NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa012&articleID=000525AD-1223-1354-922383414B7F0000

"Climate change is going to be even more dramatic than we previously thought," says Noah Diffenbaugh, who reported his team's findings in the October 17 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Until now, the fastest computers crunching climate data and using the most sophisticated computer codes have produced only a grainy image of the country's climate picture.

[takes a deep sip of Kool Aid]

Ahhhhhhhh! It's all just alarmist propaganda designed to topple the economy of the benevolent US energy producers!

Nothing to see here folks.

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L16311778.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051117174037.htm

*shakes you*

DOES THIS MEAN WE'LL FINALLY GET SOME MORE RAIN HERE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA? I'M DRY MAN! I'M DRY!

Let me see...cranberries cause cancer...no, we were wrong as cranberries do not cause cancer...eggs are bad for you as they will raise your cholesterol level...no eggs are not bad for you in fact they are very good for you and will not raise your cholesterol level...coffee is bad for you...no wait a minute, coffee is good for you...we are in a period of global cooling...no, no, we are in a period of global warming...

Do any of these scientific types really know what is going on? I think not.

clearly it's all lies. i mean they even had to make up some computer program to tell them these things. if they actually knew what they were talking about that would be completely unnecessary.

Do any of these scientific types really know what is going on? I think not.

indeed. and that is why it is better to turn to ancient books and political leaders for answers to empirical questions.

Let me see...cranberries cause cancer...no, we were wrong as cranberries do not cause cancer...eggs are bad for you as they will raise your cholesterol level...no eggs are not bad for you in fact they are very good for you and will not raise your cholesterol level...coffee is bad for you...no wait a minute, coffee is good for you...we are in a period of global cooling...no, no, we are in a period of global warming...

Do any of these scientific types really know what is going on? I think not.

Science has been wrong in the past, so all science is wrong! Put down your computers! Turn off your TVs! Pray to God when you are ill and do not visit the sinful doctor!

Oh, but wait...it was science that corrected science...and that was because new and better information became available. Kinda like IN THIS CASE!

Meh, I like Winter. And since climate change will first eliminate the Gulf Stream, Europe will get very cold indeed...

Just a pity for all those billions of people who'll die of starvation, and the taxpayers who have to deal with all the environmental refugees...

But still, that's only tomorrow, and I'd hate to think that some of my tax money would be used today to help prepare for, or even prevent it.

indeed. and that is why it is better to turn to ancient books and political leaders for answers to empirical questions.

Or it's better just to listen to the new wack-o cause of the day, join hands, and not bathe for a month.

Meh, I like Winter. And since climate change will first eliminate the Gulf Stream, Europe will get very cold indeed...

Just a pity for all those billions of people who'll die of starvation, and the taxpayers who have to deal with all the environmental refugees...reminds me of that "Global Cooling" article in Newsweek from April 1975:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it...

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

link (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/coolingworld.pdf)

Science has been wrong in the past, so all science is wrong! Put down your computers! Turn off your TVs! Pray to God when you are ill and do not visit the sinful doctor!

Oh, but wait...it was science that corrected science...and that was because new and better information became available. Kinda like IN THIS CASE!

Kind of like ignoring the past and the fact that the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling?

snip

Yeah, and the way scientists keep using the same information, experiments, computers and satellite images from 1975 is annoying too.

What's that? Oh, you mean they're using computers that made 1975 super-computers look like cheap calculators? They're using state-of-the-art satellites? They have corrected and expanded and gained higher resolutions on their models? But they were still wrong once! And Clinton got a blowjob!

Kind of like ignoring the past and the fact that the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling?

Cycles caused by detectable phenomena. Cycles that don't render us human induced climate change-proof. Natural cycles are incorporated into models, and you know it. All the correct data from the past is included in the models. Anything YOU can think of has already been included in the models.

What's that? Oh, you mean they're using computers that made 1975 super-computers look like cheap calculators? They're using state-of-the-art satellites? They have corrected and expanded and gained higher resolutions on their models? But they were still wrong once! And Clinton got a blowjob!so there where technological advancements, problem is that 1975 they thought the exact same thing, when they compared themselves to 1945. the 1945 supercomputers looked like cheap calculators in 1975 and they had a lot better data. what do you think will current supercomputers look like to people 30 years from now?

indeed. and that is why it is better to turn to ancient books and political leaders for answers to empirical questions.

Maybe. The Farmers Almanac has been pretty darn accurate for more than 100 years.

Science has been wrong in the past, so all science is wrong! Put down your computers! Turn off your TVs! Pray to God when you are ill and do not visit the sinful doctor!

Oh, but wait...it was science that corrected science...and that was because new and better information became available. Kinda like IN THIS CASE!

In this case, hmm, funny that the entire SEPP would disagree with you.

