significant global warming is ocurring.

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
it seems that almost everybody here is not educated about global warming, so it is pointless to debate it.

Especially since scientists can't seem to be consistent on it.

CsG

ummm...what scientists are those?

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: piasabird
We only have Temperature records for about 200 years. What kind of evidence you got of global warming. Since this is year 2005 AD and people have been around for at least twice that long, how can we measly humans claim to know what is really going on?

Lots of ways. Glacial cores for example.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
it seems that almost everybody here is not educated about global warming, so it is pointless to debate it.

Especially since scientists can't seem to be consistent on it.

CsG

ummm...what scientists are those?

Well, we had some who claim global cooling - and some claim global warming. Who should we believe?

CsG

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

Apparently your reading comprehension is limited, so I've bolded important portions of the posts which preceded yours to aid in your understanding.

Crimson cited the bolded statement and indicated he thinks it's appropo. I've refuted the quotation but showing how it's possible that human contributions to climate change can be less than natural variations yet still be the deciding factor in catastrophic climate change. That, in turn, demonstrates how one does not "have to believe" human contributions are greater than natural variations.

In logic or science, one disproves a statement or theory by providing a counterexample. I've provided a counterexample to Crimson's claim - my sole intention, and have therefore demonstrated that the statement was nonsense. The only assumptions that my counterexample depends on are (1) that it's possible for human contributions to add to natural variation, and (2) that it's possible that these marginal contributions could put climate "over the top". Hence my use of the words "can" and "may", rather than "are" and "will".

Now, if you want to argue that it is NOT possble for human behavior to add to natural variations, or that marginal contributions cannot be decisive, you can certainly try. But I think you're facing a huge hurdle.

Your actual question (to have me provide specific information on addititive contributions by humans) is completely irrelevant to my argument. But then, you aren't very logical, so what could I have expected.

Nice try but you premise is flawed -which I was pointing out. You said: "It's that the affects can be additive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic" - which means you assume that man causes additional effects. "Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

So yes, it seems one of us has problems with logic and comprehension - unfortunately for you - it is you. My questions are completely relevant to your premise - you haven't shown anything to support your "additional effects caused by mankind" premise. You just flop it out there and suggest people just nod without question.

CsG

What scientists are you referring to when you say "scientists have argued that the earth was cooling"?

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ
it seems that almost everybody here is not educated about global warming, so it is pointless to debate it.

Especially since scientists can't seem to be consistent on it.

CsG

ummm...what scientists are those?

Well, we had some who claim global cooling - and some claim global warming. Who should we believe?

CsG

"some" and "some" ... umm ... WHO EXACTLY?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

Apparently your reading comprehension is limited, so I've bolded important portions of the posts which preceded yours to aid in your understanding.

Crimson cited the bolded statement and indicated he thinks it's appropo. I've refuted the quotation but showing how it's possible that human contributions to climate change can be less than natural variations yet still be the deciding factor in catastrophic climate change. That, in turn, demonstrates how one does not "have to believe" human contributions are greater than natural variations.

In logic or science, one disproves a statement or theory by providing a counterexample. I've provided a counterexample to Crimson's claim - my sole intention, and have therefore demonstrated that the statement was nonsense. The only assumptions that my counterexample depends on are (1) that it's possible for human contributions to add to natural variation, and (2) that it's possible that these marginal contributions could put climate "over the top". Hence my use of the words "can" and "may", rather than "are" and "will".

Now, if you want to argue that it is NOT possble for human behavior to add to natural variations, or that marginal contributions cannot be decisive, you can certainly try. But I think you're facing a huge hurdle.

Your actual question (to have me provide specific information on addititive contributions by humans) is completely irrelevant to my argument. But then, you aren't very logical, so what could I have expected.

Nice try but you premise is flawed -which I was pointing out. You said: "It's that the affects can be additive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic" - which means you assume that man causes additional effects. "Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

So yes, it seems one of us has problems with logic and comprehension - unfortunately for you - it is you. My questions are completely relevant to your premise - you haven't shown anything to support your "additional effects caused by mankind" premise. You just flop it out there and suggest people just nod without question.

