NationStates Jolt Archive

Before I start, I would like to ask the users of this thread to please stay of subject and refrain from name-calling. I seem to find that onmany of these threads, so let's keep this civilized.

On February 12, 13 and 14, several organizations were planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or hold other global warming presentation. Some of them were cancelled because they were snowed in, bringing home the point of irony. Not only that, but Hawaii is experiancing its coldest winter on record, and the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska are bigger than they were last year.
So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?

if i can't call you names, at least let me smack you round the face with a fish (http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/9666/smileytroutsmack28cg.gif).

this sort of idiocy has been covered ad nauseum. it really isn't worth more of a response.

I'm waiting for local warming, myself.

Global warming is happening, that's been pretty much proven. What we don't know is what's causing it or how badly it could affect the earth. We very well could be causing it with greenhouse gasses, or maybe not, we really don't know.

To say that it isn't happening because its cold out is a sad argument, its global climate change not global weather change...

Before I start, I would like to ask the users of this thread to please stay of subject and refrain from name-calling. I seem to find that onmany of these threads, so let's keep this civilized.

On February 12, 13 and 14, several organizations were planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or hold other global warming presentation. Some of them were cancelled because they were snowed in, bringing home the point of irony. Not only that, but Hawaii is experiancing its coldest winter on record, and the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska are bigger than they were last year.
So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?

Global warming is, in many ways, a misnomer. Yes, it is the general trend of increase in global temperature we've seen over the past few decades, but it does not mean that at all times of year the temperature is higher than a previous year.

Also, a side effect of global warming is alterations in the normal air flow of the earth's atmosphere, and the normal flow of ocean water around the world. What this results in is aberrant weather patterns that do have the potential to lead to colder conditions. Again, despite a higher global temperature.

Finally, the effects of global warming today are still not as severe as is expected to happen if current trends continue. This means that, despite a higher global temperature, normal weather patterns in some areas can still result in cold conditions, because as of yet the effects of global warming are still slight compared to the vast majority of normal weather patterns.

And I don't know about the rest of the country, but Jersey has had it's warmest winter in years.

Before I start, I would like to ask the users of this thread to please stay of subject and refrain from name-calling. I seem to find that onmany of these threads, so let's keep this civilized.

On February 12, 13 and 14, several organizations were planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or hold other global warming presentation. Some of them were cancelled because they were snowed in, bringing home the point of irony. Not only that, but Hawaii is experiancing its coldest winter on record, and the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska are bigger than they were last year.
So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?
It's called climate change. It doesn't get warmer everywhere. The average temp for the whole planet gets higher, but some spots get colder. In fact, it can trigger an ice age.

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age -- in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset -- and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.http://www.alternet.org/story/17711/

Before I start, I would like to ask the users of this thread to please stay of subject and refrain from name-calling. I seem to find that onmany of these threads, so let's keep this civilized.

On February 12, 13 and 14, several organizations were planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or hold other global warming presentation. Some of them were cancelled because they were snowed in, bringing home the point of irony. Not only that, but Hawaii is experiancing its coldest winter on record, and the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska are bigger than they were last year.
So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?

you're using the the wrong terminology...it's Climate Change not Global Warming....places that are dry may get wetter or dryer, wet places may get dryer or wetter, snow where normally doesn't snow...it's unpredictable...what is certain is the planet is getting warmer...

more snow fits a warming trend, a contradiction but true, warmer temps mean more evaporation which means more snow...when it's really cold, it doesn't snow, Arctic areas receive less snow than temperate climates so Greenland and Antarctica getting more snow is a result of warmer temps, ultimately more melting will counter higher snow falls...

That's because global warming is somewhat misleading. It's global warming, not local warming. The earth as a whole is getting warmer, however this is causing weather patterns and sea currents to change, thus moving hot air/water away from places that it normally goes to.

The reasoning behind the expansion of the ice sheets in Antarctica is that climate change has caused an increase in precipitation (a warmer earth means more evaporation from the seas) over Antarctica. This water freezes on the ice sheets, thus adding to its mass.

Another example is the UK. The UK is getting warmer (people are now growing grapes by Hadrian's wall and olives in the South East), however if the earth gets too much hotter then the ice caps will melting faster than the precipitation that lands on them freezes, causing the Atlantic to become less saline. Once the Atlantic reaches a certain salinity then the Gulf stream (a sea current that brings warm water up to the UK from the Gulf of Mexico) will shut down. The UK will go from having temperatures similar to that of North/South Carolina to temperatures similar to that of New Foundland and Labrador (this being how far North the UK is comparitive to the American continent).

That's because global warming is somewhat misleading. It's global warming, not local warming. The earth as a whole is getting warmer, however this is causing weather patterns and sea currents to change, thus moving hot air/water away from places that it normally goes to.

The reasoning behind the expansion of the ice sheets in Antarctica is that climate change has caused an increase in precipitation (a warmer earth means more evaporation from the seas) over Antarctica. This water freezes on the ice sheets, thus adding to its mass.

Another example is the UK. The UK is getting warmer (people are now growing grapes by Hadrian's wall and olives in the South East), however if the earth gets too much hotter then the ice caps will melting faster than the precipitation that lands on them freezes, causing the Atlantic to become less saline. Once the Atlantic reaches a certain salinity then the Gulf stream (a sea current that brings warm water up to the UK from the Gulf of Mexico) will shut down. The UK will go from having temperatures similar to that of North/South Carolina to temperatures similar to that of New Foundland and Labrador (this being how far North the UK is comparitive to the American continent).

not necessarily true, the warming could be great enough to negate the Gulf Stream shutting down, Arctic areas of Canada were at one time quite warm in the prehistorical past...it's all so unpredictable what the results will be, only thing to be sure of is there will be major changes...

i think it's a little of both

It's called climate change. It doesn't get warmer everywhere. The average temp for the whole planet gets higher, but some spots get colder. In fact, it can trigger an ice age.

http://www.alternet.org/story/17711/

The good news is that ice is reflective, so if enough landmass is covered, the global temperature will drop. I's one of many avenues at Earth's disposal for equalizing itself. Of course, we'll be fucked, but so what? :p

Before I start, I would like to ask the users of this thread to please stay of subject and refrain from name-calling. I seem to find that onmany of these threads, so let's keep this civilized.

On February 12, 13 and 14, several organizations were planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or hold other global warming presentation. Some of them were cancelled because they were snowed in, bringing home the point of irony. Not only that, but Hawaii is experiancing its coldest winter on record, and the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska are bigger than they were last year.
So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?

"Huh?" indeed... :rolleyes: "Global warming" and "ice ages" are just names for the symptoms. The problem is climate change. It can cause more than just a constant temperature rise - the earth is more complicated than that, you know. For example, increasing temperates at the poles can melt ice; as this ice gets spread around, it makes things colder where it ends up. That's what could eventually happen to Britain - ice blocking our warmth from the gulf stream causes Britain to get colder. Of course, once this ice warms up to the sea temperature (and melts) Britain would start to get warmer again.

Hope I didn't use any words that were too big there.

Just because it's colder one year doesn't mean the global trend is gone. Any claim otherwise is bullshit.

Before I start, I would like to ask the users of this thread to please stay of subject and refrain from name-calling. I seem to find that onmany of these threads, so let's keep this civilized.

On February 12, 13 and 14, several organizations were planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or hold other global warming presentation. Some of them were cancelled because they were snowed in, bringing home the point of irony. Not only that, but Hawaii is experiancing its coldest winter on record, and the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska are bigger than they were last year.
So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?


The planet has just had it's warmest january ever.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17175086/

So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

are you familiar with the term 'trend' and what makes it distinct from 'event'

By ever do you mean, since records began - around 100 years ago or further back.

The planet has just had it's warmest january ever.

seriously, these cold snaps don't even balance out the fucking heat wave we've all been seeing so far this year.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?It's very simple, really. The phenomenon is called global warming because it refers to an increment in global average temperature. This does not mean that everywhere in the world will be warmer. Actually, the accelerated global warming results in the phenomenon we call climate change, which probably results in the abnormally cold temperatures in Israel and Hawaii and the abnormally warm temperatures in Virginia and Germany.

Evidence that we are in fact experiencing global warming is the fact that glaciers which have been around since the ice ages are disappearing.

By ever do you mean, since records began - around 100 years ago or further back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

not necessarily true, the warming could be great enough to negate the Gulf Stream shutting down, Arctic areas of Canada were at one time quite warm in the prehistorical past...it's all so unpredictable what the results will be, only thing to be sure of is there will be major changes...Just how prehistoric do you mean? Do you mean when the first plants were beginning to evolve and alter the ratio carbon dioxide:oxygen.

That's just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons. There's a bunch of phytoplankton and one of them is trying to warn them of the dangers of their reckless regard for pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. They must curb their oxygen emissions or the global climate will be drastically altered and live will become harsher.. and so on.. I found very funny. :)

Just how prehistoric do you mean? Do you mean when the first plants were beginning to evolve and alter the ratio carbon dioxide:oxygen.

That's just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons. There's a bunch of phytoplankton and one of them is trying to warn them of the dangers of their reckless regard for pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. They must curb their oxygen emissions or the global climate will be drastically altered and live will become harsher.. and so on.. I found very funny. :)
Harsher for whatever life happened to be around at the time, I'm sure.

New Zealand and especially Wellington had the coldest December and maybe even January ever recorded.
Damn Antarctic winds!
*shakes fist*

I'd like to congratulate the OP on rubbishing a huge amount of scientific research by noticing that Global Warming is really badly named.

Global climate change.


That's done then. The thread is over. I'm not expecting to see the OP back here any time soon, so...

CUE FAT LADY!

http://www.zenwaiter.com/photos/indexnew/fat%20lady%20sings.jpg
http://www.casual-gamers.de/cg/images/postimages/applause_crowd.gif

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.
This is one reason why I am glad that it is not nutritionists that have worked on Climate Change but actual "Climate Scientists" or "Climatologists".

Just how prehistoric do you mean? Do you mean when the first plants were beginning to evolve and alter the ratio carbon dioxide:oxygen.

That's just reminded me of one of my favourite cartoons. There's a bunch of phytoplankton and one of them is trying to warn them of the dangers of their reckless regard for pumping oxygen into the atmosphere. They must curb their oxygen emissions or the global climate will be drastically altered and live will become harsher.. and so on.. I found very funny. :)

Harsher for whatever life happened to be around at the time, I'm sure.

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

Yep. Still funny?

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

the lesson here is actually "don't automatically trust popular press reports about nutrition" - they are almost always based off of a single study, and then exaggerated.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

this is silly. do you deny that human activities are pumping out gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere? do you deny basic chemistry and physics? do you think we are currently in the depths of a fucking ice age from which we should be emerging?

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Maybe they do.
Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.
Any evidence to the contrary? Any evidence that you're not exagerating about the warnings, that perhaps butter and eggs are unhealthy for certain segments of the population?
All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Prove it. Then prove that this is somehow related to meteorology.
Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.Just like smelteries, CFCs, and leadened fuel. Oh... wait...
Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.Because glaciers that have been around since the ice ages spontaneously melting after the advent of industrialization cannot be connected.

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

Yep. Still funny?

In the extreme.

Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans.

That's true. It has a chemical in it that, in the stomach, turns to formaldehyde, a Class A carcinogen.

*Sips Diet Mountain Dew*

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

This makes no sense at all. Some nutritionists were wrong and/or their studies got over-exxagerrated, so climatologists are wrong too? How did your brain make that leap?

This makes no sense at all. Some nutritionists were wrong and/or their studies got over-exxagerrated, so climatologists are wrong too? How did your brain make that leap?

clearly it demonstrates that science as a whole doesn't work. which explains how the problems with various nutritional studies were discovered by the tossing of chicken bones.

This makes no sense at all. Some nutritionists were wrong and/or their studies got over-exxagerrated, so climatologists are wrong too? How did your brain make that leap?

All science = the same?

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.
News flash: Celtlund still doesn't understand any science whatsoever!

In other news, water is wet and paint dries slowly! More on this at 11:00!

News flash: Celtlund still doesn't understand any science whatsoever!

In other news, water is wet and paint dries slowly! More on this at 11:00!

will there being shocking video? especially of the last?

will their being shocking video? especially of the last?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1VEY7ndKCs

Viewer discretion is advised.

In other news, water is wet and paint dries slowly! More on this at 11:00!

*Watches paint dry*

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

Neither "proof" nor "fact" are very valid scientific terms. Scientists use theories. Yes, these theories can be mistaken - science is a continual process of refinement, not getting things right the first time.

Also, just because "the scientists" (translation: "some nutrition scientists") made a claim, doesn't mean that all scientists did. Regardless, it's pretty hard to deny that carbon dioxide keeps heat in an environment - that's a bit easier to get right than the complex interactions of biological substances involved in nutrition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1VEY7ndKCs

Viewer discretion is advised.It's not... lead based... is it? :eek:

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

Yep. Still funny?Is your brain entirely devoid of the ability to appreciate humour?

You seem to be taking yourself entirely too seriously.