Cycles caused by detectable phenomena. Cycles that don't render us human induced climate change-proof. Natural cycles are incorporated into models, and you know it. All the correct data from the past is included in the models. Anything YOU can think of has already been included in the models.

So, you are saying the models are infallible?

Kind of like ignoring the past and the fact that the earth goes through cycles of heating and cooling?

provide evidence that such issues were ignored by this study (or in any other recent work on the subject for that matter).

put up or shut up.

so there where technological advancements, problem is that 1975 they thought the exact same thing, when they compared themselves to 1945. the 1945 supercomputers looked like cheap calculators in 1975 and they had a lot better data. what do you think will current supercomputers look like to people 30 years from now?

Actually, no. There were only a view scientist who believed in global cooling and the general consensus was that they simply had not yet the technical capabilities and the understanding to make any predictions:

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available.

Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94)

put up or shut up.

Don't be so touchy or rude. Time for me to go to bed as 4 AM comes very early. I must go swimming at 5 AM Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday as Thursday and Friday are holidays. Good night.

Don't be so touchy or rude. Time for me to go to bed as 4 AM comes very early. I must go swimming at 5 AM Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday as Thursday and Friday are holidays. Good night.


ah, excellent, 'shut up' it is.

now that that's settled, can we get on to the business of dealing with this fucking mess?

There were only a view scientist who believed in global cooling and the general consensus was that they simply had not yet the technical capabilities and the understanding to make any predictions:exactly like today!

exactly like today!
But that is obviously false. The vast majority of scientists believe that climate change is happening - and a large majority of that also acknowledges that human activity is contributing in a significant way.
Bush himself said that humans do it in Gleneagle.

I really don't know what you'd have to gain from proclaiming all this false.

exactly like today!

No, the exact opposite. Today it's global warming instead of cooling. Today the overwhelming majority of scientist believe it, instead of a select few and it's also consensus that climate models are accurate enough to make predictions.

In this case, hmm, funny that the entire SEPP would disagree with you.

Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

Founded in 1990 by widely publicized climate skeptic S. Fred Singer, SEPP s stated purpose is to "document the relationship between scientific data and the development of federal environmental policy." SEPP has mounted a sizeable media campaign -- publishing articles, letters to the editor, and a large number of press releases -- to discredit the issues of global warming, ozone depletion, and acid rain.

Spin: Moreover, climate change won't be bad for us anyway. Action on climate change is not warranted because of shaky science and flawed policy approaches.

Funding: Conservative foundations including Bradley, Smith Richardson, and Forbes. SEPP has also been directly tied to ultra right-wing mogul Reverend Sung Myung Moon s Unification Church, including receipt of a year s free office space from a Moon-funded group and the participation of SEPP s director in church-sponsored conferences and on the board of a Moon-funded magazine.

and

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65

http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/ecologist2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

According to SEPP associate Candace Crandall, these petitions show that "the number of scientists refuting global warming is growing." [13] However, people who have examined the petitions challenge that conclusion, pointing out that:

1. The 1992 "Statement by Atmospheric Scientists" is more than a decade old and only has 46 signers.
2. The Heidelberg Appeal actually does not say anything about global warming.
3. Most of the signers of the Leipzig Declarations are non-scientists or lack credentials in the specific field of climate research.
4. Many of the signers of the Oregon Petition are also non-scientists or lack relevant scientific backgrounds.


More on the very short-lived global cooling theory that never reached the level of concern or consensus in the scientific community that global warming has today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. The general public had little awareness about carbon dioxide's effects: at the time garbage, chemical disposal, smog, particulate pollution, and acid rain were the focus of the public concern, although Paul Ehrlich mentions the climate change from the greenhouse gases in 1968. [1] However, not long after the awareness reached the public press in the mid-1970s the temperature trend stopped going down. Even by the early 1970s there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects,[2] and it was known that both natural and anthropogenic effects caused variations in global climate. Environmental messages included smog levels, reports of smoke sources and effects, public service messages against littering and poison disposal, trying to make a river not catch fire again, and reports of trees damaged by acid rain. Many people had backyard trash burning barrels, and concerns began about the amount of smoke from burning leaves in the fall. Many places instituted burning restrictions in the late 1960s.[3] [4]

And finally:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

So, you are saying the models are infallible?

So, unless infallible proof exists (which is impossible...one can't even provide infallible proof that oneself exists,) you won't go along with the overhwelming scientific consensus of the last 10 years?

What I am saying is that the models are informed by much much better information now running on much much better computers...computers that can map the human genome (which wasn't possible 10 years ago.)

I learned, watching a PBS documentary last night, that Global Warming(TM) is caused by alcoholic Sports Utility Robots belching their green house emissions into the atmosphere.