CsG

What scientists are you referring to when you say "scientists have argued that the earth was cooling"?

Dr. Reid Bryson - Fortune mag called him - "the most important figure in climatology today" when they ran with the global cooling chant.
Dr. Stephen Schneider - In the 70's he was chanting about global cooling due to dust concentration in the atmosphere. He's now joined the global warming bandwagon.
There are others in this too but we have had Newsweek, Time, and Fortune champion this global cooling notion in the past.

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

CsG

 

[LunarRay]

Cad,

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

You can use imperical data. Or... maybe believe the manipulated data. At the end of the day we'll just evolve to accomodate the actual changes... they being so slow to occur.. me thinks.

BTW, Hi.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Cad,

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

You can use imperical data. Or... maybe believe the manipulated data. At the end of the day we'll just evolve to accomodate the actual changes... they being so slow to occur.. me thinks.

BTW, Hi.

Maybe. It becomes hard for a species to evolve once it starts sustaining and propogating its own weaker members.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Cad,

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

You can use imperical data. Or... maybe believe the manipulated data. At the end of the day we'll just evolve to accomodate the actual changes... they being so slow to occur.. me thinks.

BTW, Hi.

Good point...

Hi HJD1

CsG

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Cad,

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

You can use imperical data. Or... maybe believe the manipulated data. At the end of the day we'll just evolve to accomodate the actual changes... they being so slow to occur.. me thinks.

BTW, Hi.

Maybe. It becomes hard for a species to evolve once it starts sustaining and propogating its own weaker members.

Well.. it seems to me those weaker members are the result of the process that might ought to enable them to acclimate be they tiny little thingi and big reliers on stability in their environment or the contra. But, you could be right if the process of warming is hastened or the process of evolving is not contstant across the board.
In any event, I don't think we humans care much about life forms not tasty to our palate or essential to some other need or desire... like the deer hunter might say: What's a bit of sweat to a hog....

 

[JacobJ]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: JacobJ

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Crimson
You must believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the earth's climate, and more affected by yuppies driving SUV's.

This statement is nonsense, but it's obvious how a limited intellect might find it meaningful.

The temperature of the earth is approximately 500 degrees Kelvin. Let us say that "natural" temperature variation across the millenia is +/- 20 degrees for any given region. At it's worst, a 20 degree variation might make, say, Los Angeles barely habitable, or might create wintery conditions in the higher US latititudes, say, 9 months out of the year.

But if human activities were to add, say, only another 10 degrees of variation over the next two hundred years, that additional variation might put us "over the top". Maybe L.A. would become completely uninhabitable, or perhaps northern latitudes in the U.S. might be in continuous wintery conditions ("climate change" can raise AND lower temperatures).

So you see, it isn't whether human behavior has "more" of an affect than the natural world. It's that the affects can be addititive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic.

And? Can you show these "additive" effects? Quantify them? Even conclusively identify them?

What say you about the global cooling bleaters? Seems that used to be the environut chant of yesteryear...

CsG

Apparently your reading comprehension is limited, so I've bolded important portions of the posts which preceded yours to aid in your understanding.

Crimson cited the bolded statement and indicated he thinks it's appropo. I've refuted the quotation but showing how it's possible that human contributions to climate change can be less than natural variations yet still be the deciding factor in catastrophic climate change. That, in turn, demonstrates how one does not "have to believe" human contributions are greater than natural variations.

In logic or science, one disproves a statement or theory by providing a counterexample. I've provided a counterexample to Crimson's claim - my sole intention, and have therefore demonstrated that the statement was nonsense. The only assumptions that my counterexample depends on are (1) that it's possible for human contributions to add to natural variation, and (2) that it's possible that these marginal contributions could put climate "over the top". Hence my use of the words "can" and "may", rather than "are" and "will".