Is your brain entirely devoid of the ability to appreciate humour?
Well, the comic *is* using satire to mock people who say that global warming is a problem. I just found it amusing that the "satire" it used was actually completely accurate.

It reminds me of this story from the Onion:

Failed Attempt At Hyperbole Yields Dead-On Statistic

TOANO, VA—In an unsuccessful attempt Wednesday to illustrate a point through exaggeration, high-school senior Abby Hollard accurately informed classmates that someone "probably dies from AIDS every 10 seconds," the exact figure reported by the Joint United Nations Program on AIDS in 2006. "I bet, like, 40 million people have AIDS," said Hollard, failing again to embellish on the international agency's findings. "It's practically a pandemic." UN representatives said Hollard showed an impressive understanding of the crisis, although her estimate of the amount the U.S. spends combating the disease was off by about $99 billion.

Well, the comic *is* using satire to mock people who say that global warming is a problem. I just found it amusing that the "satire" it used was actually completely accurate.Maybe it was mocking people who are saying it isn't a problem if the "satire" was dead on...

Maybe it was mocking people who are saying it isn't a problem if the "satire" was dead on...
I think a certain cartoonist just didn't do their research... :p

Well, the comic *is* using satire to mock people who say that global warming is a problem. I just found it amusing that the "satire" it used was actually completely accurate.

It reminds me of this story from the Onion:The comic wasn't mocking the idea of global warming, but the inability of people to anything about a problem until it is directly affecting them and too late. The cartoon makes it plain (if you have a basic understanding of biology), that climate change happens, and that living organisms can be directly responsible for that change.

The comic wasn't mocking the idea of global warming, but the inability of people to anything about a problem until it is directly affecting them and too late. The cartoon makes it plain (if you have a basic understanding of biology), that climate change happens, and that living organisms can be directly responsible for that change.
Ah, well... the way you described it, it sounded more like it was saying that problems like global warming could turn out much better than we expect, despite our doomsaying -- like the bacteria's "pollution" turning Earth into an oxygenated paradise.

I just wish I could see the cartoon, so I could judge it a bit better. Oh, well... no problem.

I just wish I could see the cartoon, so I could judge it a bit better. Oh, well... no problem.No can do... it was an ancient book from my childhood it was a short history of the universe in cartoon format. Very accessible.

Jeebus, I just did a google search for it on the off chance, and it came up in the first link. The cartoon was in this book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cartoon-History-Universe-Alexander-Great/dp/0385265204

extract - http://larrygonick.com/html/pub/books/his2.html#

No can do... it was an ancient book from my childhood it was a short history of the universe in cartoon format. Very accessible.

Jeebus, I just did a google search for it on the off chance, and it came up in the first link. The cartoon was in this book - http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cartoon-History-Universe-Alexander-Great/dp/0385265204
Cool... I've got the History of the United States version -- very informative, and very entertaining.

Cool... I've got the History of the United States version -- very informative, and very entertaining.Yay! I guess I didn't explain the cartoon fairly poorly. Oh well...

I am so tempted to order all three of the universe books right now...

Yay! I guess I didn't explain the cartoon fairly poorly. Oh well...

I am so tempted to order all three of the universe books right now...
Or you could always get The Cartoon Guide to Sex (http://www.amazon.com/Cartoon-Guide-Sex-Larry-Gonick/dp/0062734318)... :p

(...)
Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?

Something that Trey Parker and Matt Stone jumped on with their usual subtlety in more than one episode of South Park. I expected better from them though. :( I hope they haven't disappeared up their own arsholes a la Penn and Teller.

Just how prehistoric do you mean? Do you mean when the first plants were beginning to evolve and alter the ratio carbon dioxide:oxygen.



fossilized trees from 45 million years ago a thousand miles north of where any tree grows today....fossils of T-Rex and other dinosaurs,along with crocodiles, turtles from a much earlier time....even with continental drift the sites where the discoveries were made would have placed these animals in the high arctic...

This makes no sense at all. Some nutritionists were wrong and/or their studies got over-exxagerrated, so climatologists are wrong too? How did your brain make that leap?

Have to say it did make sense to me. He was basically saying that just because scientists say they have "proof" of something doesnt mean it is so. He was just pointing out the fact that it could be the same thing. I remember all through the seventies scientists were warning of a coming ice age. So going to have to agree that this is most likely a natural event not caused by man.

I remember all through the seventies scientists were warning of a coming ice age."Scientists" or the media?

Have to say it did make sense to me. He was basically saying that just because scientists say they have "proof" of something doesnt mean it is so. He was just pointing out the fact that it could be the same thing. I remember all through the seventies scientists were warning of a coming ice age. So going to have to agree that this is most likely a natural event not caused by man.

Scientists should never say they have "proof" of anything - theories can only be disproven, not proven. However, until a theory is disproven in some way, it cannot be refined to fix the error.

Have to say it did make sense to me. He was basically saying that just because scientists say they have "proof" of something doesnt mean it is so. He was just pointing out the fact that it could be the same thing. I remember all through the seventies scientists were warning of a coming ice age. So going to have to agree that this is most likely a natural event not caused by man.

you're making things up to back up an erroneous belief...I remember the 70s very well and there were no scientists warning of a coming ice age, at least none that mattered but that's not what you want to believe...the discussion back then was whether the planet was leaving an ice age or entering another, it was all speculation...

as someone pointed out earlier that single celled animals changed our planets atmosphere to a point where higher life forms could evolve...its delusional to think man cannot have the same effect...

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming." Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.

find us those articles that claim absolute "PROOF"scientifically proven,scientific warnings in nutrition are advisories that to much of anything is not good for you generally too much of anything or too little will make you unhealthy...red wine good for the heart, too much is bad for your liver...a heavy fish diet and your risk of colon cancer goes down but your risk of stomach cancer and Minimata's disease goes up...and who would have thought drinking too much water can kill you...

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

Hmmm... I thought ice cores could only give us a picture of the atmospheric composition, which can be extrapolated to a proxy of the temperatures at the time (ie a SWAG), and not the actual direct real data that's only been collected accurately for the last century or so.... Has some one come up with a means to do so?

Those proxies are acurate enough to be a good indicator for saying we are in a warming trend, but not enough to accurately say year X is definitively warmer than year Y, assuming the proxies are close of course.

Anywho, it's certainly been hotter here on good old mother at times (the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, IIRC, for example).

Have to say it did make sense to me. He was basically saying that just because scientists say they have "proof" of something doesnt mean it is so. He was just pointing out the fact that it could be the same thing. I remember all through the seventies scientists were warning of a coming ice age. So going to have to agree that this is most likely a natural event not caused by man.

You should remember your advice the next time you see a doctor. After all, doctors used to believe that bleeding you can heal you. That is SO stupid! Might as well pick up smoking and start packing down that red meat.

you're making things up to back up an erroneous belief...I remember the 70s very well and there were no scientists warning of a coming ice age, at least none that mattered but that's not what you want to believe...the discussion back then was whether the planet was leaving an ice age or entering another, it was all speculation...

I remember there was talk about it and the conclusion was that, based on the natural cycles of the planet, we are entering an ice age that should reach its peak in about 7,000 years or so.

Funny thing is that, yes, according to the natural cycles of the planet that climate change deniers are so fond of mentioning at every chance they get, the planet should be entering an ice age and we should be seeing a very slight decrease in global temperature. However, what we have instead is a very sharp increase... if it's not the natural cycles, I wonder what could be causing it?

I remember there was talk about it and the conclusion was that, based on the natural cycles of the planet, we are entering an ice age that should reach its peak in about 7,000 years or so.

Funny thing is that, yes, according to the natural cycles of the planet that climate change deniers are so fond of mentioning at every chance they get, the planet should be entering an ice age and we should be seeing a very slight decrease in global temperature. However, what we have instead is a very sharp increase... if it's not the natural cycles, I wonder what could be causing it?

That does not equate causation. The mere fact that the current trend does not match the expected trend based on historical data, which as I pointed out above is essentially a SWAG, does not mean that it is at all caused by a particular mechanism.

fossilized trees from 45 million years ago a thousand miles north of where any tree grows today....fossils of T-Rex and other dinosaurs,along with crocodiles, turtles from a much earlier time....even with continental drift the sites where the discoveries were made would have placed these animals in the high arctic...Yes, now what was the equator like 45 million years ago?

Several years ago, just before Thanksgiving in fact, the scientists came out with "scientific proof" that cranberries cause cancer. Years ago scientist also came out with "proof" that saccharin caused cancer in rats and could cause cancer in humans. More recently was the "proof" that eating eggs was not good for you because it raised your bad cholesterol level. Butter was also supposed to be "very bad" for you.

All of these scientific "facts" that these items are bad for you have been shown to be a bunch of crap. Now all of those things that were "scientifically proven" to be bad for you have been proven to be ok and in some cases even good for you.

Now, you want me to believe in "Global Warming."
Since I never told you to believe any of the other things, what is the connection? Surely not that sometimes people engaged in scientific enquiry get things wrong? It would after all be incrediably stupid to decide they must therefore have everything wrong, or that any arbitarily chosen theory is wrong.
Ok, if it does exist, it is a natural cycle of the earth called glacial pluvial periods. If it exists, it is perfectly natural and not caused by man.
Er, because you say so.....right well if it's that easy, will you kindly tell me there is a million dollars in my bank account....

The funny thing is, most of the scientists who have gotten things wrong had more to base their erroneous conclusions on than "that's just how I wish it were". If science always rendered only wrong results, we wouldnt have the internet. The fact that you dont like a conclusion is not proof of its falsehood.

That does not equate causation. The mere fact that the current trend does not match the expected trend based on historical data, which as I pointed out above is essentially a SWAG, does not mean that it is at all caused by a particular mechanism.

Certainly not, but it does tell you that something else is going on. Why is the trend not behaving as predicted? Then you have to go an look for what might be causing it.

New Zealand and especially Wellington had the coldest December and maybe even January ever recorded.
Damn Antarctic winds!
*shakes fist*

In fact, we have not had a warm summer down here in New Zealand since the summer of 1998; I still remember the day, nine years ago when Auckland hit 31.

Here are some facts to ponder

- Snow has been recorded in some unusual places throughout last year and this year. In June, Gauteng Province recorded snow for the first time in known history - Sandton City (part of Johannesburg) had snow up to 2cm. That same month, the Hunua Ranges (near Auckland) had a light dusting of snow. In November, southern Queensland had snow for the first time in 65 years. The next month, the Banks Peninsula recorded snow and New Zealand had record low temperatures for December. Last month, snow was recorded for the first time ever in Los Angeles, and snow fell as far south as Phoenix, Arizona; Tulsa, Oklahoma and even parts of Texas. Just a couple of days ago, Kathmandu, in Nepal, recorded its first snow in over sixty years.

- An examination of climate graphs shows that there was no increase in temperatures from 1950 to 1978 and from 1998 to the present - the increase (of 0.53*C) was from 1978 to 1998 (article can be seen here http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2007128434210.Gray4AR.pdf)

- Climatologists cannot predict the El Nino/La Nina cycle which occurs in the Southern Hemisphere accurately. If a simple thing like that cannot be predicted, then how can the entire globe's temperature be predicted?

Yes, it's cold where you live. That's the weather. Things are getting warmer overall from year to year. That's the climate. There were times during the Great Depression when the stock market went up. That didn't mean that there wasn't a Great Depression.

Science is a sophisticated process. When hypotheses are disproven and theories are rejected, that doesn't necessarily mean that those who developed those theories were idiots, it means that a better model has been developed based on more accurate evidence. The whole "cranberries cause cancer" thing and similar incidents have little to do with the actual workings of science and more to do with overzealous media outlets looking for something to get people's attentions. It's frankly kind of disturbing how the popular media talks about "Science" (note capital letter) as if it is this big monolithic entity that does big fancy complicated things that ordinary people can't understand the workings of but should be duly impressed by for about five minutes before they go back to watching "Jackass" reruns or hearing Bill O'Reilly screaming at people until he has an aneurysm. Science is not an entity. It's a process, and a human process, and as such prone to a certain level of human foibles, generally exacerbated by misguided media attention and undue influence of money, but over the long run, it is the best tool we have for making sense of the tangible aspects of the universe and the world we live in.

Not just where I live - it has been unusually cold in Queensland, South Africa, California, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Nepal. Also, what is your response to my final comment about the scientists being unable to predict the El Nino/La Nina cycle?

Not just where I live - it has been unusually cold in Queensland, South Africa, California, Arizona, Texas, Oklahoma, Nepal. Also, what is your response to my final comment about the scientists being unable to predict the El Nino/La Nina cycle?
It's possible to predict the tide without knowing or predicting the timing of a single wave.

Certainly not, but it does tell you that something else is going on. Why is the trend not behaving as predicted? Then you have to go an look for what might be causing it.

Indeed, indeed. But one ought to be careful about jumping to conclusions as to causation. I remain unsatisfied and skeptical as to the degree of anthropogenic causation in the climate change we are seeing, as well as to the solutions, if any.

It's possible to predict the tide without knowing or predicting the timing of a single wave.

However the El Niño-Southern Oscillation cycle isn't nearly as well understood as the tides. And neither is the climate cycle.