BTW when these "scientists" can accurately predict the weather 2 weeks from now, I'll believe this silly theory.

BTW when these "scientists" can accurately predict the weather 2 weeks from now, I'll believe this silly theory.

When scientists predict what you'll do 2 weeks from now, I'll believe in you.

/equally spurrious argument.

When scientists predict what you'll do 2 weeks from now, I'll believe in you.

/equally spurrious argument.

It's a serious question. Why are forecasts not much more accurate then the ones in the 70's?

Riddle me this: If man is to blame for changing the climate, what made the climate change in ages gone by? Was the T-Rex scooting around the town in a 79 Ford Bronco with bad emissions?

When scientists predict what you'll do 2 weeks from now, I'll believe in you.

/equally spurrious argument.

One more please: What do these "scientists" base their models on? We have no idea what went on 100 years ago, let alone 1000?

It's a serious question. Why are forecasts not much more accurate then the ones in the 70's?

1) they are
2) weather forecasts /= climate models

Riddle me this: If man is to blame for changing the climate, what made the climate change in ages gone by? Was the T-Rex scooting around the town in a 79 Ford Bronco with bad emissions?

in t-rex's case, it was this giant fucking asteroid smashing into the yucatan.

One more please: What do these "scientists" base their models on? We have no idea what went on 100 years ago, let alone 1000?oh yes we do, we know for example, that in the past there were several periods with much warmer climate than we have today. beside historic reports (like caesars de bello gallico) we can look at the gases enclosed in ice from former times, which can be acquired by drilling in antarctica for example, the composition of the gases in terms of elements and isotopes can yield temperature charts.

It's a serious question. Why are forecasts not much more accurate then the ones in the 70's?

Riddle me this: If man is to blame for changing the climate, what made the climate change in ages gone by? Was the T-Rex scooting around the town in a 79 Ford Bronco with bad emissions?

Actually, forecasts are much more accurate. The warning before a hurricane is much quicker now. The thing is, predicting overall trends is an entirely different thing from predicting the specific weather on a specific day in a specific location.

Many many things caused climate changes of varying sorts in the past. Closeness to the sun. Albedo change. Sunspot activity. Fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field. Water vapor. Methane. CO2. Volcanic activity. Cosmic radiation. The exposing of new rock due to plate techtonics. Particulates in the atmosphere. The Atlantic Conveyor. Then scientists look for and account for these factors in the past that affected climate patterns. The change that's left unaccounted for after eliminating these effects matches perfectly with predictions for what man's contributions are.

In that way, knowledge of past weather patterns and variables that effect them has lead us to an even greater certainty of man made climate change. Scientist who fail to account for natural factors in climate change fail the peer-review process.

oh yes we do, we know for example, that in the past there were several periods with much warmer climate than we have today. beside historic reports (like caesars de bello gallico) we can look at the gases enclosed in ice from former times, which can be acquired by drilling in antarctica for example, the composition of the gases in terms of elements and isotopes can yield temperature charts.

When did Caesar get a thermometer?

in t-rex's case, it was this giant fucking asteroid smashing into the yucatan.

Can you say with 100% certainty that that was what killed them off?

Is it just me or did anyone else find it funny his name is Noah?

When did Caesar get a thermometer?

Ya know, it would be a lot better if you visited Scientific American and Nasa and studied their environmental archives. All your questions will likely be answered.

When did Caesar get a thermometer?


Also, could we be wrong with the gas bubble thingies?

Can you say with 100% certainty that that was what killed them off?

No scientist, by the rules of science, can answer ANYTHING with 100% certainty. That is the basis on which science is built (so that nothing ever goes unquestioned.)

Ya know, it would be a lot better if you visited Scientific American and Nasa and studied their environmental archives. All your questions will likely be answered.


Put up or shut up, as you said.

No scientist, by the rules of science, can answer ANYTHING with 100% certainty. That is the basis on which science is built (so that nothing ever goes unquestioned.)

Exactly, so why believe everything they say?

Also, could we be wrong with the gas bubble thingies?

We could, but as time goes on and more and more evidence mounts (evidence enough to create almost unanimity in the relavent scientific community in the last 10 years,) the chances of "us" being wrong get less and less.

Put up or shut up, as you said.

Ugh, you did see my rather long post where I "put up" rather profusely, didn't you? Perhaps if you actually clicked on the links...?

When did Caesar get a thermometer?he never did, but he describes at what time of the year the grain is harvested in what regions and how many crops can be grown per year and which rivers freeze, which animals and plants can be found where etc and you can conclude, that it must have been much warmer in france and britain in 50BC than it is today.

Ugh, you did see my rather long post where I "put up" rather profusely, didn't you? Perhaps if you actually clicked on the links...?