Now, if you want to argue that it is NOT possble for human behavior to add to natural variations, or that marginal contributions cannot be decisive, you can certainly try. But I think you're facing a huge hurdle.

Your actual question (to have me provide specific information on addititive contributions by humans) is completely irrelevant to my argument. But then, you aren't very logical, so what could I have expected.

Nice try but you premise is flawed -which I was pointing out. You said: "It's that the affects can be additive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic" - which means you assume that man causes additional effects. "Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

So yes, it seems one of us has problems with logic and comprehension - unfortunately for you - it is you. My questions are completely relevant to your premise - you haven't shown anything to support your "additional effects caused by mankind" premise. You just flop it out there and suggest people just nod without question.

CsG

What scientists are you referring to when you say "scientists have argued that the earth was cooling"?

Dr. Reid Bryson - Fortune mag called him - "the most important figure in climatology today" when they ran with the global cooling chant.
Dr. Stephen Schneider - In the 70's he was chanting about global cooling due to dust concentration in the atmosphere. He's now joined the global warming bandwagon.
There are others in this too but we have had Newsweek, Time, and Fortune champion this global cooling notion in the past.

Who do we believe? Is their "evidence" and/or reasoning any better today than it was just a few years ago?

CsG

Thirty years ago, you mean?

 

[Vic]

Global warming is the modern Chicken Little. Pseudo-scientific fearmongering for neurotics. Change is normal, fools. Volcanoes will erupt, tsunamuis will occur, as will earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes. Get over it. I noticed no one picked up on the fact I left about natural coal fires. I threw that in with the BS to demonstrate a truly scientific fact. And that is, when coming to their conclusions, people who think they are using the scientific method are actually picking and choosing their data to support their predetermined conclusion. Nice work.
Here's an idea. Which do you fear more? Global warming? Or going back to living in mud huts with a 50%+ infant mortality rate. Choose.

 

[kogase]

Bleh, okay, I was being lazy... I tried Googling up some info on that Vic, but I haven't been able to find it in the last 5 minutes.

I just removed a bunch of this. After doing a little more searching I don't think I was right. Right now I just want a link to more info Vic.

Your trumpeting of extremes is an often used quip by those who refuse to consider the possibility of escalating environmental issues brought on by man. There's no need to go back to living in grass huts. It's perfectly reasonable to curb industrial pollution while maintaining a certain number of conveniences and degree of comfort. We simply have to end this unsustainable escalation of consumption.

 

[shoegazer]

Many of you really don't know a thing about the science of global warming. First of all, yes, temperatures on the earth and CO2 concentrations have varied in the past. But, whereas the fastest changes in the past were about 1 degree celsius per millenium, now they are 1 degree or more per century.

The CO2 increase over the past 150 years is easily connected to anthropogenic causes. Volcanoes lead to a short term cooling from aerosol particles that reflect sunlight. Long term, they do cause warming but it isn't significant compared to our production of greenhouse gases. As for coal fires, you just said they were burning for hundreds of thousands of years. Big deal. How does that relate to today? You didn't make any conclusion from it.

The greenhouse effect of CO2 is based on solid physics that you really can't argue with. But, the other feedbacks in the worlds climate have a lot of room for impacting average global temperatures. Scientists have found that there is far more room for amplifying the warming of CO2 rather than curbing it.

"Here's an idea. Which do you fear more? Global warming? Or going back to living in mud huts with a 50%+ infant mortality rate. Choose." - Vic

Yeah, I'd hate to be in one of those european countries that are significantly cutting CO2 emissions. What with their 50% infant mortality rates and mud huts.

