Al Gore = pwned?

[nerp]

Originally posted by: actuarial
Why doesn't someone just plot average world temperatures over what world temperatures should be from the last ice age to the next?

They have. And we're a lot warmer than we should be. We should be getting cooler. We're not. We're warmer than we should be. There is no natural reason for this other than external inputs (man).

You can't deny this. If you do, you haven't done the necessary reading.

Honestly, if people did more reading, most of these questions wouldn't be on the table.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Beev
So what was your agenda then? To shove your belief that all of the scientists who say it is "very likely" global warming is real down peoples throats?

In this case, people pointing out the facts don't necessarily have an agenda. Accepting that evolution is real because of the mountain of evidence to support it (fossil record, for starters) does not mean you automatically have an agenda.

Remember, science is rooted on objective analysis. Whether someone uses that information to develop an agenda is a different issue. Why you insist on connecting both is beyond me. You shouldn't. You can argue whether specific policies aimed to reduce carbon emissions are good or not. But you really shouldn't argue whether carbon emissions are causing climate change. If you are arguing that, you're guilty of having an agenda. Facts are facts. Accept the facts without emotion. Then you can talk policy.

That was well put.

I fail to understand why people are arguing that global warming is a scam. Even if it is, if our behaviour is governed by the theory that global warming is in fact a problem, we will undoubtedly make the world a better and healthier environment.

 

[Beev]

I don't necessarily think it's a complete fabrication (though I could see how me saying it's a "crock of shit" could be inferred as such), but I do NOT need to care about it, because it isn't going to affect anything in my lifetime.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Beev
I don't necessarily think it's a complete fabrication (though I could see how me saying it's a "crock of shit" could be inferred as such), but I do NOT need to care about it, because it isn't going to affect anything in my lifetime.

I sincerely hope you are right, but would it cost you so much to try to be a little bit more environmentally friendly, just in case? I assume that you are not planning on leaving any descendants behind, or that you feel that the problems that may be faced by future generations are not our concern.

My objections to your stance are that it is appaulingly egocentric, lacks foresight and fails to consider other members of your species.

 

[Beev]

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I sincerely hope you are right; but would it cost you so much to try to be a little bit more environmentally friendly, just in case? I assume that you are not planning on leaving any descendants behind, or that you feel that the problems that may be faced by future generations are not our concern.

My objections to your stance are that it is appaulingly egocentric, lacks foresight and fails to consider other members of your species.

I will gladly concede to your view on my stance. It is all three. Maybe my mind will change when (if) I have kids. As it stands now though, I consider myself pretty environmentally friendly. I don't do anything specifically to hurt the environment, and I do small things to help it (carpooling, not leaving lights on, etc).

 

[Chryso]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso
Global warming is nothing new. I'm sure ancient man was all upset when the woolly mammoths died out. That doesn't mean ancient man caused it.
As soon as someone shows me a control earth with no humans and no global warming then I will believe it is human caused.

It's called mars, dumbass. Study it.

You think Mars = Earth and I am the dumbass? Good one!

I said study it.

THen you might grasp the fact that the reason Mars is what it is is due to a greenhouse effect.

I'm pretty sure that there are no humans on Mars. My question is not whether global warming is happening. My question is that it is human caused. If Mars has/had a similar effect as Earth with no humans then that kind of damages the argument that global warming is man made.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Beev

Originally posted by: Red Irish
I sincerely hope you are right; but would it cost you so much to try to be a little bit more environmentally friendly, just in case? I assume that you are not planning on leaving any descendants behind, or that you feel that the problems that may be faced by future generations are not our concern.

My objections to your stance are that it is appaulingly egocentric, lacks foresight and fails to consider other members of your species.

I will gladly concede to your view on my stance. It is all three. Maybe my mind will change when (if) I have kids. As it stands now though, I consider myself pretty environmentally friendly. I don't do anything specifically to hurt the environment, and I do small things to help it (carpooling, not leaving lights on, etc).

That's a start, and probably as much as I do

 

[judasmachine]

well i guess that proves it. :disgust:

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: actuarial
Why doesn't someone just plot average world temperatures over what world temperatures should be from the last ice age to the next?

They have. And we're a lot warmer than we should be. We should be getting cooler. We're not. We're warmer than we should be. There is no natural reason for this other than external inputs (man).