Reading is for squares, poindexter.

he never did, but he describes at what time of the year the grain is harvested in what regions and how many crops can be grown per year and which rivers freeze, which animals and plants can be found where etc and you can conclude, that it must have been much warmer in france and britain in 50BC than it is today.

Those could be faked like the 60 Minutes papers.

Exactly, so why believe everything they say?

Because they generally know what they are talking about, especially when they are practically united on a point. But hey, what do those physicists know about the effects that a large object (car) travelling at high speed and impacting a smaller object (you) has?

I suggest you play in the street and find out for yourself.

Reading is for squares, poindexter.
I think you just torpedoed yourself...

Reading is for squares, poindexter.

Well, since you are apparently reading now, I guess that makes you a right-angled rhombus then.

I think you just torpedoed yourself...

I don't think he believes in torpedoes. Scientists designed them, after all.

Because they generally know what they are talking about, especially when they are practically united on a point. But hey, what do those physicists know about the effects that a large object (car) travelling at high speed and impacting a smaller object (you) has?

I suggest you play in the street and find out for yourself.

This stuff is all theory, quiz kid. Now those physicists deal in laws, ie Gravity, etc.

Example, The Earth travels around the Sun in a year!

Fat Ladies with garter belts are a menace to society!

Mankind changed the climate of the Earth in a significant way!

Of those three, which is a fact?

Well, since you are apparently reading now, I guess that makes you a right-angled rhombus then.

No, I have a translator, try again.

This stuff is all theory, quiz kid. Now those physicists deal in laws, ie Gravity, etc.

Example, The Earth travels around the Sun in a year!

Fat Ladies with garter belts are a menace to society!

Mankind changed the climate of the Earth in a significant way!

Of those three, which is a fact?

Actually scientific "laws" are no different from "theories" and science has practically dropped the term "law." In fact, the Newtonian "Laws" have been found to be inaccurate in some cases (see, relativity, quantum mechanics.)

Which of the three is a fact? Why, all three! :D

An unsupported "theory" is merely a hypothesis. When something is called a theory it certainly has a great deal of support behind it.

This stuff is all theory, quiz kid. Now those physicists deal in laws, ie Gravity, etc.

Example, The Earth travels around the Sun in a year!

Fat Ladies with garter belts are a menace to society!

Mankind changed the climate of the Earth in a significant way!

Of those three, which is a fact?

Laws and theories are the same. The "Laws of Gravity" are in fact theories.

You might want to check this link about scientific theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory).

Here's what Bush says:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/PostG8_Gleneagles_CCChapeau.pdf

We face serious and linked challenges in tackling climate change, promoting clean energy and achieving sustainable development globally.

(a) Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. We know that increased need and use of energy from fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our Earth’s surface. While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop and then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases.

(b) Global energy demands are expected to grow by 60% over the next 25 years. This has the potential to cause a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions associated with climate change.

Oh, and I found this article that addresses the scepticisms:
Climate change: Menace or myth? (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400)

Oh, and I found this article that addresses the scepticisms:
Climate change: Menace or myth? (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400)

Then allow me to counter with this:It refutes the data that Kyoto is based on. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Then allow me to counter with this:It refutes the data that Kyoto is based on. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

Saying Kyoto or the totality of the man made climate change theory is based on "the hockey stick graph" is like saying that the Theory of Gravity is based solely on an apple.

And here's a little info about Ross McKitrik, the writer of that article:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ross_McKitrick

According to a biographical note McKitrick holds "a BA in economics from Queen's University, and an MA and Ph.D. in economics from the University of British Columbia. He was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph in 1996 and Associate Professor in 2000."

In November 1999 the Fraser Institute disputed an estimate by the Committee on the Status of Wildlife in Canada that there were 339 endangered species. Instead it preferred its own estimate of 91. In a Canadian Press article on the report a spokesman for the Alberta Wilderness Association, Stephen Legault, described the report as "another effort at fearmongering and misinformation by a right-wing think tank."

See here as well:
http://info-pollution.com/mandm.htm, a list of links from realclimate that just demolishes McKitrick's work.

Then allow me to counter with this:It refutes the data that Kyoto is based on. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

no it doesn't.

even if it shows problems with mann and pals' work on one issue (which it (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11) doesn't (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=121) really (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=10) - mckitrick is apparently just really bad at reading and doing math in general (http://timlambert.org/2004/08#mckitrick6)), the 'hockey stick' paper wasn't published until 1998, which is after the kyoto treaty was written.

Well here's to Waddington, Celtlund, and all the other protagonists of global warming, getting locked outside their local habitat modules 50 years from now. That would be poetic justice to rival all. :p

Shit, so what do you think will happen to Las Vegas? Should I sell my home and look for a better place to live? I don't deserve to live in extreeme weather conditions because I actually do extra in terms of not causing more pollution than i am forced to.