 

[gsaldivar]

The typo in the title is hurting my eyes pls fix thanks :beer:

 

[Vic]

"Significantly cutting"... just how much cutting will be sufficient I wonder? After they're done cutting "significantly," will that be enough, or will further cuts be required after that? How do the coal fires relate to today? Life is still here, is it not? I thought CO2 increases and the added greenhouse effect were irreversible? 1 degree celsius per millenium, and now 1 degree per century? Do you have those records? Oh wait, no one kept weather records more than 200 years ago. And hey, I'm just old enough to remember all those warnings about "Global cooling." OMG the world was supposed to end. Are you really that stupid, or do you think I am?

 

[kogase]

Eh? I never heard that the effects of greenhouse gases were completely irreversible. I think all sorts of ultra-left wing rhetoric is starting to mix and congeal in your head.

 

[shoegazer]

"Significantly cutting"... just how much cutting will be sufficient I wonder? After they're done cutting "significantly," will that be enough, or will further cuts be required after that? How do the coal fires relate to today? Life is still here, is it not? I thought CO2 increases and the added greenhouse effect were irreversible? 1 degree celsius per millenium, and now 1 degree per century? Do you have those records? Oh wait, no one kept weather records more than 200 years ago. And hey, I'm just old enough to remember all those warnings about "Global cooling." OMG the world was supposed to end. Are you really that stupid, or do you think I am?

Further cuts will be required. The kyoto protocol won't stop global warming. But, at least it's a step in the right direction.

Increased CO2 concentrations are not permanent. The atmosphereric residence time is 100+ years.

As for temperature records. Nature kept them. Ice core and various other radioisotope data can be very accurate according to tests against known temperatures.

Global cooling is now thought to be partly due to anthopogenic aerosol emissions.

And no, the world isn't going to end. But, many environments are going to change so rapidly that in many cases nature won't be able to adapt fast enough.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase
Eh? I never heard that the effects of greenhouse gases were completely irreversible. I think all sorts of ultra-left wing rhetoric is starting to mix and congeal in your head.

Eh? Not at all. I saw some scientist say exactly that on a TV documentary recently (PBS IIRC). He said specifically that the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was irreversible.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Nice try but you premise is flawed -which I was pointing out. You said: "It's that the affects can be additive, and the additional effects caused by mankind may be catastrophic" - which means you assume that man causes additional effects. "Scientists" have argued that the earth was cooling - are we causing some "additional" effects in those cases too? You see -the whole issue is absurd because there is nothing showing causation by humans - let alone something quantitative(either way).

So yes, it seems one of us has problems with logic and comprehension - unfortunately for you - it is you. My questions are completely relevant to your premise - you haven't shown anything to support your "additional effects caused by mankind" premise. You just flop it out there and suggest people just nod without question.

CsG

Please explain how you twist, "It's that [mankind's] effects can be additive" into meaning "mankind causes additional effects"? Can you really not understand that to say that mankind CAN do something is not the same thing as saying mankind IS doing that thing?

If the difference between "can" and "is" is really too difficult a "concept" for you to grasp, perhaps an incontrovertible example will make it clear to you:

"Mankind can blow this planet into oblivion with nuclear weapons."

(I assure you, I truly believe that statement.)

Now, are you going to claim that this means:

"Mankind is blowing the planet into oblivion with nuclear weapons"?

Please, please tell me you aren't THAT dense.

So, now that we are on the same page: When I write: "It's that the effects can be additive", that means that even if mankind produces only a .00001 degree change, that change CAN in theory be in the same direction as "natural" variations. (That's what "additive" means.) So, it is true to say that, "the effects can be additive."

And if instead of .00001 degrees, the change were (say) 10 degrees (and if it were also additive), the result of the "addition" MAY be "catastrophic".

That's not an assertion that mankind is making any particular contribution to climate change. Nor is it a statement that, whatever the contribution, it's additive. And it is certainly not a statement that whatever the contribution is, and in whatever direction, it's catastrophic.

Get it?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
Further cuts will be required. The kyoto protocol won't stop global warming. But, at least it's a step in the right direction.

Increased CO2 concentrations are not permanent. The atmosphereric residence time is 100+ years.