You can't deny this. If you do, you haven't done the necessary reading.

Honestly, if people did more reading, most of these questions wouldn't be on the table.

So when is the next ice age, and what's the typical variation in the path of temperatures from one to the next?

Look, I'm not saying that global warming isn't real. I just doubt that we have enough knowledge to even begin to know for sure. We have accurate data for what, the last 100 years of a 26,000 odd year non linear cycle (I think I read about 26,000 years between ice ages).

How confident would you be predicting the stock market for the rest of the year based on the last 5 minutes of market movements?

Now, aside from that, for ANYONE on this forum especially to try and trot out saying that global warming is 100% real or not based on other people's studies they've read is hilarious. I've read stuff that says it's real, and stuff that says it's not. We are so far from a consensus on this that definitively saying one way or another is pure anti-science.

The main argument I've heard is that plotting CO2 levels against average surface temperature reveals a positive correlation. I don't have much confidence in this frankly, being that I'm a stats major and it was drilled into our head not to assume causality from correlation. I've also read a lot of stuff about changing measurement methods mid study, and also that the lag of the movements actually suggest CO2 increases follows temperature rises. Both of these things makes my stats senses go bonkers.

On the other hand, I can see the smog in the air below me from my apartment window. That sure as shit is hurting the environment, as my lungs clearly tell me. Also, C02 is a greenhouse gas and the levels of it are increasing. This certainly makes me want to study this further going into the future, and how much of that C02 increase is caused by us, and what impact overall it would have on global temperatures.

Finally, I have yet to be convinced that global warming is a bad thing over the short term, and we will probably be far better able to handle it in the not so distant future without major economic concessions. I do like that we are moving towards reducing our dependence on oil though for the same reasons that I don't through my trash in the forest.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: judasmachine
well i guess that proves it. :disgust:

On the contrary: industry is the real source of concern.

Nevertheless, as citizens, we should do as much as we can.

In any event, the position wherein global warming is seen as something "we shouldn't give a fuck about" should be censured: if there are conflicting scientific opinions I prefer to hedge my bets.

 

[Poulsonator]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Who cares about global warming and where it comes from?

For me, the issue is sustainability. We need to be less wasteful. We need to recycle. We need to develop sustainable energy sources that don't require imports from foreign enemies.

Sometimes I think of it like this:

Back during the days of Manifest Destiny, the white man would often slaughter massive herds of buffalo, taking only their hides for sale and profit. Contrast this with the original Native American Indians who would slaughter far fewer buffalo but get a whole lot more use out of them, using every part of the animal down to the bones. When it comes to the resources of this world, the USA needs to lead the world in acting more like the latter than the former.

The Ecological Indian: Myth and History

The newest review of that book says it best:

This book is just an weakly rationalized, misleading apology for the complete destruction of the planet we inhabit. Citing examples of Native Americans' "overhunting" and "deforestation", and trying to compare it to the mass extinctions and million-acre clearcuts of today is very dishonest.

The impact of European civilization was FAR larger and more destructive of the natural world, than the impact of the Native Americans. The Native Americans lived here for over 10,000 years and this nation was still forested and teeming with life when the Europeans got here. Yet we, in a little over 250 years have wiped out THOUSANDS of species, covered the nation with asphalt and tens of thousands of toxic waste dumps, deforested 97% of the nation, have smog covering the skies, are dying by the hundreds of thousands of cancers from industrial chemicals ... I don't understand how the author sees any comparison here. It's a completely ridiculous argument along the lines of: "The Natives had an impact on the environment they lived in, so people have always been like we are: destroying their living space. They cut down trees (in small areas) just like we do (thousands of times as much of course), so stop saying that they were sustainable. It's always been this way. It's human nature to destroy the planet. Don't believe these 'myths' about people living here for thousands of years before we came an destroyed it in a few hundred." ... Complete nonsense.

 

[Chiropteran]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso
Global warming is nothing new. I'm sure ancient man was all upset when the woolly mammoths died out. That doesn't mean ancient man caused it.
As soon as someone shows me a control earth with no humans and no global warming then I will believe it is human caused.

It's called mars, dumbass. Study it.

You think Mars = Earth and I am the dumbass? Good one!

I said study it.

THen you might grasp the fact that the reason Mars is what it is is due to a greenhouse effect.