Reading is for squares, poindexter.

you never cease to make me laugh at you

you never cease to make me laugh at you

I'm too tired of it to laugh at him. God, I'm so annoyed by talking points and flat denials...I wish people would address the specific points brought up by the original article and the numerous liks I've posted.

No scientist, by the rules of science, can answer ANYTHING with 100% certainty. That is the basis on which science is built (so that nothing ever goes unquestioned.)

And now ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Gymoor here. That is why, I do not believe in Global Warming being caused by humans. It is not 100% certain.

This stuff is all theory, quiz kid. Now those physicists deal in laws, ie Gravity, etc.

Example, The Earth travels around the Sun in a year!

Fat Ladies with garter belts are a menace to society!

Mankind changed the climate of the Earth in a significant way!

Of those three, which is a fact?

Statement number 1 is a fact. The other 2 are just theories. :D

And now ladies and gentlemen, I agree with Gymoor here. That is why, I do not believe in Global Warming being caused by humans. It is not 100% certain.
But ultimately we have the majority of our evidence pointing towards that conclusion (not that it is only caused by humans, but that it is being accelerated by humans).
Gravity isn't 100% proven either, nor is any other fact. Indeed, Quantum Physics tells you that if you tried to walk through a wall often enough, you'd eventually succeed...

Actually scientific "laws" are no different from "theories" and science has practically dropped the term "law." In fact, the Newtonian "Laws" have been found to be inaccurate in some cases (see, relativity, quantum mechanics.)

You mean the theory of relativity that has never been proven yet?

But ultimately we have the majority of our evidence pointing towards that conclusion (not that it is only caused by humans, but that it is being accelerated by humans).

Actually, I will disagree with this statement. Weather patterns are a finicky thing. We are now seeing weather patterns that we havent seen before however, if you go back to record books and weather observations that are known, they have happened before.

I have a feeling that within a decade or so from now, things will get interesting as 100 year storms start to appear.

Gravity isn't 100% proven either, nor is any other fact. Indeed, Quantum Physics tells you that if you tried to walk through a wall often enough, you'd eventually succeed...

Interesting. I would like to see proof of this.

Interesting. I would like to see proof of this.
You never heard of it? You need to watch more Discovery Channel...

Anyways, according to Quantum Physics, and Heisenberg's theory, the very act of looking at a particle changes that particle's behaviour - in other words, there can be no certain predicitions about the location and behaviour of any particle of anything.
Einstein thought that idea was appalling by the way...

The point is that everything then becomes a matter of calculating probabilities. And it turns out that in Particle Accelerators and other experiments, the results seem to support the theory.

In other words: There is a probability that the particles that make up your body could disappear and appear on Mars right now. The point is simply that this probability is so small that you'd have to wait longer than the existence of the universe for it to happen.

But the point is that it could.

You mean the theory of relativity that has never been proven yet?

Nope. There is an experiment ongoing that should reinforce the theory of relativity. Again, by definition, NOTHING in science is proven. That's why science is self-correcting. By taking nothing as a given, scientists constantly re-explore data to see if prior conclusions are faulty in some way. Over time, a theory is reinforced so much that it becomes more and more unlikely that it will ever be overturned or modified in a major way.

Now Corneliu, the reason why I think man-made global warming is happening is not because there's a 100% certainty (nothing is a 100% certainty, so waiting for something to reach that level means that you will never react to anything at all and will never respond to real threats.) but because every article (all of which in the last 10 years were not peer reviewed,) critical of the science involved in proving anthropogenic climate change has been shot down.

In the last 10 years, not a single peer reviewed article has argued against man made global warming.

Past theories that predicted global cooling were obviously wrong...but they don't add weight to criticisms of today's global climate predictions because scientists today KNOW where and why those earlier studies went wrong. That's where science stands supreme. It LEARNS from past mistakes, and any scientist repeating them will get laughed off his bunsen burner.

I can't stress this enough, and I wish you'd look into this yourself Corny. Find any report that poo-poos the idea of global warming, then do a google search on the primary scientist involved. You'll find one of 3 things:

1. Someone who holds no degrees relevant to any science involved with global warming (most global warming opponents have degrees in economics and business.) Such people are usually funded, at least partially, by energy companies

2. A scientist who has since written a follow-up article admitting the holes in his study. Said scientist now believes in global warming.

3. A case of junk science with numerous critiques pointing out the specific flaws and miscalculations of the original artice.

It's really as simple as that. WHile it's not 100% certain, and it's smart to look at EVERY CONCLUSION by any "authority" in that light, the evidence is rather overwhelming. Even the Bush administration now admits, after being aggressively against the idea, that Global Warming is real and that man is involved (but NOT the sole source. No one who contends that knows what the hell they are talking about.) The argument now is what the proper balance between environmental protection and business protection. Businesses, of course, argue for things to tip too far their way. Hard-line environementalists work to get things tipped, perhaps too far, the environment's way.