As for temperature records. Nature kept them. Ice core and various other radioisotope data can be very accurate according to tests against known temperatures.

Global cooling is now thought to be partly due to anthopogenic aerosol emissions.

And no, the world isn't going to end. But, many environments are going to change so rapidly that in many cases nature won't be able to adapt fast enough.

Of course this is bullsh!t. No one has a clue how fast nature can adapt. That's just a buzz phrase. Or isn't the wildnerness around Mt. St. Helens still supposed to be barren?

Further cuts will be required until we're back in mud huts, I assume. Proving my point. Before you go changing global political policy and fscking a lot of people over, it doesn't occur to you for one minute that maybe scientists got a hold of few bad short-term datasets that met their pre-conceived opinion and ran with on the basis of grant money and political ideology, now does it? And now that there is concensus and a ton of grant money and political interests involved, we sure as hell wouldn't want to stop now, would we?

And of course, you're preaching like one in authority, like maybe one of these mystic robed scientists themselves, when in fact you're probably just a teenage dork in your parent's basement.

I'm just calling bullsh!t to the terror of the obvious. Climates change. Continents drift. Nothing is static. Temperatures go up, temperatures go down. Change is normal. You wanna prove something, provide proof. And if the world isn't going to end, why not wait until there is actually some type of solid scientific proof? Oh wait... there isn't anything solid, just "thought."

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Eh? I never heard that the effects of greenhouse gases were completely irreversible. I think all sorts of ultra-left wing rhetoric is starting to mix and congeal in your head.

Eh? Not at all. I saw some scientist say exactly that on a TV documentary recently (PBS IIRC). He said specifically that the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was irreversible.

Some scientist is exactly the problem. Science is not an entity. Science is a method. The problem is figuring out which scientists to trust... and lone scientists who make vague points outside of the general conensus surely don't help matters. That said, I'll be quicker to trust the scientific community's judgement before I trust your analysis of the situation, to be frank.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: kogase
Eh? I never heard that the effects of greenhouse gases were completely irreversible. I think all sorts of ultra-left wing rhetoric is starting to mix and congeal in your head.

Eh? Not at all. I saw some scientist say exactly that on a TV documentary recently (PBS IIRC). He said specifically that the addition of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere was irreversible.

Some scientist is exactly the problem. Science is not an entity. Science is a method. The problem is figuring out which scientists to trust... and lone scientists who make vague points outside of the general conensus surely don't help matters. That said, I'll be quicker to trust the scientific community's judgement before I trust your analysis of the situation, to be frank.

Your frankness doesn't bother me. Whether you trust me I don't care about. What is reality is that 99% of the world thinks of science as a religion now, with anyone labeled by the media as a "scientist" as being akin to a holy priest. This is simply a fact of today's world. So if one rogue priest decides to get his 15 minutes and make "vague points outside of the general consensus," then most of the viewers are going to take it as gospel. Add up enough of these instances, combined with the flawed thinking that science involves consensus at all (the method does not), and you can see how something like this manufactures itself, I hope. Throw politics into the mix, and the silencing of any dissenting opinion or the denouncing of any requests for more hard proof, and well... it just gets ugly.


edit: I provide this proof that science is now considered a religion. Since this thinking began (roughly 40 years ago), and for as long as it continues, science will always have a "doomsday" scenario in the works. Some type of end of the world unless we do something to stop it. The exact details of this impending scientific armageddon will frequently change, global warming to asteroids to supervolcanoes to little green men to nuclear winter to atomic war, but such a scenario will always be in the public eye, held up as very real and with no heretics allowed. This is not proof for now, but for later. Just a tidbit I'm throwing out, not to be used as part of this debate. Just 15 years from now, try to remember this post

 

[kogase]

Hey, I completely agree with you on that point. The "general consensus" I was referring to was that shared by the scientific community, which I understand is quite tight knit. And therein lies another problem... but that's an argument for another thread.

 

[Vic]

Tight knit is putting it mildly. Heretics can lose their careers.