However the El Niño-Southern Oscillation cycle isn't nearly as well understood as the tides. And neither is the climate cycle.
No one suggested otherwise. You appear to have missed the point of the analogy. Someone asked know how if we cannot predict individual aspects of some phenomenom, we are able to predict the phenomenon itself, the intended implication being (so far as I can tell) that if the details cannot be predicted then neither can the overall-picture. I provided an analogy that matches the material elements of the question - ie the overall picture (tides) can be detected even if the details (waves) have not been (or cannot be for that matter). The amount of information available is not relevent for the purposes of the analogy - it sets out to demonstrate that we can predict an over-veiw without predicting or knowing the detail, and it does exactly that.

Before I start, I would like to ask the users of this thread to please stay of subject and refrain from name-calling. I seem to find that onmany of these threads, so let's keep this civilized.

On February 12, 13 and 14, several organizations were planning to show Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" or hold other global warming presentation. Some of them were cancelled because they were snowed in, bringing home the point of irony. Not only that, but Hawaii is experiancing its coldest winter on record, and the glaciers of Greenland and Alaska are bigger than they were last year.
So what's this "global warming" thing I keep hearing about? It seems were dealing with another ice age.

Oh, by the way, the "scientists" are claiming these cold spells are the result of, you guessed it, global warming.
Huh?


Wow Man. You are the kind of guy that gives us Republicans a bad name. Global Warming is a big picture long term kind of thing like the growth of a stock market index fund. Of course there will be fluctuations. Wow man.

Yes, now what was the equator like 45 million years ago?

Several hundred miles south of where it is now.

That does not equate causation. The mere fact that the current trend does not match the expected trend based on historical data, which as I pointed out above is essentially a SWAG, does not mean that it is at all caused by a particular mechanism.

true. but we also happen to know that higher concentrations of CO2 will lead to higher observed temperatures - we can do this in a couple of jars. so we have the data and we have a known mechanism.

In fact, we have not had a warm summer down here in New Zealand since the summer of 1998; I still remember the day, nine years ago when Auckland hit 31.

Here are some facts to ponder

- Snow has been recorded in some unusual places throughout last year and this year. In June, Gauteng Province recorded snow for the first time in known history - Sandton City (part of Johannesburg) had snow up to 2cm. That same month, the Hunua Ranges (near Auckland) had a light dusting of snow. In November, southern Queensland had snow for the first time in 65 years. The next month, the Banks Peninsula recorded snow and New Zealand had record low temperatures for December. Last month, snow was recorded for the first time ever in Los Angeles, and snow fell as far south as Phoenix, Arizona; Tulsa, Oklahoma and even parts of Texas. Just a couple of days ago, Kathmandu, in Nepal, recorded its first snow in over sixty years.

- An examination of climate graphs shows that there was no increase in temperatures from 1950 to 1978 and from 1998 to the present - the increase (of 0.53*C) was from 1978 to 1998 (article can be seen here http://www.climatescience.org.nz/assets/2007128434210.Gray4AR.pdf)

- Climatologists cannot predict the El Nino/La Nina cycle which occurs in the Southern Hemisphere accurately. If a simple thing like that cannot be predicted, then how can the entire globe's temperature be predicted?
We had snow on the Taurarua ranges in January.
Last summer it was getting upto 35 degrees once or twice, it's warm now but Saturday was bloody cold.

Several hundred miles south of where it is now.You sure? I thought the continents had themselves pretty much sorted by 45 million years ago. Even then What I meant was 'what are the fossil records like for the equator of 45 million years ago?'. I'll presume that climate wasn't exactly hospitable.

You sure? I thought the continents had themselves pretty much sorted by 45 million years ago. Even then What I meant was 'what are the fossil records like for the equator of 45 million years ago?'. I'll presume that climate wasn't exactly hospitable.

Wandering of the poles. The Equator actually might have been north of where it was now, I'll have to check. It was perfectly hospitable. The temperatures the other poster claimed for the Arctic regions then are far higher than the ones in reality. Of course, once you take wandering of the poles into account along with continental drift, the strata he identified as being in the Arctic Circle likely weren't. Even then, an animal such as Tyrannosaurus rex would have no problems living in such a cold climate. Endotherms massing in excess of 5000 kg tend not to have problems with low temperatures.

Yeah, the Equator was north of its present location.

Edit: The Equator 65 mya was likely slightly cooler than it is now. Temperatures were higher on average but more uniform. I'm not sure about 45 mya, but I suspect temperatures in equatorial climes were similar to the ones today.

The Middle East is suffering its coldest winter ever. Jerusalem got 3 inches of snow the morning before I left.

The Middle East is suffering its coldest winter ever. Jerusalem got 3 inches of snow the morning before I left.

What part of GLOBAL warming do you not understand?

Wow! My network is down for two days and I get six pages added to my thread!

Here's something to think about:
In the 70s, some scientist noticed that the earth was getting colder every year. There was only one reason: MAN WAS POLLUTING THE EARTH WITH THEIR GOSHDARN AUTOMOBILES AND THE EXHAUST WAS BLOCKING OUT THE SUN!
So this scientist worked for several years to publish his work. But by the time it was published, the cooling trend had ended and the earth was warming up. Once again, there was one explanation:MAN WAS POLLUTING THE EARTH WITH THEIR GOSHDARN AUTOMOBILES AND THE EXHAUST WAS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
That was the end of next ice age theory. But the warming has ended and soon the earth will begin cooling. There is no reason to freak out over a problem that will correct itself in ten years.

Wow! My network is down for two days and I get six pages added to my thread!

Here's something to think about:
In the 70s, some scientist noticed that the earth was getting colder every year. There was only one reason: MAN WAS POLLUTING THE EARTH WITH THEIR GOSHDARN AUTOMOBILES AND THE EXHAUST WAS BLOCKING OUT THE SUN!
So this scientist worked for several years to publish his work. But by the time it was published, the cooling trend had ended and the earth was warming up. Once again, there was one explanation:MAN WAS POLLUTING THE EARTH WITH THEIR GOSHDARN AUTOMOBILES AND THE EXHAUST WAS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
That was the end of next ice age theory. But the warming has ended and soon the earth will begin cooling. There is no reason to freak out over a problem that will correct itself in ten years.

And how do you know that it will correct itself in ten years?

Oh, and back up your facts with a source or nobody will believe you.

Wow! My network is down for two days and I get six pages added to my thread!

Here's something to think about:
In the 70s, some scientist noticed that the earth was getting colder every year. There was only one reason: MAN WAS POLLUTING THE EARTH WITH THEIR GOSHDARN AUTOMOBILES AND THE EXHAUST WAS BLOCKING OUT THE SUN!
So this scientist worked for several years to publish his work. But by the time it was published, the cooling trend had ended and the earth was warming up. Once again, there was one explanation:MAN WAS POLLUTING THE EARTH WITH THEIR GOSHDARN AUTOMOBILES AND THE EXHAUST WAS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING!
That was the end of next ice age theory. But the warming has ended and soon the earth will begin cooling. There is no reason to freak out over a problem that will correct itself in ten years.
I don't understand why you won't read about this so that you no longer hold such an ignorant view point. There are articles all over the place. Some are not more than a page long.

Wandering of the poles. The Equator actually might have been north of where it was now, I'll have to check. It was perfectly hospitable. The temperatures the other poster claimed for the Arctic regions then are far higher than the ones in reality. Of course, once you take wandering of the poles into account along with continental drift, the strata he identified as being in the Arctic Circle likely weren't. Even then, an animal such as Tyrannosaurus rex would have no problems living in such a cold climate. Endotherms massing in excess of 5000 kg tend not to have problems with low temperatures.

Yeah, the Equator was north of its present location.

Edit: The Equator 65 mya was likely slightly cooler than it is now. Temperatures were higher on average but more uniform. I'm not sure about 45 mya, but I suspect temperatures in equatorial climes were similar to the ones today.

wandering of the Poles? the magnetic poles wander not the geographic poles(other than a slight wobble)...continental drift was accounted for... the sites where fossils were found even at the time the animals lived were above the Arctic Circle....Endotherms with FURcan survive low temperatures, T-rex had no fur...

no the equator was not north of where it is now(again taking into account for a slight a variation due to rotational wobble) all planets have a vertical rotation except Uranus, this cannot change except by collision with another celestial body, so the poles and equator are constant....the earth is a giant gyroscope it cannot change it's axis of spin...

how inconceivably dumb, the poles are warmer 65m ago and the equator was cooler?...grade school science here, the equator is closer to the sun all year long so it must be hotter than the poles that get no sunlight for the winter months!...

The Middle East is suffering its coldest winter ever. Jerusalem got 3 inches of snow the morning before I left.

climate change, local weather patterns can change...snow requires heat for evaporation then cooler air to create snow....at 30,000' altitude it plenty cool enough to create snow anywhere on the globe...and as I posted earlier at extremely cold temps it doesn't snow...

What part of GLOBAL warming do you not understand?

What part of Global Warming don't you understand. Now the Middle East has been added to the list of places experiencing abnormal weather. How can there be global warming when so many places throughout the globe are experiencing abnormal weather? As Harlesburg stated, the Tararua Ranges had snow on them last month; it is the middle of frecking Summer down here, and we are getting snow in a place that normally does not get that much snow even in the middle of Winter. There has been snow in much of the southern United States over the last few months, and that has never been seen before. There has been snow for the first time in six decades in Nepal. If there was global warming, then you would not get bloody snow in Los Angeles now, would you?

What part of Global Warming don't you understand. Now the Middle East has been added to the list of places experiencing abnormal weather. How can there be global warming when so many places throughout the globe are experiencing abnormal weather? As Harlesburg stated, the Tararua Ranges had snow on them last month; it is the middle of frecking Summer down here, and we are getting snow in a place that normally does not get that much snow even in the middle of Winter. There has been snow in much of the southern United States over the last few months, and that has never been seen before. There has been snow for the first time in six decades in Nepal. If there was global warming, then you would not get bloody snow in Los Angeles now, would you?

You do not understand this to the point of ridiculousness.

Noun 1. global warming - an increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere (especially a sustained increase that causes climatic changes)

Looking at individual points of the earth and seeing cold weather DOES NOT disprove global warming. In fact, focusing on small bits of the earth were cold weather is going on and using that as evidence is not scientific.

As a scientist, I don't beleive that humans are causing global warming.

Here is an article that I cited in defense of science at a global warming conference at my university:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Please do not worship Al Gore until you have heard the other side of the debate.

Looking at individual points of the earth and seeing cold weather DOES NOT disprove global warming. In fact, focusing on small bits of the earth were cold weather is going on and using that as evidence is not scientific.

As a scientist, I don't beleive that humans are causing global warming.

Here is an article that I cited in defense of science at a global warming conference at my university:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Please do not worship Al Gore until you have heard the other side of the debate.


I do try to listen to real arguments. I'll read this tonight.

Looking at individual points of the earth and seeing cold weather DOES NOT disprove global warming. In fact, focusing on small bits of the earth were cold weather is going on and using that as evidence is not scientific.

As a scientist, I don't beleive that humans are causing global warming.

Here is an article that I cited in defense of science at a global warming conference at my university:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Please do not worship Al Gore until you have heard the other side of the debate.

...the world's climatologists have studied the debate and are in agreement on Climate Change who is causing it and I'm sure Al Gore wasn't asked for his opinion so excuse us if we believe them and not you...the fact that you claim to be a scientist and still use the term "global warming" instead of the proper term Climate Change tells me you don't understand the debate....

I personally know a number of scientists who know bugger all about anything outside their specialty, so you proclaiming to be a scientist and implying you're mentally superior carries no weight, it's insulting and condescending....

...the world's climatologists have studied the debate ....


Maybe they should go study the weather instead of studying debates. ;)

At least three notable scientists have quit working on UN global weather reports due to their findings being ignored and quoted in reverse. So dont claim all are in agreement.

That being sad, it seems to me that the great science is always done by mavericks, and the yes-fest scientists are simply busy agreeing with each other. Why not? Agreeing with the status quo assures one of peer respect and further funding. They have to feed their families like anyone.

It is the ones that put it all at risk that I place my money with. Career, funding, positive peer review.. all these are less important to them than what they believe to be true. Now why would they do that?

If you want to achieve in life, to see the green grass on the other side, you must throw your leg over the fence; risk your balls.

As far as Al Gore goes, he has admitted his technique is to lie so as to alarm people. Unfortunately, if you continue to cry wolf, sooner or later people always think of you as a liar and stop paying attention.

Maybe they should go study the weather instead of studying debates. ;)

At least three notable scientists have quit working on UN global weather reports due to their findings being ignored and quoted in reverse. So dont claim all are in agreement.

That being sad, it seems to me that the great science is always done by mavericks, and the yes-fest scientists are simply busy agreeing with each other. Why not? Agreeing with the status quo assures one of peer respect and further funding. They have to feed their families like anyone.

It is the ones that put it all at risk that I place my money with. Career, funding, positive peer review.. all these are less important to them than what they believe to be true. Now why would they do that?

If you want to achieve in life, to see the green grass on the other side, you must throw your leg over the fence; risk your balls.