You have Mars and Venus confused. And you lack reading comprehension.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: actuarial
Why doesn't someone just plot average world temperatures over what world temperatures should be from the last ice age to the next?

They have. And we're a lot warmer than we should be. We should be getting cooler. We're not. We're warmer than we should be. There is no natural reason for this other than external inputs (man).

You can't deny this. If you do, you haven't done the necessary reading.

Honestly, if people did more reading, most of these questions wouldn't be on the table.

You are going to have to give a link to that one. All I have seen to date is a temperature exiting the Little Ice Age as the global mean. There is NO calculated ideal temperature that has been agreed on. Nor is there a CO2 level listed as ideal. The assumption has always been that whatever it was when we started recording it is the baseline. What?

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: actuarial
Why doesn't someone just plot average world temperatures over what world temperatures should be from the last ice age to the next?

They have. And we're a lot warmer than we should be. We should be getting cooler. We're not. We're warmer than we should be. There is no natural reason for this other than external inputs (man).

You can't deny this. If you do, you haven't done the necessary reading.

Honestly, if people did more reading, most of these questions wouldn't be on the table.

You are going to have to give a link to that one. All I have seen to date is a temperature exiting the Little Ice Age as the global mean. There is NO calculated ideal temperature that has been agreed on. Nor is there a CO2 level listed as ideal. The assumption has always been that whatever it was when we started recording it is the baseline. What?

The following data charts temperatures over the last one hundred years, rather than since the last ice age; in any event, I generally agree with NASA on scientific questions:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear...tearth/earth_warm.html

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso
Global warming is nothing new. I'm sure ancient man was all upset when the woolly mammoths died out. That doesn't mean ancient man caused it.
As soon as someone shows me a control earth with no humans and no global warming then I will believe it is human caused.

It's called mars, dumbass. Study it.

You think Mars = Earth and I am the dumbass? Good one!

I said study it.

THen you might grasp the fact that the reason Mars is what it is is due to a greenhouse effect.

You have Mars and Venus confused. And you lack reading comprehension.

No I don't. Mars atmoshpere was destroyed in this way.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso
Global warming is nothing new. I'm sure ancient man was all upset when the woolly mammoths died out. That doesn't mean ancient man caused it.
As soon as someone shows me a control earth with no humans and no global warming then I will believe it is human caused.

It's called mars, dumbass. Study it.

You think Mars = Earth and I am the dumbass? Good one!

I said study it.

THen you might grasp the fact that the reason Mars is what it is is due to a greenhouse effect.

You have Mars and Venus confused. And you lack reading comprehension.

No I don't. Mars atmoshpere was destroyed in this way.

No, he doesn't:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AIPC..880..919B

"The objective of this paper is to examine the degree of similarity of the persistent CO2 greenhouse found on Venus to that of ancient Mars. The discovery of Jarosite, a mineral formed in the presence of strong sulfuric acid, evokes conditions more associated with Venus, where strong oxidizing conditions and strong sulfuric and hydrochloric acids are observed in its clouds. It is observed that large areas of Mars are both aqueously altered and highly oxidized and that carbonates are not found in any quantity, and that this reflected also in Mars meteorites. This suggests that conditions may have been present on Mars that allowed a stable and persistent greenhouse by the production of a significant oxygen component in the atmosphere with attendant strong mineral acids..."

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chiropteran

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: Chryso
Global warming is nothing new. I'm sure ancient man was all upset when the woolly mammoths died out. That doesn't mean ancient man caused it.
As soon as someone shows me a control earth with no humans and no global warming then I will believe it is human caused.

It's called mars, dumbass. Study it.

You think Mars = Earth and I am the dumbass? Good one!

I said study it.

THen you might grasp the fact that the reason Mars is what it is is due to a greenhouse effect.

You have Mars and Venus confused. And you lack reading comprehension.

No I don't. Mars atmoshpere was destroyed in this way.

No, he doesn't:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AIPC..880..919B

"The objective of this paper is to examine the degree of similarity of the persistent CO2 greenhouse found on Venus to that of ancient Mars. The discovery of Jarosite, a mineral formed in the presence of strong sulfuric acid, evokes conditions more associated with Venus, where strong oxidizing conditions and strong sulfuric and hydrochloric acids are observed in its clouds. It is observed that large areas of Mars are both aqueously altered and highly oxidized and that carbonates are not found in any quantity, and that this reflected also in Mars meteorites. This suggests that conditions may have been present on Mars that allowed a stable and persistent greenhouse by the production of a significant oxygen component in the atmosphere with attendant strong mineral acids..."