Personally, I think the bias is still tipped in business's favor, and studies like this (original post) show the real threat of ECONOMIC impact due to global warming.

Corny, prevention is always cheaper that cleanup. It's smart to eat well to avoid getting sick even if one isn't sick. Well, in the same way it's smart to invest in keeping the Earth healthy...especially since all signs point to mother earth having a man-made fever.

Do any of these scientific types really know what is going on? I think not.

Astounding generalization.

Don't worry. All we need is for Tambora to erupt again and it will all cancel out.

Corneliu, arguing against the principle of experimental provability indicates that you don't have a grasp of basic scientific theory. So what makes you think you have the knowledge to be an expert on weather patterns, which btw fall under the realm of science? I recall you claiming to have taken a meteorology class at one point, but if the professor didn't teach you the basics of science then how applicable was the information you learned?

Corneliu, arguing against the principle of experimental provability indicates that you don't have a grasp of basic scientific theory. So what makes you think you have the knowledge to be an expert on weather patterns, which btw fall under the realm of science? I recall you claiming to have taken a meteorology class at one point, but if the professor didn't teach you the basics of science then how applicable was the information you learned?

It would be similar to learning cooking without learning how to boil water. The idea that nothing is certain is the most elementary pillar of science.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa012&articleID=000525AD-1223-1354-922383414B7F0000


So, do you still think I'm silly for having a year's supply of food, hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, and a lot of firearms on hand?

Science has been wrong in the past, so all science is wrong! Put down your computers! Turn off your TVs! Pray to God when you are ill and do not visit the sinful doctor!

Oh, but wait...it was science that corrected science...and that was because new and better information became available. Kinda like IN THIS CASE!


That's the exact BS they said when they changed global "cooling" to global "warming". Don't believe science because they say you should.

They've ALWAYS been wrong in the past, and they will CONTINUE to be wrong because they aren't perfect.

Just like when scientists in medievil times said that washing your hands pushed the bacteria in. They were 100% correct UNTIL they disagreed because someone said so (just like with plate tectonics and round Earth/flat Earth).

Some scientists always pull BS like this out of the bag, when most scientists disagree (just like the icecaps melting theory).

Reading is for squares, poindexter.


You: Welcome to McDonalds, how may I help you?


If you hate reading, this is most likely what you are doing.

Statement number 1 is a fact.

not really.

the observed facts (apparent motion of stars, etc) are equally consistent with other explanations. especially since einstein showed that there is no absolute reference point for observing such motion anyway.

That's the exact BS they said when they changed global "cooling" to global "warming". Don't believe science because they say you should.

They've ALWAYS been wrong in the past, and they will CONTINUE to be wrong because they aren't perfect.

Just like when scientists in medievil times said that washing your hands pushed the bacteria in. They were 100% correct UNTIL they disagreed because someone said so (just like with plate tectonics and round Earth/flat Earth).

Some scientists always pull BS like this out of the bag, when most scientists disagree (just like the icecaps melting theory).

Huh? I think you need to rewritew this to make it clearer. What is this "icecaps melting theory?" What BS, specifically, are you talking about in your last paragraph?

Scientists in medieval times sucked. Scientists 25 years ago sucked, compared to what we know today. Scientists today will suck compared to scientists 25 years from now.

The trend is towards MORE understanding, not less, so this tends to give credence to the fact that science is correct more often than not.

The criteria for rejecting a scientific view is not, "they were wrong before, ergo they are wrong now!" The criteria is, "Well they made this specific mistake. The omitted this crucual piece of data. Their experiment is unrepeatable. When we re-run their experiment, we get different results. New information challenges their conclusions."

Those are valid reasons for contradicting a scientists views, not simply saying, "you guys are wrong because you were wrong before!"

Specific criticism. That's how science advances. That's how science has advanced and continues to advance.

bump

Statement number 1 is a fact. The other 2 are just theories. :D

Incorrect. Its actually 365 and 1/4 days. At least that was the explanation behind leap years as I recall it. So nyah!

Incorrect. Its actually 365 and 1/4 days. At least that was the explanation behind leap years as I recall it. So nyah!

Apparently, even the leap year formula is off by 3 days every 400 years.

Um...the definition of a year is the exact ammount of time it takes the Earth to make a whole revolution around the Sun. You knew that, right?

Um...the definition of a year is the exact ammount of time it takes the Earth to make a whole revolution around the Sun. You knew that, right?

Ah, but it's actually untrue that the Earth revolves around the Sun in a year. They BOTH, actually, orbit around a common center of gravity (even that is simplistic, since other solar and extra-solar bodies exert their indepenent pull too.)