As far as Al Gore goes, he has admitted his technique is to lie so as to alarm people. Unfortunately, if you continue to cry wolf, sooner or later people always think of you as a liar and stop paying attention.

these were the mavericks who everybody ridiculed 30 yrs ago when they warned of climate change, but now that they've convinced the planet they are no longer mavericks doing "great science"... suddenly they're establishment so they must be wrong...

and if three out of how many at the Paris conference 1,500 quit? and how many more thousands of experts did those 1,500 represent....

Here is an article that I cited in defense of science at a global warming conference at my university:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

man, i love this site. usually people link to this part of it (http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html) instead, and i laugh at them for using a site that lies about what it's own sources say, fucks the math up, and is just generally clueless.

but even in the part you did we get gems like,
"CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years-- long before humans invented smokestacks"

yeah 'steadily' - over the course of 18 thousand years it went from ~190 ppm to 280 ppm. then over the course of 2 hundred years it went from 280 to 383. 'steady increase'...fucking hilarious.

...the world's climatologists have studied the debate and are in agreement on Climate Change who is causing it and I'm sure Al Gore wasn't asked for his opinion so excuse us if we believe them and not you...the fact that you claim to be a scientist and still use the term "global warming" instead of the proper term Climate Change tells me you don't understand the debate....

I personally know a number of scientists who know bugger all about anything outside their specialty, so you proclaiming to be a scientist and implying you're mentally superior carries no weight, it's insulting and condescending....

I study chemistry, I do research, I geuss I'm a scientist. Whatever, I don't have to defend myself here. But let me say that studying the laws of matter makes it much easier to understand the ways in which the physical world operates.

I said global warming in my post because I meant "Global warming," not climate change. I don't believe humans are creating global warming. I also don't beleive humans are creating climate change on any relevant level. If you think I'm a self-riteous fool then fine, don't listen to me. But please evaluate the science surrounding this for yourself.

I also believe that the world's climatologists are not in total agreement about this.

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

for instance.

...suddenly they're establishment so they must be wrong...


Did I say they were wrong? No. I said they were not doing [great] science. If any. Science, as it has been well stated in NSG and many other places, by people far more intelligent that you and I, is thus:

a phenomena is observed. (the earth is warming)
A hypothesis is formed based on that. (man is causing it)
A test is preformed to try invalidate that hypothesis. (we warm up two jars of air, one with more Co2)
note the results(Co2 absorbs more heat)
a theory is formed(man made Co2 causes atmospheric warming)


at this point, you either continue doing science, or you start a religion and/or become an activist.

if you chose to continue with science, you tighten the constraints and conditions of your test, and retest your theory. At no point do you ever consider it proven, or again, you fall into virtual religion.


You can see evidence of that because they no longer say "global warming" now its "climate change". Unfortunately, instead of homing on a tighter understanding, the term climate change is jargon, and simply catches a greater diversity of atmospheric effects, which is exactly opposite to what science seeks. We need to narrow and tighten understanding, not create verbal grab bags.

hurricanes? climate change. poor crops? climate change. Snow in israel? climate change. snow in summer? ..... They need to stop with the conferencing and get back into the lab and ask why these things are happening.

Furthermore, proper scientific method requires a control. We only have one earth, so there is no possibility of a control. Its fine to do a simple test of various gas concentrations in sealed heated containers, but then it must be tested against the mechanisms of nature, WITH a control. Science of today cannot do that, so the theory that global warming(and climate change) is a runaway situation is unverifable.

Ultimately, the atmosphere is one bag of gas, and screaming "warmer earth, but localized cooling!" doesnt cut it. If world averages are going up, then these areas must become affected too.

"Climate change causes it!" is just like saying "God said so!". Fine. But it aint science.

Something i laugh at mirthlessly for yonks is when i was in America for holiday. a news report said 'Americans have been at the forefront of attempting to prevent Climate change and Global warming for decades now'

Erm...Wasn't that Japan and the Kyoto agreement...:rolleyes:

As a paediatrician I feel fully qualified to pronounce that global warming is definitely not happening, because it's a bit chilly outside, like.

As a paediatrician I feel fully qualified to pronounce that global warming is definitely not happening, because it's a bit chilly outside, like.

Its true. Over here in the UK its currently raining a bit, and theres a slight breeze off the Atlantic...

Something i laugh at mirthlessly for yonks is when i was in America for holiday. a news report said 'Americans have been at the forefront of attempting to prevent Climate change and Global warming for decades now'

Erm...Wasn't that Japan and the Kyoto agreement...:rolleyes:

I think you misheard the report. It was, "Americans have been at the forefront of attempting to prevent understanding of Climate Change and Global Warming for decades now."

Did I say they were wrong? No. I said they were not doing [great] science. If any. Science, as it has been well stated in NSG and many other places, by people far more intelligent that you and I, is thus:

a phenomena is observed. (the earth is warming)
A hypothesis is formed based on that. (man is causing it)
A test is preformed to try invalidate that hypothesis. (we warm up two jars of air, one with more Co2)
note the results(Co2 absorbs more heat)
a theory is formed(man made Co2 causes atmospheric warming)


at this point, you either continue doing science, or you start a religion and/or become an activist.

if you chose to continue with science, you tighten the constraints and conditions of your test, and retest your theory. At no point do you ever consider it proven, or again, you fall into virtual religion.


You can see evidence of that because they no longer say "global warming" now its "climate change". Unfortunately, instead of homing on a tighter understanding, the term climate change is jargon, and simply catches a greater diversity of atmospheric effects, which is exactly opposite to what science seeks. We need to narrow and tighten understanding, not create verbal grab bags.

hurricanes? climate change. poor crops? climate change. Snow in israel? climate change. snow in summer? ..... They need to stop with the conferencing and get back into the lab and ask why these things are happening.

Furthermore, proper scientific method requires a control. We only have one earth, so there is no possibility of a control. Its fine to do a simple test of various gas concentrations in sealed heated containers, but then it must be tested against the mechanisms of nature, WITH a control. Science of today cannot do that, so the theory that global warming(and climate change) is a runaway situation is unverifable.

Ultimately, the atmosphere is one bag of gas, and screaming "warmer earth, but localized cooling!" doesnt cut it. If world averages are going up, then these areas must become affected too.

"Climate change causes it!" is just like saying "God said so!". Fine. But it aint science.

I can do a somersault. Now, I'm a gymnast!

You can see evidence of that because they no longer say "global warming" now its "climate change". Unfortunately, instead of homing on a tighter understanding, the term climate change is jargon, and simply catches a greater diversity of atmospheric effects, which is exactly opposite to what science seeks. We need to narrow and tighten understanding, not create verbal grab bags./QUOTE]

no....sometimes you need to step back to be able see the bigger picture to understand what is happening...unusual weather conditions in one location may seem random until to you see the big picture and it's connection to events halfway around the globe...

hurricanes? climate change. poor crops? climate change. Snow in israel? climate change. snow in summer? ..... They need to stop with the conferencing and get back into the lab and ask why these things are happening.
/QUOTE] ya right ,that's all they do is conferencing....you may not have noticed till now but they've been studying this for decades, how long did you expect them to be silent on what they see as an end of civilization scenario...

[QUOTE]Furthermore, proper scientific method requires a control. We only have one earth, so there is no possibility of a control. Its fine to do a simple test of various gas concentrations in sealed heated containers, but then it must be tested against the mechanisms of nature, WITH a control. Science of today cannot do that, so the theory that global warming(and climate change) is a runaway situation is unverifable. [QUOTE] you may have heard of computer models/simulations...when fed the appropriate data computer climate prediction programs keep coming up with the same answer, they've even run the same programs backwards as a control to predict past climate changes and they were correct...

Ultimately, the atmosphere is one bag of gas,
a bag of gas? a more realistic description, an extremely thin and fragile layer of gases covering the planet... like a coat of varnish on a basketball

and screaming "warmer earth, but localized cooling!" doesnt cut it. If world averages are going up, then these areas must become affected too. ...there you go....with that statement you show that you do not grasp climate change...

snip

You're better at using less mocking.

I study chemistry, I do research, I geuss I'm a scientist. Whatever, I don't have to defend myself here. But let me say that studying the laws of matter makes it much easier to understand the ways in which the physical world operates.

I said global warming in my post because I meant "Global warming," not climate change. I don't believe humans are creating global warming. I also don't beleive humans are creating climate change on any relevant level. If you think I'm a self-riteous fool then fine, don't listen to me. But please evaluate the science surrounding this for yourself.

I also believe that the world's climatologists are not in total agreement about this.

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

for instance.

huh...someone who claims to be an objective scientist using wikipedia as a source...profs regularly give zero credit or failing marks for Uni students using Wiki as a source...

and I have evaluated the science for myself...in fact I'm quiet surprised when I hear some doubting scientists not understanding some very basic weather facts that I have known since I was a kid...

You're better at using less mocking.

yeah I can be mocking...but I get frustrated when I read irrational comments from intelligent people...then some making unverifiable claims of their intelligence and authority on the subject to back up their debate, even though their field of expertise is not in the debated topic...

I study chemistry, I do research, I geuss I'm a scientist. Whatever, I don't have to defend myself here. But let me say that studying the laws of matter makes it much easier to understand the ways in which the physical world operates.
Are you failing your studies?
(Claiming to be a scientist and then uttering believes like those in the quote below don't mix very well...)
I said global warming in my post because I meant "Global warming," not climate change. I don't believe humans are creating global warming. I also don't beleive humans are creating climate change on any relevant level. If you think I'm a self-riteous fool then fine, don't listen to me. But please evaluate the science surrounding this for yourself.
Then, please, read this, and reevaluate your stance:

Humans Responsible For Climate Change, Says UN Report (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463888,00.html)
Graphs on climate change/atmosphere change etc. (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MTkwNzAmbnI9MQ_3_3,00.html)
Global warming could cost 20% ($5.5 trillion) of world's total economic output - each year, that is! (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,447546,00.html)
More articles on the topic from spiegel.de (English edition) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,k-6975,00.html)

You can very well believe whatever you want, even that the earth is flat - it won't change anything that's going on in reality, though.
And yes, I do think you're a self-righteous, misinformed fool. :D

and an article in todays paper which is new to me, about a threat to the oceans from CO2 is worrying...it would suggest we may not be far of from a mass extinction...I'm hoping they are wrong...

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=ce536473-cc54-498b-a8a5-3f3e21241433&k=86280

It's called climate change. It doesn't get warmer everywhere. The average temp for the whole planet gets higher, but some spots get colder.
Credible arguments have been made that the whole concept of average global temperature is meaningless.

Credible arguments have been made that the whole concept of average global temperature is meaningless.
yeah and credible arguments have been made there was a 2nd shooter on the grassy knoll, that the lunar landings were staged on earth, and GWB planned 9/11...

Endotherms with FURcan survive low temperatures, T-rex had no fur...

Tyrannosaurus rex massed in excess of 5000 kg, with the more northern variaties massing around 7500 kg. It most likely had a body temperature higher than ours. It would have no trouble staying warm. Plus, as a coelurosaur, T. rex was descended from animals with feathers. It's not a long shot to assume that it was capable of growing a winter coat.

Credible arguments have been made that the whole concept of average global temperature is meaningless.

Got a reference for that? No, you don't. You never do.

[i] It's not a long shot to assume that it was capable of growing a winter coat. I'll admit it's a possibility but it is a long shot, feathers provide warmth but large animals also overheat easily that's why tropical elephants have no fur...no fossilized skin impressions have shown that large dinosaurs had feathers likely because of the over heating factor..and fossilized turtles found in the same region definitely didn't grow feathers...

...there you go....with that statement you show that you do not grasp climate change...

What I grasp about the weather is irrelevant. What matters is that theories are based on proper scientific method. I've not seen any proof of that.

Furthermore, a reputable scientist doesnt use themselves or their kids in a psychology experiment, because there is a loss of objectivity. Likewise, a scientist shouldnt expound on the vagarities of climate change. If they are to be scientists, they must be objective, and simply report the facts.

The Parisan nesting habits of political hacks has little to do with true science.

Are you failing your studies?
(Claiming to be a scientist and then uttering believes like those in the quote below don't mix very well...)

Then, please, read this, and reevaluate your stance:

Humans Responsible For Climate Change, Says UN Report (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,463888,00.html)
Graphs on climate change/atmosphere change etc. (http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/0,5538,PB64-SUQ9MTkwNzAmbnI9MQ_3_3,00.html)
Global warming could cost 20% ($5.5 trillion) of world's total economic output - each year, that is! (http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,447546,00.html)
More articles on the topic from spiegel.de (English edition) (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,k-6975,00.html)

You can very well believe whatever you want, even that the earth is flat - it won't change anything that's going on in reality, though.
And yes, I do think you're a self-righteous, misinformed fool. :D


about:

The first article: I have read a good bit of the IPCC report and I am not convinced its methods an assumptions are sound. Calculating future climate change does not have rules like physics or astronomy, where nearly every scientist agrees on how to go about calculating it. There is no one agreed upon method for realistically calculating climate change IMO simply becuase we have only been accurately measuring climate change since the launch of a few weather satellites 25 years ago.

