy and infrastructure," said Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University.

US faces 'extreme' temperature changes: study

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Ferocious

The changes our model predicts are large enough to substantially disrupt our economy and infrastructure," said Diffenbaugh, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Purdue University.

US faces 'extreme' temperature changes: study

Can't be, the Republicans say this isn't happening.

Must be the whacko liberal left cooking up these cooky schemes.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Exactly! Global warming may indeed be occurring, and human-driven CO2 emissions may be causing it in some way. However, until that relationship is shown to be likely, I don't believe we should as a society be limiting technological progress and dragging down the general quality of life.

We shouldn't limit progress by it, absolutely, but we also shouldn't say "screw it" to technology that can help us advance and be environmentally friendly.

Examples:

• Why continue to use gasoline when biodiesel is better while hybrids young and hydrogen isn't ready yet?
• Coal can be very clean, just look at the differences before and after the law suits started by Clinton.
• Why aren't there new nuclear power plants?
• Is there really a point to a Suburban?

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: hurtstotalktoyou
Exactly! Global warming may indeed be occurring, and human-driven CO2 emissions may be causing it in some way. However, until that relationship is shown to be likely, I don't believe we should as a society be limiting technological progress and dragging down the general quality of life.

We shouldn't limit progress by it, absolutely, but we also shouldn't say "screw it" to technology that can help us advance and be environmentally friendly.

Examples:

• Why continue to use gasoline when biodiesel is better while hybrids young and hydrogen isn't ready yet?

• 
  
  It's too expensive.
  
  

  [*]Coal can be very clean, just look at the differences before and after the law suits started by Clinton.

  
  Again, we have money to be concerned about. If factories can't produce efficiently, the economic impact would almost certainly be worse than any environmental threat.
  
  

  [*]Why aren't there new nuclear power plants?

  
  Why should there be? My guess is there's just no demand, but I'd have to investigate that before commenting further.
  
  

  [*]Is there really a point to a Suburban?

Suburbia offers ideal distance between residential and business properties.