Hence why distant massive planets are able to be spotted by the wobble they cause in their sun.

Apparently, even the leap year formula is off by 3 days every 400 years.
Um...the definition of a year is the exact ammount of time it takes the Earth to make a whole revolution around the Sun. You knew that, right?

Hmm, let's see the definition...

year
1: the time in which a planet completes a revolution about the sun
2: a cycle in the Gregorian calendar of 365 or 366 days divided into 12 months beginning with January and ending with December


It would appear you are both right.

Hmm, let's see the definition...

year
1: the time in which a planet completes a revolution about the sun
2: a cycle in the Gregorian calendar of 365 or 366 days divided into 12 months beginning with January and ending with December


It would appear you are both right.

Actually, it was Free Soviets who first pointed out the difference between a solar year and a calendar year.

Well then jeez, it looks like all three of you are right. What were you guys arguing about? ;)

Hmm, let's see the definition...

year
1: the time in which a planet completes a revolution about the sun
Siderical or solar year? ;)


On topic...

I can say with 100% certainty that the model now proposed IS inaccurate.

Siderical or solar year? ;)


On topic...

I can say with 100% certainty that the model now proposed IS inaccurate.

Sidereal.

Of course the model isn't 100% accurate. It can't be unless we can track every sub-atomic particle. Based on what we know at this moment, it seems to be accurate enough that the conclusions it makes are fairly relevant.

Of course the model isn't 100% accurate. It can't be unless we can track every sub-atomic particle.That's not accurate enough. Not by a long shot. :)
Based on what we know at this moment, it seems to be accurate enough that the conclusions it makes are fairly relevant.Exactly.

People ought to know the difference between 100% accurate and 100% inaccurate.

It's also good to know the difference between 100% accurate principles that can exist (Earth is round) and 100% accurate values which can't exist (How round?)

It's also good to know the difference between 100% accurate principles that can exist (Earth is round) and 100% accurate values which can't exist (How round?)

Psst, the Earth isn't round. Not truly a sphere due to the spin it has.

Psst, the Earth isn't round. Not truly a sphere due to the spin it has.

That's his point.

One more please: What do these "scientists" base their models on? We have no idea what went on 100 years ago, let alone 1000?

- Examination of icecores thousands of years old (particle counts, cell counts etc etc)
- It's generally accepted that the ice-ages were caused by meteriod impacts (very big rocks that fall down & go boom)

This stuff is all theory, quiz kid. Now those physicists deal in laws, ie Gravity, etc.

Example, The Earth travels around the Sun in a year!

Fat Ladies with garter belts are a menace to society!

Mankind changed the climate of the Earth in a significant way!

Of those three, which is a fact?

Mankind changed the climate, earth's rotational speed is just abit more then a year.

So, do you still think I'm silly for having a year's supply of food, hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition, and a lot of firearms on hand?

What, no tin foil heads? :p

What, no tin foil heads? :p

Nope. MICH helmet.

Some scientists always pull BS like this out of the bag, when most scientists disagree (just like the icecaps melting theory).

Nasa seems to have proof that the polar icecaps are shrinking... :rolleyes:
You know, satalite surveillance and stuf

Has anyone visited the CNN site, more specifically the Science & Space section?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/22/norway.warming.reut/index.html

A report by 250 experts late last year said that the Arctic was warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe. That could push polar bears towards extinction and leave the Arctic Ocean ice-free in summers by 2100.

Nasa seems to have proof that the polar icecaps are shrinking... :rolleyes:
You know, satalite surveillance and stuf

There seems to be agreement that it's warming. And most scientists seem to think that it's the result of human activity. There are a few who disagree on that last point. Whether or not they are correct remains to be seen.

Some German research indicates that even if we stopped ALL CO2 emission right now - reduced it to zero, the planet would continue to warm a few degrees over the next few hundred years.

And we came out of what is known as The Little Ice Age not too long ago - it's what spurred the Industrial Revolution.

The planet was far warmer during the Cretaceous period, so it's hard to say how much harm that will cause (other than changing our shorelines and changing storm cycles).

Scientists have been partly right, partly wrong, or both in many cases. Especially when it comes to "reasons why".

I didn't want to make up a new thread, so I'll just post it here.

I've been in a discussion about global warming in another forum and some guy made the following claims:

1.) There has never been a global warming model that has taken into account the leading contributor to global warming. The sun.

2.) Fact: Just one volcano can emit more greenhouse gases than all of humanity in its entire existance. It has happened before, four or five times in human history alone. Yet, mother nature takes care of it. To think that mother nature cannot take care of that amount of gas, spread out over decades of time, is ridiculous.


My knowlegde about climate science is not that great, so I would like to hear your comments on this. Links would be appreciated.