The second article: again, not all scientists agree that climate change is a result of CO2 levels and some climatologists claim CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature. The earth has been in ice age before with 10 times the amount of CO2 that is in our atmosphere today.

The third article: This is a political article, not a scientific one.

I am still not convinced that humans are causing climate change.

Vice-chairman of the UN, Yuri Izrael has said: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."

What I grasp about the weather is irrelevant. What matters is that theories are based on proper scientific method. I've not seen any proof of that.

if you don't grasp the basics then what chance is there of you understanding any proof that may be presented to you?

The Parisan nesting habits of political hacks has little to do with true science.

well isn't that a wonderful attitude....if in the future an astronomer spots a asteroid hurtling towards earth he best not share his discovery at a conference of his peers...to do so he/she risks being labeled a political hack by those who don't understand his scientific specialty, it's best that the hacks keep those scary facts to themselves...

about:

The first article: I have read a good bit of the IPCC report and I am not convinced its methods an assumptions are sound. Calculating future climate change does not have rules like physics or astronomy, where nearly every scientist agrees on how to go about calculating it. There is no one agreed upon method for realistically calculating climate change IMO simply because we have only been accurately measuring climate change since the launch of a few weather satellites 25 years ago.

the leading climatologists delegates from countries around the world reach an agreement on the causes of climate change..but you know no more about their science than them...every country in the world wanted their delegates to be wrong, to come home from the conference and tell them climate change isn't happening...for conference of this size to have every country on side and in agreement is a first that may never happen again,....skepticism in science is good thing, but there comes a point where by denying the obvious explanations and you enter the world of the delusional...

The second article: again, not all scientists agree that climate change is a result of CO2 levels and some climatologists claim CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature. The earth has been in ice age before with 10 times the amount of CO2 that is in our atmosphere today.
and I could find articles from scientists who claim we're being visited by aliens... and these aliens have nothing better to do with their evenings off work than to entertain us by making crop circles....a few dissenters out of thousands isn't very convincing....

I am still not convinced that humans are causing climate change.as is your right to do...

Vice-chairman of the UN, Yuri Izrael has said: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."and he's a climatologist is he???..

the President of Iran doesn't believe in the Holocaust ...PM of Canada says Climate Change is Socialist plot to steal our money...GWB believes in climate change....the PM of Trinadad believes in alien abductions....so how does the vast scientific knowledge of any of those brilliant minds carry any weight?

I keep telling everybody.
Its not global warming or cooling we need to worry about!
ITS THE SPACE MONGOLS!

I keep telling everybody.
Its not global warming or cooling we need to worry about!
ITS THE SPACE MONGOLS!

were you at one time the Prime Minister of Trinidad & Tobago??

Ok, heres how it is, anyone who argues against Global Warming is a fuckin retard from now on. why? I have plain proof right here. I live in frigid damn wisconsin. our winters ussually last from october to april, and half the time its below zero. this winter, it was 50degrees in late december. 50 freaking degrees. That may seem normal to allot of you but up here thats practically shorts weather. We didnt even have snow or cold weather till the middle of Jan. And you know something else? winter is already over here. Earlier this week all the snow melted already and it got up to the 50s again. winter lasted about one month here. I like it, but hey I have to live here. Now this isnt just a freak thing, its been getting warmer and winters have been really lagging for about the past decade, so screw you guys, im goin home.

about:

The first article: I have read a good bit of the IPCC report and I am not convinced its methods an assumptions are sound. Calculating future climate change does not have rules like physics or astronomy, where nearly every scientist agrees on how to go about calculating it. There is no one agreed upon method for realistically calculating climate change IMO simply becuase we have only been accurately measuring climate change since the launch of a few weather satellites 25 years ago.
So we'll just sit and wait until all of those scientists have agreed on one method?
That would take forever! I'd rather act now on the hunch of a non-proven or not disproven theory than wait until it is too late to turn this thing around.

Besides, especially because climate (calculation) seems to be so very tricky - don't you think that's another good reason not to mess around with it?
The second article: again, not all scientists agree that climate change is a result of CO2 levels and some climatologists claim CO2 has nothing to do with global temperature. The earth has been in ice age before with 10 times the amount of CO2 that is in our atmosphere today.
Well, duh. Big surprise there.
Thing is, though: The human population and civilization didn't consist of 6.5 billion people all over the world. Our planet will be fine - but we won't be, and that's the problem.
The third article: This is a political article, not a scientific one.
Actually, it's not political but economical: Right now, it would take about 1% of the annual global economic output to avert what could cost 20% in damage repairs later on.
If you own stocks in insurance companies - now would be a good time to sell'em, because the future doesn't look too bright for'em...
I am still not convinced that humans are causing climate change.
Ignorance is strength, eh?
If you don't recognize a certain trend in changing weather patterns, crop failures, floods, droughts, extreme thunderstorms, heat waves during the summer etc. - I wouldn't know what would have to happen to convince you that things are changing, and not to the better!
Vice-chairman of the UN, Yuri Izrael has said: "There is no proven link between human activity and global warming."
Right. He's Putin's lap-dog for crying out loud:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/column.novak.opinion.russian/index.html

Global warming "might even be good," cracked Putin. "We'd spend less money on fur coats."

Ok, heres how it is, anyone who argues against Global Warming is a fuckin retard from now on. why? I have plain proof right here. I live in frigid damn wisconsin. our winters ussually last from october to april, and half the time its below zero. this winter, it was 50degrees in late december. 50 freaking degrees. That may seem normal to allot of you but up here thats practically shorts weather. We didnt even have snow or cold weather till the middle of Jan. And you know something else? winter is already over here. Earlier this week all the snow melted already and it got up to the 50s again. winter lasted about one month here. I like it, but hey I have to live here. Now this isnt just a freak thing, its been getting warmer and winters have been really lagging for about the past decade, so screw you guys, im goin home.

Anyone who argues for Global Warming is a frecking retard. Why? I live in Auckland, which normally gets mildish winters; nothing too cold, and reasonably warm weather, certainly warm enough to run a fan. Last winter, it got so cold that for a fortnight, there was frost on the ground every morning - I still remember seeing the one park white with frost. The Hunua Ranges in East Auckland got snow on June 12. This summer, it has been frecking cold; I normally have the fan running all day in the middle of summer, yet this summer, we only needed it for a week and a half in late November, and then for another week in late January - I have been able to walk around in a black jacket without feeling warm at all; that's right, a black jacket. Now this isn't a freak thing, it has been getting colder since the summer of 1998; and at the rate we are going, there will be snow in Auckland in the next few years.

Point being that you cannot use one isolated example. My evidence is based on ten unusual weather events that has happened worldwide over the last year. I bet you that even when we are in the middle of the next Ice Age, the scientists will still claim that we are having global warming.

Got a reference for that? No, you don't. You never do.

I'll bet Junkscience.com.

Anyone who argues for Global Warming is a frecking retard. Why? I live in Auckland, which normally gets mildish winters; nothing too cold, and reasonably warm weather, certainly warm enough to run a fan. Last winter, it got so cold that for a fortnight, there was frost on the ground every morning - I still remember seeing the one park white with frost. The Hunua Ranges in East Auckland got snow on June 12. This summer, it has been frecking cold; I normally have the fan running all day in the middle of summer, yet this summer, we only needed it for a week and a half in late November, and then for another week in late January - I have been able to walk around in a black jacket without feeling warm at all; that's right, a black jacket. Now this isn't a freak thing, it has been getting colder since the summer of 1998; and at the rate we are going, there will be snow in Auckland in the next few years.

Point being that you cannot use one isolated example. My evidence is based on ten unusual weather events that has happened worldwide over the last year. I bet you that even when we are in the middle of the next Ice Age, the scientists will still claim that we are having global warming.

You still fail to show how this is inconsistent with Global Warming, AKA Climate Change.

Looking at individual points of the earth and seeing cold weather DOES NOT disprove global warming. In fact, focusing on small bits of the earth were cold weather is going on and using that as evidence is not scientific.

As a scientist, I don't beleive that humans are causing global warming.

Here is an article that I cited in defense of science at a global warming conference at my university:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

Please do not worship Al Gore until you have heard the other side of the debate.

The guy works for a coal company... I found little in there that hasn't been answered ad infinitum.

So we'll just sit and wait until all of those scientists have agreed on one method?
That would take forever! I'd rather act now on the hunch of a non-proven or not disproven theory than wait until it is too late to turn this thing around.

Besides, especially because climate (calculation) seems to be so very tricky - don't you think that's another good reason not to mess around with it?

That is possibly one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard on this forum. We should also start building a giant laser cannon to zap the giant meteor that might hit earth right? Nevermind the science.

Well, duh. Big surprise there.
Thing is, though: The human population and civilization didn't consist of 6.5 billion people all over the world. Our planet will be fine - but we won't be, and that's the problem.

Suppose we are in trouble. What are we gonna do about it that is proven to be effective at this point? Laser cannons?


Actually, it's not political but economical: Right now, it would take about 1% of the annual global economic output to avert what could cost 20% in damage repairs later on.
If you own stocks in insurance companies - now would be a good time to sell'em, because the future doesn't look too bright for'em...

Thats interesting but irrelevant to my point.


Ignorance is strength, eh?
If you don't recognize a certain trend in changing weather patterns, crop failures, floods, droughts, extreme thunderstorms, heat waves during the summer etc. - I wouldn't know what would have to happen to convince you that things are changing, and not to the better!

I never said the climate wasn't changing, I said I don't think humans are responsible.

Right. He's Putin's lap-dog for crying out loud:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/16/column.novak.opinion.russian/index.html

Global warming "might even be good," cracked Putin. "We'd spend less money on fur coats."

I'm not going to pretend like I understand the UN to any great degree, but I just thought that quote was interesting because most people believe the UN is totally behind the IPCC reports 100%.

That is possibly one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard on this forum.
You've got to be kidding me!
We should also start building a giant laser cannon to zap the giant meteor that might hit earth right? Nevermind the science.

Suppose we are in trouble. What are we gonna do about it that is proven to be effective at this point? Laser cannons?
What is it with you and lasers?

Yes, we might have to think about what to do about meteors - but what exactly does that have to do with climate change? (Unless you mean that a meteor strike could cause a nuclear winter - aside from the other damage an impact would have)

Reduce our CO2 and CH4 emissions would be a very good start. That would also lessen the amount of H2O vapor that a heated-up atmosphere entails.

Thats interesting but irrelevant to my point.
Just like your meteors and lasers.

But I had hoped that €$₤¥ would be an incentive to rethink "our" current way of dealing with the situation. If people(s) realized that it would literally save trillions of dollars when they acted now, we all'd be better off in the long run.
I never said the climate wasn't changing, I said I don't think humans are responsible.
Did you also not believe that the reduction of the ozone layer was a direct result of manmade CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere in huge amounts?

This is pretty much the same - only that the system we humans are tinkering with is not yet completely understood. I mean, it not only includes the atmosphere but also the ocean currents, the sun's cycles and who knows what else.

We humans have changed the appearence of this planet over the last couple of thousand years and possibly started a lot earlier - but the real drastic changes appeared when the industrial revolution sped things up.

Why can't we have both? Honestly, we have nowhere near enough baseline to draw any sort of long term climatological inferences. Anything else is just bad (or at least, incomplete) science.

Honestly, we have nowhere near enough baseline to draw any sort of long term climatological inferences.

Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. We do.

Excuse me while I laugh my ass off. We do.

Uh, nope. With an earth history of billions of years, less than 10,000 is a blip.

Uh, nope. With an earth history of billions of years, less than 10,000 is a blip.

We have climate data going back to the fucking Mesozoic.

Why can't we have both?
Careful what you ask for - the oceans' currents could very well change, too - and I don't want to see what happens when the Gulf Stream stops!
Uh, nope. With an earth history of billions of years, less than 10,000 is a blip.
If I remember correctly, the oldest ice found on Greenland is 250.000 years old - so climatologists do have a reasonable timespan to work with.

*wishes he knew how to do that multiple quote in a post thing*
Sorry, guys. Archeological meteorological data is neccessarily incomplete. Speculation about atmospheric conditions prior to recorded observations is just that, speculation.

You still fail to show how this is inconsistent with Global Warming

Hmmm, what does global warming imply; that temperatures will increase, not freaking decrease - decreasing temperatures imply global cooling, and that theory was dispelled in the 1980s.

*wishes he knew how to do that multiple quote in a post thing*
You see http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/multiquote_off.gif next to http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/quote.gif? Click on it and it will turn to http://assets.jolt.co.uk/forums/nation_states/buttons/multiquote_on.gif and multiquote in the order you've marked the posts. ;)
Sorry, guys. Archeological meteorological data is neccessarily incomplete. Speculation about atmospheric conditions prior to recorded observations is just that, speculation.
The information scientists can read out of the ice layers, sediment layers, or tree rings isn't just guesswork, you know?
Hmmm, what does global warming imply; that temperatures will increase, not freaking decrease - decreasing temperatures imply global cooling, and that theory was dispelled in the 1980s.
Yes, and then there is this little thing called Global Dimming (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) that also has an influence on our climate...

if you don't grasp the basics then what chance is there of you understanding any proof that may be presented to you?