Red, let's have a beer together someday.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: nerp
Red, let's have a beer together someday.

:thumbsup:

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: mozirry
I always liked the general message of preventing global warming, which is to quit being a douchebag about littering and waste. Plus, I've noticed that going "Green" usually will benefit your local business/family more directly then benefiting some national/worldwide corporation.

Being clean, resourceful, and respectable to the environment is pretty awesome. But not everybody enjoys the outdoors I guess.

So you want to be taxed more then? You can take my share of the taxes they want to impose on us.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1

Originally posted by: mozirry
I always liked the general message of preventing global warming, which is to quit being a douchebag about littering and waste. Plus, I've noticed that going "Green" usually will benefit your local business/family more directly then benefiting some national/worldwide corporation.

Being clean, resourceful, and respectable to the environment is pretty awesome. But not everybody enjoys the outdoors I guess.

That is a good thing, but for a bunch of knee-jerk reaction because someone goes on the national circuit preaching all about something that is threatening us, but in the end is not real, well, that's an issue. I never bought in.

The Prius is still a great idea though.

Go read up on Nickle minig. It isn't exactly eco friendly.

 

[Chiropteran]

Regardless,

Originally posted by: Chryso
As soon as someone shows me a control earth with no humans and no global warming then I will believe it is human caused.

Originally posted by: nerp
THen you might grasp the fact that the reason Mars is what it is is due to a greenhouse effect.

You were supposed to point out a planet with no global warming. You failed in that.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: Chiropteran
Regardless,

Originally posted by: Chryso
As soon as someone shows me a control earth with no humans and no global warming then I will believe it is human caused.

Originally posted by: nerp
THen you might grasp the fact that the reason Mars is what it is is due to a greenhouse effect.

You were supposed to point out a planet with no global warming. You failed in that.

I think you have already been proven wrong on this thread, why are you persisting?

 

[CZroe]

"Kay-yhooooooo-yes-eye!"

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: actuarial
Why doesn't someone just plot average world temperatures over what world temperatures should be from the last ice age to the next?

They have. And we're a lot warmer than we should be. We should be getting cooler. We're not. We're warmer than we should be. There is no natural reason for this other than external inputs (man).

You can't deny this. If you do, you haven't done the necessary reading.

Honestly, if people did more reading, most of these questions wouldn't be on the table.

You are going to have to give a link to that one. All I have seen to date is a temperature exiting the Little Ice Age as the global mean. There is NO calculated ideal temperature that has been agreed on. Nor is there a CO2 level listed as ideal. The assumption has always been that whatever it was when we started recording it is the baseline. What?

The following data charts temperatures over the last one hundred years, rather than since the last ice age; in any event, I generally agree with NASA on scientific questions:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear...tearth/earth_warm.html

You do know that that data has a Y2K anomoly in it and has since been corrected, right? 1880 was the end of the mini-ice age and makes my point. That is a serious scaling bias there.

 

[Red Irish]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: Red Irish

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: nerp

Originally posted by: actuarial
Why doesn't someone just plot average world temperatures over what world temperatures should be from the last ice age to the next?

They have. And we're a lot warmer than we should be. We should be getting cooler. We're not. We're warmer than we should be. There is no natural reason for this other than external inputs (man).

You can't deny this. If you do, you haven't done the necessary reading.

Honestly, if people did more reading, most of these questions wouldn't be on the table.

You are going to have to give a link to that one. All I have seen to date is a temperature exiting the Little Ice Age as the global mean. There is NO calculated ideal temperature that has been agreed on. Nor is there a CO2 level listed as ideal. The assumption has always been that whatever it was when we started recording it is the baseline. What?

The following data charts temperatures over the last one hundred years, rather than since the last ice age; in any event, I generally agree with NASA on scientific questions:

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/ear...tearth/earth_warm.html

You do know that that data has a Y2K anomoly in it and has since been corrected, right? 1880 was the end of the mini-ice age and makes my point. That is a serious scaling bias there.

Listen, if you want to argue with NASA, send them a letter, I'm sure they will take you a lot more seriously than I do.