I didn't want to make up a new thread, so I'll just post it here.

I've been in a discussion about global warming in another forum and some guy made the following claims:

My knowlegde about climate science is not that great, so I would like to hear your comments on this. Links would be appreciated.

Because Gymoor wanted someone to argue with on the idea that current warming is man-made, and I decided to take him up on it for grins, I've been doing quite a bit of reading.

I can't claim that I've read all the literature, but so far, none of the models I've seen clearly make the phenomenon solely man-made, nor is anyone accounting for previous warming and cooling cycles (what caused the the earlier climate to warm and cool dramatically).

I'm not really sure if you can prove in a completely controlled study that man is the sole cause of the warming. There's going to be something uncontrolled.

We can't go back to the Cretaceous, either, and get much more than "it was much warmer then than it is now". And there weren't any humans around then.

1.) There has never been a global warming model that has taken into account the leading contributor to global warming. The sun.

2.) Fact: Just one volcano can emit more greenhouse gases than all of humanity in its entire existance. It has happened before, four or five times in human history alone. Yet, mother nature takes care of it. To think that mother nature cannot take care of that amount of gas, spread out over decades of time, is ridiculous.

both claims are utter bullshit.

not only is the amount of energy input by the sun a known and monitored quantity, but the entire point of researching climate change is kind of about how much of it is reflected back vs. how much is absorbed. here is the link to the section of the ipcc report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/244.htm) that is directly about solar variation and forcing. and this (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/448.htm) is what they have to say in summary of the effects of natural climate forcing:

"Reconstructions of climate forcing in the 20th century indicate that the net natural climate forcing probably increased during the first half of the 20th century, due to a period of low volcanism coinciding with a small increase in solar forcing. Recent decades show negative natural forcing due to increasing volcanism, which overwhelms the direct effect, if real, of a small increase in solar radiation (see Chapter 6, Table 6.13 (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/254.htm#tab613))."

the second statement misses the point. firstly, humans put out many more tons of greenhouse gases per year than volcanos do (http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html). secondly, volcanos actually cause a cooling effect since what they really release a lot of is particulate matter that reflects solar rays off of the atmosphere. thirdly, while there have been some truly massive volcanic eruptions, those are linked to extinction events - if they want to call mass die-offs "mother nature taking care of it" that's their right. but it's not exactly something to favorably compare ourselves against. fourth, i don't have the numbers on it (i'll look some more), but since the toba super volcano eruption about 75k ybp is the largest one we know of in the past 20-odd million years, and we are currently at higher levels of atmospheric co2 than both before and after that event, it is safe to say that humans emit more greenhouse gases over time than your sporadic super volcano.

both claims are utter bullshit.

*snip*

Thats was what I was looking for. Thanks a ton! :)

The planet was far warmer during the Cretaceous period, so it's hard to say how much harm that will cause (other than changing our shorelines and changing storm cycles).

One can make an educated guess. For instance a 200-meter rise in sea levels probably won't be so good for the billions of people living right next to the ocean.

It begins...
linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1650406,00.html)

It begins...
linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1650406,00.html)

Scary.

Ok, I have another questions.

Fourth, how in the world do you measure weather data from thousands of years ago if you haven't been keeping records back that far. Humankind has been keeping detailed meteorlogical data for less than 500 years. We can speculate as to what the weather was like 1,000 years ago, but we don't (and can't) know for sure.

Can anybody give me a good link about about those data?

Can anybody give me a good link about about those data?
Certainly. Its not exactly detailed, but some googling should fill in most of the gaps:
Ice coring from the Antarctic... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm)

Certainly. Its not exactly detailed, but some googling should fill in most of the gaps:
Ice coring from the Antarctic... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm)

One thing I did notice and heard is that the ice is actually thickening and NOT thinning.

One thing I did notice and heard is that the ice is actually thickening and NOT thinning.
Correct, although IIRC this is seen as a result of increased amounts of moisture in the Antarctic air, causing more precipitation. This moisture is evaporating from the warming oceans.

Fourth, how in the world do you measure weather data from thousands of years ago if you haven't been keeping records back that far. Humankind has been keeping detailed meteorlogical data for less than 500 years. We can speculate as to what the weather was like 1,000 years ago, but we don't (and can't) know for sure.

This person is making the common mistake of confusing "weather" with "climate". Don't ask what the weather was like on Christmas in Jesus time, nobody can tell you. However, the general climate can be known.

Google is your friend. "Climate In History" gave this as the top link: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

One thing I did notice and heard is that the ice is actually thickening and NOT thinning.

well yeah. warmer temperatures at sea level leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. more water vapor in the air going over places that are warming but still below freezing leads to more snow and ice being formed.

Can anybody give me a good link about about those data?

no problem:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/068.htm

Thanks again for all the links. :)