Grasp What? That in north western Canada we have freezing rain in january and february, when it should only be snow? That we have twice as much snow on the ground as we should? That winter, that used to arrive in october for me, now only appears in december? What am I failing grasp Pyrates?

WHy is it too much to expect perhaps one of 1500 or so minds to say "localized areas will experience cooling until this threshold..." "...expanding deciduous growth in the boreal and taiga forests will absorb an additional x tons of Co2 per year due to higher local temperatures and a greater supply of Co2, as well as a greater rainfall."

Dont they know? Wont they say? Does anyone have a model capable of answering such questions? Are any of them actually interested in finding such things out?

Hard Data. We want some freakin information about what will happen beyond "climate change!" "Warmer weather!" that isnt enough. Is that really all they have to say?


well isn't that a wonderful attitude....if in the future an astronomer spots a asteroid hurtling towards earth he best not share his discovery at a conference of his peers...to do so he/she risks being labeled a political hack by those who don't understand his scientific specialty, it's best that the hacks keep those scary facts to themselves...

Leave the asteroids and lasers to Soyut.

I assume they have specialties, but like I said above, all they seem to do is pat each other on the back and parrot the same damned things. When they are preaching, they are being political.

They dont need to gather in a cluster. Yuck. Thats just socializing and posturing. They have peer reviewed papers, internet, phones...

What they are doing is called "looking busy" when they really should <B>be</B> busy. You see that all the time in business. I mean, most people see definate effects in the evolution of weather, but no one is getting any hard data as to the effects.

Do I plan for a summer from july to september, and a fall from october to december, with winter being late january till late may? Will late winter rain and snow pile up retarding local spring conditions? How much will lower winter light levels slow the seeming advancement of the seasons?

If localized cooling can persist or happen in an area in abeyance to global trends, then global theories becomes useless to that area.

And you have not answered two questions. What is the control in the theory, and when when is blind faith useful(or part of) science?

A theory is a WORKING model, and never assumed to be true. If it is not continually subjected to scrutiny and refinement, it is dogma.

Curious Inquiry, the little blue and white "+ button beside the green quote button stores a list of pointers to each post you want to quote.

Press that on each post that you want to reference, and then press quote on the last one.

Grasp What? That in north western Canada we have freezing rain in january and february, when it should only be snow? That we have twice as much snow on the ground as we should? That winter, that used to arrive in october for me, now only appears in december? What am I failing grasp Pyrates?

WHy is it too much to expect perhaps one of 1500 or so minds to say "localized areas will experience cooling until this threshold..." "...expanding deciduous growth in the boreal and taiga forests will absorb an additional x tons of Co2 per year due to higher local temperatures and a greater supply of Co2, as well as a greater rainfall."

Dont they know? Wont they say? Does anyone have a model capable of answering such questions? Are any of them actually interested in finding such things out?
Hard Data. We want some freakin information about what will happen beyond "climate change!" "Warmer weather!" that isnt enough. Is that really all they have to say?



Leave the asteroids and lasers to Soyut.

I assume they have specialties, but like I said above, all they seem to do is pat each other on the back and parrot the same damned things. When they are preaching, they are being political.

They dont need to gather in a cluster. Yuck. Thats just socializing and posturing. They have peer reviewed papers, internet, phones...

What they are doing is called "looking busy" when they really should <B>be</B> busy. You see that all the time in business. I mean, most people see definate effects in the evolution of weather, but no one is getting any hard data as to the effects.

Do I plan for a summer from july to september, and a fall from october to december, with winter being late january till late may? Will late winter rain and snow pile up retarding local spring conditions? How much will lower winter light levels slow the seeming advancement of the seasons?

If localized cooling can persist or happen in an area in abeyance to global trends, then global theories becomes useless to that area.

And you have not answered two questions. What is the control in the theory, and when when is blind faith useful(or part of) science?

A theory is a WORKING model, and never assumed to be true. If it is not continually subjected to scrutiny and refinement, it is dogma.

A theory is, indeed, considered a working model. While climate is a complex, non-linear system, meaning that the specific effects are virtually impossible to predict beyond a very broad level, it is quite clear that something is happening. Correlating written temperature records against greenhouse gas concentrations from ice cores, resulting in a match too perfect to be reasonably labeled "coincidence" = good evidence. Even existing events can fit the scientific method. The control was steady release of CFCs into the atmosphere. The result was ozone degradation. The experiment was restricting/banning CFCs. The result was (and continues to be) ozone recovery. While, perhaps, it isn't a perfect control (other aspects of changing atmospheric conditions applied then and now), assuming that the relevant outside variables average out over time (those that have been chemically verified under laboratory conditions), as can be reasonably based on other records and experimental evidence, it has demonstrated strong enough evidence of a causal relationship that it can be accepted as theory, particularly since scientific disciplines such as climatology and atmospheric chemistry are particularly difficult to reduce to models. That's the other aspect of science that many people here are overlooking: models are not perfect. A certain degree of logical extrapolation is useful, indeed necessary, for good science in many cases. The way to prevent that extrapolation from running amok is to bring together research and experimental evidence from a wide array of relevant sources and synthesize the conclusions, weighting them for their experimental soundness and statistical breadth, into a broader portrait of the system in question. It is through this process, of intensive research, laboratory experimentation, theory development, interdisciplinary synthesis of ideas, and weighing together all the information, that the modern portrait of global climate change has emerged. Now, it is time for the definitive experiment. We can see certain effects around us, so now we need to cut CO2 emissions and observe whether or not it likewise corresponds to certain effects. When that happens, the scientific method that generated the modern theory of climate change will serve to vindicate its own conclusions, and the portrait of climate change, with the undoubted refinements and adjustments that are constantly being added to any theory, will be able to achieve the status of a scientific Law, that is, something that has been demonstrated true with such reliability and with the mechanistic explanation sufficiently well-understood that it can be averred to be true. Right now, putting a match to gasoline causing fire is a Law. Soon, hopefully, the CO2 released by that gasoline into the atmosphere causing a warming trend will also be a Law.

The difference between the modern climate change theory and the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s is preponderance of evidence and scientific consensus, the latter being built upon the former and not vice-versa. Global Cooling was based on a few findings of laboratory models that were seized by the media and hyped for a few cheap ratings. Once again, media hype has an irritating tendency to grossly distort science into controversy or proof where none exists. The current "debate" within the scientific community is exactly such a situation: debate=controversy=ratings.

G
Hard Data. We want some freakin information about what will happen beyond "climate change!" "Warmer weather!" that isnt enough. Is that really all they have to say?

the average person has no interest in the details so the media isn't interested, the details usually end up on the back pages of the paper or the Discovery Channel....if you want the technical details they are out there but you need to look for them...taiga forests process a fraction of Co2 that a equal sized tropical rain forest can, and were losing those at an alarming rate....

They dont need to gather in a cluster. Yuck. Thats just socializing and posturing. They have peer reviewed papers, internet, phones...

What they are doing is called "looking busy" when they really should <B>be</B> busy. You see that all the time in business. I mean, most people see definate effects in the evolution of weather, but no one is getting any hard data as to the effects. -actually they did need to be political, along with the various countries representative scientists there were many politicians, Canada's delegation included the Minster of the Environment...yes the delegates knew what the facts beforehand ...this meeting was about drafting a report to present to their governments and the public, they needed a 100% unanimity on the wording of the report so a conference was the only way to do it...and to have maximum impact a huge conference does get the publics attention which was crucial when sending the message to governments....

Do I plan for a summer from july to september, and a fall from october to december, with winter being late january till late may? Will late winter rain and snow pile up retarding local spring conditions? How much will lower winter light levels slow the seeming advancement of the seasons? short term weather predictions are very difficult to predict...next year could be the hottest on record or it could be colder than this year....and again it's climate change, what will happen where or when is an unknown and not a certainty...this has never happened to us before, will the Gulf Stream slow or stop? will Europe get colder or tropical.....the trend now is spring will come earlier and winter later...

And you have not answered two questions. What is the control in the theory, and when when is blind faith useful(or part of) science?

well we don't have twin planet to run tests on do we...so computer models have to do(engineers use them and they do work), feeding in the appropiate data gives a model for future climate change, I know some climate models were run backwards as a test(control) of the simulation and they accurately mirrored past climate conditions... and models accurately predicted CFC's and the damage they were causing the Ozone at Poles, they determined what needed to be done and how long it would take to repair the damage, so far it's all proved quite accurate...

A theory is a WORKING model, and never assumed to be true. If it is not continually subjected to scrutiny and refinement, it is dogma.

well that maybe true but ignoring the evidence because it's "dogma" and not good science could have catastrophic consequences...if predictions are correct and we ignore the warnings this could be a end of mankind situation...if they are wrong and we waste trillions of dollars, the planet will be healthier, we'll be better off if a little poorer and much wiser....there is no downside to heeding the warnings...

Hmmm, what does global warming imply; that temperatures will increase, not freaking decrease - decreasing temperatures imply global cooling, and that theory was dispelled in the 1980s.

You have access to the internet, I can tell. Here is a page that will help you:
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&ned=us&tab=nw&q=
In the blank space type: "Global Warming" or "Climate Change".

Read. A lot. As much as you can. When it gets tough, think to yourself, "Reading is fundamental."

Anyone who argues for Global Warming is a frecking retard. Why? I live in Auckland, which normally gets mildish winters; nothing too cold, and reasonably warm weather, certainly warm enough to run a fan. Last winter, it got so cold that for a fortnight, there was frost on the ground every morning - I still remember seeing the one park white with frost. The Hunua Ranges in East Auckland got snow on June 12. This summer, it has been frecking cold; I normally have the fan running all day in the middle of summer, yet this summer, we only needed it for a week and a half in late November, and then for another week in late January - I have been able to walk around in a black jacket without feeling warm at all; that's right, a black jacket. Now this isn't a freak thing, it has been getting colder since the summer of 1998; and at the rate we are going, there will be snow in Auckland in the next few years.

Point being that you cannot use one isolated example. My evidence is based on ten unusual weather events that has happened worldwide over the last year. I bet you that even when we are in the middle of the next Ice Age, the scientists will still claim that we are having global warming.


Wow, I don't care about your fancy "10" weather events whatever. You probably made half of them up and the other half don't mean anything. I don't give a shit what a scientist says either. All I can tell you is that if you were from around here, and saw what I've seen over the past year + you'd be saying otherwise. Go pedal your deluted arguments to some NeoCons.

You've got to be kidding me!

No I'm serious, thats pretty dumb

What is it with you and lasers?

Yes, we might have to think about what to do about meteors - but what exactly does that have to do with climate change? (Unless you mean that a meteor strike could cause a nuclear winter - aside from the other damage an impact would have)

The point that I was trying to make must now be spelled out in moron-proof language. Some scientist theorize that a giant meteor will someday hit earth and kill all of humanity. This may or may not happen, nobody can prove if it will or not. So building an enormous laser cannon to zap the meteor that might hit earth is the same as enacting alot of expensive litigation that might save the climate of the earth a little bit because nobody can prove that humans are causing global warming.


Reduce our CO2 and CH4 emissions would be a very good start. That would also lessen the amount of H2O vapor that a heated-up atmosphere entails.

Nobody can prove that that will do a damn thing but hurt our economy.


But I had hoped that €$₤¥ would be an incentive to rethink "our" current way of dealing with the situation. If people(s) realized that it would literally save trillions of dollars when they acted now, we all'd be better off in the long run.

That idea at present, has no proven science to support it.

Did you also not believe that the reduction of the ozone layer was a direct result of manmade CFCs being pumped into the atmosphere in huge amounts?

I'm not sure. Paleoclimatologists say the hole in our ozone was there before CFCs were invented so maybe not.

This is pretty much the same - only that the system we humans are tinkering with is not yet completely understood. I mean, it not only includes the atmosphere but also the ocean currents, the sun's cycles and who knows what else.

exactely!


We humans have changed the appearence of this planet over the last couple of thousand years and possibly started a lot earlier - but the real drastic changes appeared when the industrial revolution sped things up.

What!? The earth has a history of violent climate change millions of years older than the industrial revolution.

Nobody can prove that that will do a damn thing but hurt our economy.

we know for certain that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere must lead to an increased greenhouse effect. this is just a fact about the nature of CO2, the sun, and infrared radiation. we know that we are pumping out gigatons of the stuff every year. we know that the atmospheric increase is entirely accounted for by human activities. so yeah, in so far as science can prove anything, we have proven this.

Paleoclimatologists say the hole in our ozone was there before CFCs were invented so maybe not.

source?

What!? The earth has a history of violent climate change millions of years older than the industrial revolution.

and any time its operated on a timescale anything like this change, the results have been catastrophic. and unlike the other times, this change is the result of entities that are at least technically able to regulate their activities and fix the damn problem.

I recall learning that global warming is thought to bring about another ice age in a freshman (college) general science class. These two things (global warming & the next ice age) are inescapably intertwined, from what I see, and everyone I've ever spoken to with any education on the subject has agreed. It's not "global warming OR ice age." It's "global warming AND ice age."

There are two questions I don't think I've ever heard answered in a discussion like this.

1) If the environment is being destroyed now by the activities of humans today but wasn't being destroyed by the activities of humans in the past, to what point in history would you like us to return to?

2) If the worlds current temperature is too high or higher than normal, what should it current global temperature be?

There are two questions I don't think I've ever heard answered in a discussion like this.

1) If the environment is being destroyed now by the activities of humans today but wasn't being destroyed by the activities of humans in the past, to what point in history would you like us to return to?

2) If the worlds current temperature is too high or higher than normal, what should it current global temperature be?

my response from the last time you asked (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12294178&postcount=28) still stands

my response from the last time you asked (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12294178&postcount=28) still stands
"1) If the environment is being destroyed now by the activities of humans today but wasn't being destroyed by the activities of humans in the past, to what point in history would you like us to return to?" is not nonsensical, if you believe that serious damage is being done to the environement by human activity now but wasn't at some point in the past, when was that?

Perhaps I should rephrase to determine the stage of our development you believe we should never have achieved. At what point in the history of our development do you believe that human activity began to have a negative imapct on the environment we inhabit?

Perhaps I should rephrase to determine the stage of our development you believe we should never have achieved. At what point in the history of our development do you believe that human activity began to have a negative imapct on the environment we inhabit?

as long as we are playing imagine, the neolithic revolution was bad news on every imaginable front.

but we have the ability now to do better than we ever did.

as long as we are playing imagine, the neolithic revolution was bad news on every imaginable front.
Great...an anarcho-primitivist. Like we needed one more.

but we have the ability now to do better than we ever did.
Ah, then you support the use of a combination of coal and agricultural greenhouses and nuclear fission provided by large, privately owned and operated corporations for our future energy needs then? So do I. Though I must admit I never figured you a supporter of either. Or freedom of choice.

Well kids, this tune is annoying, yes I know it's really annoying, I can't get this song out my head, make it stop this tune is annoying, I gotta go to work in the morning...

What part of Global Warming don't you understand. Now the Middle East has been added to the list of places experiencing abnormal weather. How can there be global warming when so many places throughout the globe are experiencing abnormal weather? As Harlesburg stated, the Tararua Ranges had snow on them last month; it is the middle of frecking Summer down here, and we are getting snow in a place that normally does not get that much snow even in the middle of Winter. There has been snow in much of the southern United States over the last few months, and that has never been seen before. There has been snow for the first time in six decades in Nepal. If there was global warming, then you would not get bloody snow in Los Angeles now, would you?

Yes, actually, you very probably would.

Let's see if I can put this in very simple terms:

1. Air and ocean temperatures affect weather patterns.
2. Ergo, if air and ocean temperatures change, weather patterns will change.

It's strange to me that people seem entirely aware of the fact that meteorology is a complicated enough science that the weatherman can't tell you for sure whether or not it will rain tomorrow in Cleveland, but cannot comprehend the idea that climate change cannot be simplified into "next year, each day will be exactly 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the same date was this year." It is absolutely possible for an increase in average global temperature to cause localized ice ages, let alone the occasional cold winter.

Great...an anarcho-primitivist.

not so much, no. just stating objective fact.

so now that your questions have been answered a second time, any more flat-earther talking points to spew?

Global warming is definetly happening. No question. The only people who refuse to accept it are some americans. NOT ALL AMERICANS but some. Sadly this small group of idiots is known as the US Government.

P.S I do not hate Americans

There are two questions I don't think I've ever heard answered in a discussion like this.

1) If the environment is being destroyed now by the activities of humans today but wasn't being destroyed by the activities of humans in the past, to what point in history would you like us to return to?

2) If the worlds current temperature is too high or higher than normal, what should it current global temperature be?

1) I don't understand why we would have to return to some point in the past. The idea is to move forward with better and cleaner technology. The past is what got us at this point.

2) "the naturally occurring greenhouse gases maintain the average global temperature at around 15 C. This is an ideal temperature for the human race, amongst others, to breed and to develop." http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/az/alphabet21.shtml

Most global warming arguements are based on: "I don't want it to happen, so therefore it can't YAY! *happy thoughts*"

10 hottest years on record were recorded within the last 14 years.

I want to have Al Gore's children. Mostly because he was on Futurama several times

1) I don't understand why we would have to return to some point in the past.

because dosuun wants to pretend like he can ignore global warming by showing that its supporters are dark ages idealizing primitivists. really, its a poorly thought out ad hominem on at least two fronts. firstly, because almost none of us are. and secondly, because it's his side that fears and hates empiricism and rationality.

i wouldnt like to call all of you idiots, im gonna be short and simple:

earth goes warm and cold every year, cuz of the loop that earth makes around the sun, we call it summer and winter. happens that theres other factors, the loop is made by gravity and gravity isnt allways the same, there have been alot of ice ages since earth existed, the humans already experiened one. happens that cuz of pollution we accelarated the process and the world is becoming much warmer than it should, wich accelarates whats coming next, ice age.

get it? pollution->global warming->ice age

being the earth so unballanecd cuz of our pollutive stupidity theres natural iccidents coming more often, like storms, tornados, unbalanced tides, viollent changes in our environment. Portugal have experienced one of the driest years last year, now we experiencing one of the wetest i guess. also very hot late summer, was even hot at winter's doorsm, still is some days, and very cold in winter.

Snip

What I want you to do is highlight your post, copy it, open Microsoft word, paste it, count how many red and green lines there are, slap yourself for each one that appears after four, right click and fix each one (it does it for you too :eek:), copy that, edit your post, paste, and save. Now before ever even using the word 'idiot' I want you to remember that while grammar doesn't really count, it'll save you some embarrassment, and me posting anymore run on sentences.

because dosuun wants to pretend like he can ignore global warming by showing that its supporters are dark ages idealizing primitivists. really, its a poorly thought out ad hominem on at least two fronts. firstly, because almost none of us are. and secondly, because it's his side that fears and hates empiricism and rationality.

types of skeptics as I see it, feel free to add more....

1- a natural process...evolution has given us a number of personality types from one extreme to another, to create a balance.....having liberal thinkers is what has made us successful because curiosity drive's us forward socially and scientifically....conservative skeptics/deniers slow us down just enough to make sure we don't harm ourselves(liberalism and enlightenment always wins in the end)....

2-ideologues, who are so entrenched in their beliefs that it incomprehensible that they can be wrong....they're poor losers who also can't admit defeat, the waters will be rising up to their necks and they'll still deny it's happening to save face....even when surrounded by Russians Hitler to his last days believed Germany would win the war...

3-the nutty,ignorant/lazy or just stupid....nutty- the conspiracy theorists, alien abduction types, anything but the obvious.....the ignorant/lazy-the evidence is there they just don't know it or are to lazy to look for it......stupid-no matter how often you explain it to them they just don't have enough knowledge to understand it....

No I'm serious, thats pretty dumb
How so?

And please make sure to spell it out moron-proof as well... :rolleyes:

The point that I was trying to make must now be spelled out in moron-proof language. Some scientist theorize that a giant meteor will someday hit earth and kill all of humanity. This may or may not happen, nobody can prove if it will or not.
Since giant meteor impacts have happened before, it's not a question of if, rather of when. Why else do you think scientists look out for objects that cross our planet's path and could come too close?
So building an enormous laser cannon to zap the meteor that might hit earth is the same as enacting alot of expensive litigation that might save the climate of the earth a little bit because nobody can prove that humans are causing global warming.
The point is, though, that the theory is "Humans are causing Global Climate Change" and you can't disprove that.
Nobody can prove that that will do a damn thing but hurt our economy.
That idea at present, has no proven science to support it.
Actually, investing in technology that reduces our economies' impact on the climate not only will save money in the long run - it's a whole business sector of itself, making a lot of money.

If you want to miss out on that opportunity - tough luck, you'll have to buy the technology from others who did invest in it.
I'm not sure. Paleoclimatologists say the hole in our ozone was there before CFCs were invented so maybe not.
Right. And banning the use of CFCs as propellants or coolants and the resulting stabilization of the ozone layer are just a coincidence that happened by chance? Get a grip on reality. Global reality, that is.
exactely!
But we already are tinkering with our climate in a manner that nobody can fathom.
It's like "I built this machine and if you press this here button, something will hapen" - if we follow your approach, you'll hit the button without knowing what will happen.
My approach would entail asking what the machine does, first, and thinking about the consequences beforehand.
Too bad that the button has been pushed 150 years in the past - but we could still pull the plug now before it's too late.
What!? The earth has a history of violent climate change millions of years older than the industrial revolution.
Earth might have - but the human race and civilization would have a very hard time adjusting and adopting to extreme, violent climate change were it to happen now.
Whole civilizations have collapsed due to changing climate conditions. What do you think makes us different from those before us?

You really are willfully ignorant, ain't ya?

P.S.: Your posts wouldn't have made more sense had you posted them a third time!

What I want you to do is highlight your post, copy it, open Microsoft word, paste it, count how many red and green lines there are, slap yourself for each one that appears after four, right click and fix each one (it does it for you too :eek:), copy that, edit your post, paste, and save. Now before ever even using the word 'idiot' I want you to remember that while grammar doesn't really count, it'll save you some embarrassment, and me posting anymore run on sentences.
I count 20 strokes - is that your outcome as well?

I count 20 strokes - is that your outcome as well?

I counted 30 actually.

I counted 30 actually.
Mmh. Looks like my Word only marked the unknown words red. I didn't even have green lines (for grammar?).
Anyway - it's gotta hurt! (<- just one! Lucky me. :p)

we know for certain that increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere must lead to an increased greenhouse effect. this is just a fact about the nature of CO2, the sun, and infrared radiation. we know that we are pumping out gigatons of the stuff every year. we know that the atmospheric increase is entirely accounted for by human activities. so yeah, in so far as science can prove anything, we have proven this.

Stop saying that. To begin with, nobody can prove that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature. One can look at charts, make good geusses, but prove nothing at this point.

About 3% of all CO2 in our atmosphere comes from humans (something like 6 billion tons). To emphasize my point that's only about 6.569454545*10^37 atoms(thats right, I converted it to atoms).

If you throw an apple up into the air, it will fall down. This has been well established. It remains to be seen however, that increasing the earth's cumulative CO2 level by 3% among hundreds of other unconsidered and unrecognized variables, will cause the climate to become hotter. Has it ever happened before? No, besides breathing, farting and camp fires, humans have only recently started contributing CO2 to the atmosphere.

This is my goddamn source.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

and here is the math I did, please check it:

6 billion tons * 2000 lbs per ton/ 2.2 lbs per kilogram * 1000g per Kg / 44 grams per mol * 6.022E23 atoms per mole

=6.569454545*10^37

Most global warming arguements are based on: "I don't want it to happen, so therefore it can't YAY! *happy thoughts*"

10 hottest years on record were recorded within the last 14 years.

I want to suck on Al Gore's Cock so bad I get lumps in my throat thinking about it.

During the last 100 years there have been two general cycles of warming and cooling recorded in the U.S. We are currently in the second warming cycle. Overall, U.S. temperatures show no significant warming trend over the last 100 years (1). This has been well - established but not well - publicized.

source:
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

That is also bullshit for the simple reason that the earth has been hotter in the past.

Stop saying that. To begin with, nobody can prove that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature. One can look at charts, make good geusses, but prove nothing at this point.

About 3% of all CO2 in our atmosphere comes from humans (something like 6 billion tons). To emphasize my point that's only about 6.569454545*10^37 atoms(thats right, I converted it to atoms).

If you throw an apple up into the air, it will fall down. This has been well established. It remains to be seen however, that increasing the earth's cumulative CO2 level by 3% among hundreds of other unconsidered and unrecognized variables, will cause the climate to become hotter. Has it ever happened before? No, besides breathing, farting and camp fires, humans have only recently started contributing CO2 to the atmosphere.

This is my goddamn source.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

and here is the math I did, please check it:

6 billion tons * 2000 lbs per ton/ 2.2 lbs per kilogram * 1000g per Kg / 44 grams per mol * 6.022E23 atoms per mole

=6.569454545*10^37

Here is also a source with which to damn Gods
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Stop saying that. To begin with, nobody can prove that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature. One can look at charts, make good geusses, but prove nothing at this point.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it ain't true, dude.
About 3% of all CO2 in our atmosphere comes from humans (something like 6 billion tons). [...]
If you throw an apple up into the air, it will fall down. This has been well established. It remains to be seen however, that increasing the earth's cumulative CO2 level by 3% among hundreds of other unconsidered and unrecognized variables, will cause the climate to become hotter. Has it ever happened before? No, besides breathing, farting and camp fires, humans have only recently started contributing CO2 to the atmosphere.
So how do you know that increasing the overall CO2 levels by another manmade 1-2%, or even "only" 0.5%, will not change the whole system? You don't!

Seeing how ever-so-slightly increased CO2 levels have an immediate impact on our metabolism - how can you be so sure that it won't have the same on, mmh, let's say - bacteria and algae that make up the basis of the foodchains and -networks on this planet?

This is my goddamn source.
http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
Interesting. A topic as complex as the global climate, intertwined with ocean temperature, air currents, ocean currents, change in vegitation, water cycles, sun cycles, global dimming, distribution of particulate matter and what not is explained on a page consisting of what? 12 pages of randomn bits of information?
Come on. Why not take a look at other sources as well, eh? Although, that could result in more information that wouldn't fit into your limited view of the world - so be careful about that... :D

and here is the math I did, please check it:
6 billion tons * 2000 lbs per ton/ 2.2 lbs per kilogram * 1000g per Kg / 44 grams per mol * 6.022E23 atoms per mole
=6.569454545*10^37
While you're doing math, you're not doing the math!

The reason that global warming may cause an ice age is becuase when all the ice melts in Green land, Antartica, etc... it melts into the NAC (north atlantic current) which basically is the reason Western Europe and places like that are not like Canada even though they are on the same longitude. The fresh water from the ice melts into the NAC causing it (mabey) to stop flowing.

That is also bullshit for the simple reason that the earth has been hotter in the past.
Just like some women...
Here is also a source with which to damn Gods
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/
Hehe:

Over the last 150 years, carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have risen from 280 to nearly 380 parts per million (ppm). The fact that this is due virtually entirely to human activities is so well established that one rarely sees it questioned.
Whoopsy, huh?. :D

Stop saying that. To begin with, nobody can prove that CO2 has anything to do with global temperature.

actually, we can demonstrate it with a rather simple experiment involving jars with different gases and a light bulb for energy input. we'd need to be wrong about some fairly fundamental aspects of physics to be wrong about CO2


About 3% of all CO2 in our atmosphere comes from humans (something like 6 billion tons). To emphasize my point that's only about 6.569454545*10^37 atoms(thats right, I converted it to atoms).

emphasizing how wrong you are doesn't help your argument.

the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activities is the 100+ parts per million its gone up since the start of the industrial revolution. that's 100+ on top of 280, otherwise known as increasing it by ~35%. and the rate of increase is itself increasing.

100s of refutable scientific journals, or this flaming moron. Oh god I just can't pick!

Whoopsy, huh?. :D
My amazement is constant.

100s of refutable scientific journals, or this flaming moron. Oh god I just can't pick!
Don't force yourself to a decision just yet. Think about it! :p

My amazement is constant.
On a constant high? 'Cause I'm still higher-than-normal amazed at (t)his ignorance.

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it ain't true, dude.

Your absolutely right.

So how do you know that increasing the overall CO2 levels by another manmade 1-2%, or even "only" 0.5%, will not change the whole system? You don't!

Nope, and neither do you. Thats my point.

Seeing how ever-so-slightly increased CO2 levels have an immediate impact on our metabolism - how can you be so sure that it won't have the same on, mmh, let's say - bacteria and algae that make up the basis of the foodchains and -networks on this planet?

Man I have no idea. What do you think?

Interesting. A topic as complex as the global climate, intertwined with ocean temperature, air currents, ocean currents, change in vegitation, water cycles, sun cycles, global dimming, distribution of particulate matter and what not is explained on a page consisting of what? 12 pages of randomn bits of information?
Come on. Why not take a look at other sources as well, eh? Although, that could result in more information that wouldn't fit into your limited view of the world - so be careful about that... :D

I have looked at alot of sources. They article that I love to cite, http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
is actually a compillation of a dozen or so scientific articles that are linked to at the bottom of it.

While you're doing math, you're not doing the math!

I don't know why you typed all of this out, but I agree with all of it except the part where you say I can't do math.

Here is also a source with which to damn Gods
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

Yup, humans are adding carbon dioxide to our atmosphere. Like I said, 6.569454545*10^37 atoms. Nonetheless I will take this oppurtunity to damn God.

Nope, and neither do you. Thats my point.

Er, no, it's pretty damn obvious that we do know it will, since it already has.

actually, we can demonstrate it with a rather simple experiment involving jars with different gases and a light bulb for energy input. we'd need to be wrong about some fairly fundamental aspects of physics to be wrong about CO2

Are you talking about Charles Law of Gas? Yes, as the pressure of CO2 increases, the temperature of the CO2 will increase more than O2 would with the same amount of pressure. What you must understand is that our atmosphere is much more complicated than one law of physics might suggest.


emphasizing how wrong you are doesn't help your argument.

What? Is my math wrong? Then prove to me that there isn't 6.569454545*10^37 atoms of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere as a result of human action.[/QUOTE]

the increase in atmospheric CO2 due to human activities is the 100+ parts per million its gone up since the start of the industrial revolution. that's 100+ on top of 280, otherwise known as increasing it by ~35%. and the rate of increase is itself increasing.

35% huh. Thats pretty unbelievable. So where is your source?

Er, no, it's pretty damn obvious that we do know it will, since it already has.

Tell me, what has it already done? Raise the temperature of the earth? Nobody can prove this.

Tell me, what has it already done? Raise the temperature of the earth? Nobody can prove this.

Nothing is proven in science. Anyone with the slightest amount of knowledge about science would make such a statement as that.

Oh, by the way, global average temperatures have risen. The only variable that has changed is the amount of greenhouses gases. Ergo, greenhouse gases raise the temperature of the earth, just like all those models predicted.

Nothing is proven in science. Anyone with the slightest amount of knowledge about science would make such a statement as that.

I'm sorry, you got me. I meant, Nobody has proven this. And I also contend that science has proven things, but thats another debate.

Oh, by the way, global average temperatures have risen. The only variable that has changed is the amount of greenhouses gases. Ergo, greenhouse gases raise the temperature of the earth, just like all those models predicted.

That is not the only variable and what models are you talking about? There is no model that has proven global warming or cooling. The IPCC reports were established a few years ago. So if the climate of the earth behaves exactely as the IPCC report says it will for the next 10 centuries, they might well prove something.

Are you talking about Charles Law of Gas? Yes, as the pressure of CO2 increases, the temperature of the CO2 will increase more than O2 would with the same amount of pressure. What you must understand is that our atmosphere is much more complicated than one law of physics might suggest.

tell you what, you give us something other than the increase in greenhouse gases that even begins to explain the observed data. go on, go for it.

What? Is my math wrong?

your first number was completely silly. we put approximately 24 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air from burning fossil fuels last year alone

35% huh. Thats pretty unbelievable.

actually, it may be closing in on 40% by now. i'm sorry you have trouble believing reality, but we have direct measurements of all of this. and you can find the numbers yourself with a simple google search. shit, it's on fucking wikipedia even.

1) I don't understand why we would have to return to some point in the past. The idea is to move forward with better and cleaner technology. The past is what got us at this point.
I don't think we do need to either, but I have heard self-proclaimed environmentalists promote radical changes that would eventually lead to a discrading of modern (powered) technology in favor of what I consider back-breaking labor on organic farms.

2) "the naturally occurring greenhouse gases maintain the average global temperature at around 15 C. This is an ideal temperature for the human race, amongst others, to breed and to develop." http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/az/alphabet21.shtml
So it's always been around 15 C? Never changed before? Never been hotter or colder than that? You do know that Greenland was once green, right? And that my home state of Minnesota was once under something like a quarter mile of solid ice, right?

In the second sentance it says "The big difference this time around is that the major component of the change is not the natural variation but the activities of the human race" but I have always been under the impression that humans are a part of nature, a bipedal mammilian life-form.

A fun factoid, termites outweigh humans 10 to 1 and are responsible for a lot of the world's pollution as they produce the largest amount of methane out of all animals. [Source: Guiness Book of Records 1998]. It's not all about CO2 (which happens to be just what the botanist ordered for nearly everything rooted and green thing on the face of this backwater mudball), there are other gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect. And the greenhouse effect is not a bad thing either, nor should it ever be confused with global warming, cooling, or climate change. Without a greenhouse effect and the atmosphere that provides it we'd all freeze to death at night or burn to death during the day.

One more thing, (this one's for FS) I'd really appreciate it if you would stop using the term "flat-earther" to describe educated individuals such as myself. I do not believe in a flat earth and find the term incorrect and insulting. Now, I could sink to the level of the common professional protester by labeling you a gullible, vicarious, condescending retard but I don't see anything constructive coming about as a result.

100s of refutable scientific journals, or this flaming moron. Oh god I just can't pick!Don't pick. Understand what it's about instead.

I was gonna pick a handful of absurdities on the last page here, but.. I doubt I can do it without flaming people to death, so I'll refrain. But here's a quick primer:
Get to know the basics of how the atmosphere works. What it's made of, why it's made of it & what regulates the gas volumes. Get to know the basics of climate sensitivity & how regional & global climate interacts, and get to know the basics of feedbacks.

If you do that - and it's really not that taxing to get the basic idea - you'll be able to discern what's disinformation & what's not. And reading this thread'll prolly feel like getting lobotomised with a fucking lawnmower afterwards. Does to me at least.

You don't get to pick a reality that agrees with you, you twits. You get the one that is. Cherrypicking facts & voting on the weather matters fuck-all. Take your pseudo-science & shove it.

tell you what, you give us something other than the increase in greenhouse gases that even begins to explain the observed data. go on, go for it.

Alright, among many theories, my favorite has to do with astrophysics. It says that patterns of temperature found in ice core samples can be explained by the nature of earth's orbit around the sun. Cycles of temperature can be equated to cycles of orbit.

# 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
# 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
# 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
# 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

NOTE: this remains to be completely proven, just like the greenhouse gas theory. Perhaps the climate of the earth has nothing to do with either its path of orbit around the sun or a minor change in atmospheric composition. Perhaps its a combination of both. No one can really say at this point.

your first number was completely silly. we put approximately 24 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air from burning fossil fuels last year alone

Thats interesting, how do you know this. Do you have a source?

actually, it may be closing in on 40% by now. i'm sorry you have trouble believing reality, but we have direct measurements of all of this. and you can find the numbers yourself with a simple google search. shit, it's on fucking wikipedia even.

wow, yes you are right. Carbon dioxide levels have gone up. The math that I did was to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans anually. I estimated this at 3% compared to naturally occuring CO2. Seeing as how the level of carbon dioxide seems to shift violently independant of human actions (as shown in ice core history), I would love to see a report that can prove that this increase is completely artificial. I would also like to see a report that proves that this will warm the climate of the earth. These things remain to be proven.

Alright, among many theories, my favorite has to do with astrophysics.It's not your favourite theory. If it's anything at all, it's your favourite pseudo-science bullshit distortion of a theory.

It's not that your evidence is wrong, it's that you're ignoring how & why it works, and by doing so, manage to imply the effects can or possibly are something they can't be. Imagine two people are piling straw on the backs of two camels. One guy's adding a straw a minute & the other's adding 100 straws a minute. Your bastardisation of the theories you've cherrypicked shit from, is very much like saying the first guy from the analogy will break his camel's back as soon as or sooner than the second guy.Thats interesting, how do you know this. Do you have a source?If memory serves, IPCC lists that & similar shit on their policy maker page. Shouldn't take more than a minute to look up. The math that I did was to calculate the amount of carbon dioxide produced by humans anually. I estimated this at 3% compared to naturally occuring CO2.The maths you did completely ingored how, when & why gasses become part of the atmosphere. This makes it worse that useless, because your result is hugely misleading. To use an analogy again, let's say your bathroom drain can handle something like 1000 drops of water a minute. Now regardless of how slight the procentage increase of those 1000 drops, you're still gonna have to deal with the flooding. Even if it's just 1003 drops, instead of 1000.Seeing as how the level of carbon dioxide seems to shift violently independant of human actions (as shown in ice core history),Again, learn how the shit works before you start pushing an opinion. There's no other sources for the shift in this day & age. There was once & there very probably will be again. But not now.I would love to see a report that can prove that this increase is completely artificial.You won't see anything of the sort. What you'd see if you bothered to look, is that there's no other explanations & that the isotope signatures corrospond with the shit we're emitting. It might still be an act of the god that hates fags, cybernetic space squirrels or fucking danish elevators, but it just isn't very likely.I would also like to see a report that proves that this will warm the climate of the earth.I'd like you to read up on how temperature's regulated on this planet. When you've done that, ask again & you shall recieve.These things remain to be proven.The existence of existence remains to be proven. Nobody's forcing you to believe anything. But once you treat reality as reality, you look like a hypocrite when you ignore the bits that don't agree with you.

It's a problem inherent in infallible superstitions, and if you don't want to be called on it, you probably shouldn't announce it in public.

I So it's always been around 15 C? Never changed before? Never been hotter or colder than that? You do know that Greenland was once green, right? And that my home state of Minnesota was once under something like a quarter mile of solid ice, right?


Si, senor. But we weren't due for a change like this until something on the order of another 100,000 years. I'll have to check that number because at the moment I'm going on memory and have to get back to work but we weren't due for a change like the one we are heading in for a long, long, long... longlonglong time.

Alright, among many theories, my favorite has to do with astrophysics. It says that patterns of temperature found in ice core samples can be explained by the nature of earth's orbit around the sun. Cycles of temperature can be equated to cycles of orbit.

# 11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
# 21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
# 41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
# 100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit

that's nice. you are aware that we are now outside the pattern of the past 600,000 years, right? in what specific way have these cycles combined to do that? what has changed?