So, the thing that covers 2/3's of the planet & holds far far far more heat than the atmosphere is the warmest it's ever been recorded - isn't enough evidence for you that the earth is getting warmer.
Fenixgoon
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2003
- 33,338
- 12,924
- 136
it's a matter of the cause, not the fact that it's getting warmer.
IIRC mars has been getting warmer as well. therefore, increased solar activity is likely a contributing factor
Nat Geo article from 2007:
http://news.nationalgeographic...0228-mars-warming.html
Very true. Interesting that you brought that up, because the "it's a natural sun-cycle" claim is often used as evidence that all of the warming we see is due to natural cycles of the sun. And, the original paper about some of the warming of Earth being caused by the sun is often quoted by the anti-man-made global warming people. However, they leave out the part of that very same paper that also states that the amount of global warming seen cannot be fully accounted for (or even significantly) from sun fluctuations.
Locut0s
Lifer
- Nov 28, 2001
- 22,205
- 44
- 91
I love the global cooling argument. It's like we are standing in the middle of a road and scientists are telling us there is something large coming down the road our way. Current scientific consensus has it that it's likely some form of 4 wheeled vehicle and here are the steps we really need to take now to get off the road. The global cooling group likes to say see these outlier models over here and this smattering of data over there well looks like to us your models are incorrect and it's an 18 wheeler not a 4 wheeled vehicle, so we should stand right where we are.
One thing I do know you light a fire it gets warmer, you change the colour of an object exposed to sunlight-from light coloured to darker- it get hotter. It ain't fuck'n'rocket science sport!
You got a gazillion lill' fires going in combustion engines, coal fired plants etc! It ain't fuck'n'rocket science, it's common sense that even a 14y.o would work out!
Now what to do about is real debate, change the state of techs or lilith is gunna cream us all.
What the movie "rapanui".
The sun god comes in 2012- solar maxim.
I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with global warming.
Now, per your own article we have only tracked ocean temps for 130 years. We do not have actual records that go far enough back to see the "big picture". Yes, temps have gone up since the industrial revolution primarily. That doesn't mean it isn't a natural trend, and even though ice core data has been found to extend the environmental data back thousands of years it still is just evidence. There could be many of other factors that could have caused those temps to be what they were at that point in time. I realize ice cores have given evidence of past conditions, but I don't know what all data can be gathered from them. I know they contain air samples and can help to see the temps.
FWIW I believe that we as a species need to be more "green" where it makes sense. I'm not as sold on manmade global warming though, but would much rather act under the assumption that humans are warming the planet then not. The consequences of doing nothing are too high.
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
exar333
Diamond Member
- Feb 7, 2004
- 8,518
- 8
- 91
You will always be right with logic like this!!
"The water is warmer, but there are other factors why there are not more Hurricanes"
AND
"The water is warmer, look at all the hurricanes now! Look at what the warmer water did!"
You are right either way!
"The water is warmer, but there are other factors why there are not more Hurricanes"
AND
"The water is warmer, look at all the hurricanes now! Look at what the warmer water did!"
You are right either way!
boomerang
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2000
- 18,883
- 641
- 126
You can't use the term "global warming" anymore. The correct term these days is "climate change".
The significance of the difference in terminology is that the people that stand to profit the most from the hysteria surrounding the use of these terms didn't want to back themselves into a corner. If you cry global warming and it ends up being global cooling, well, there goes the big profits right out the window. A more generic all encompassing term ensures that you reap the rewards regardless of which direction the temperatures on a short term basis trend. Presented with reams of data going back as far as possible is useless in these times of instant gratification and the ADHD generation. People determine what's happening climate-wise based on the summer or winter from two years prior. That's how trends are determined nowadays. It's as far back as they can remember.
In the mid 70's to early 80's the papers were full of articles sensationalizing global cooling. Lots of studies and trends projected and predicted. Did it come to pass? No, based on what we're hearing today.
Regardless of what's really is or isn't happening, if you think we can actually change the climate in a purposeful manner to achieve a particular goal, you might as well try to change lead to gold.
If we're all going to die, then we're all going to die. Planet Earth has survived far, far worse. If we've truly killed ourselves off, it's just nature's way of correcting a problem.
The real question is, how rich do you want to make those that stand to profit from the hysteria. Do they really need more and bigger homes? More airplanes? Are you willing to provide them for them?
The significance of the difference in terminology is that the people that stand to profit the most from the hysteria surrounding the use of these terms didn't want to back themselves into a corner. If you cry global warming and it ends up being global cooling, well, there goes the big profits right out the window. A more generic all encompassing term ensures that you reap the rewards regardless of which direction the temperatures on a short term basis trend. Presented with reams of data going back as far as possible is useless in these times of instant gratification and the ADHD generation. People determine what's happening climate-wise based on the summer or winter from two years prior. That's how trends are determined nowadays. It's as far back as they can remember.
In the mid 70's to early 80's the papers were full of articles sensationalizing global cooling. Lots of studies and trends projected and predicted. Did it come to pass? No, based on what we're hearing today.
Regardless of what's really is or isn't happening, if you think we can actually change the climate in a purposeful manner to achieve a particular goal, you might as well try to change lead to gold.
If we're all going to die, then we're all going to die. Planet Earth has survived far, far worse. If we've truly killed ourselves off, it's just nature's way of correcting a problem.
The real question is, how rich do you want to make those that stand to profit from the hysteria. Do they really need more and bigger homes? More airplanes? Are you willing to provide them for them?
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
A large El-Nino is usually followed by a long el-Nina. Prepare for lots of cold and wet weather.
The bottom line when it comes to these global warming/climate change debates is that we just don't know.
Man has been trying to predict the weather since the beginning of time and the science is still not direct, predictable science. We can't conduct closed experiments on the whole earth and try to get repeatable results.
That's the key to real, good science, is the repeatability of experimental results. If I don't believe Newton's third law, I can recreate the experiment in my garage to attempt to prove/disprove it. If I have X amount of gasoline and I combust it, Y will happen. Again, I can recreate and verify the experiment. That is what gives science it's credibility, it's ability to repeat and make reliable predictions.
Climate science isn't done that way, for a lot of good reasons, but it's mostly statistics which is legitimate study, don't get me wrong. It would be cool if we had some breakthroughs in their research and could predict the weather better with a couple years precision.
So first off, I haven't seen one grand, unified, scientific prediction model for global warming that people are buying into and has been correct. Have people even been tracking the predictive models to see which one is the most accurate? Last I knew they weren't even willing to take their model out 5 or 10 years, instead make catastrophic claims about 50 to 100 years from now. In fact no one metric has been agreed upon as the measured problem, so we won't even know when it gets better.
As has been mentioned, 200 years is nothing in geologic time. Prove to me in with geological statistics that the atmosphere, or the ocean, or whatever, wasn't warmer than it is now sometime in the past with us humans around, and then I might start to get concerned.
Alarmism is not science. Catastrophism is not science. Those things just keep the science well-funded. It's sledge-hammer marketing.
What pisses me off is that I do take the spirit of science seriously and have a deep respect for it. It is about patiently studying, observing, and being open to the possibility that your theory is wrong, while still trying to prove it true. Instead I am met with a massive throng of zealots who say "believe this, or you're a heretic." "The sky is falling, and it's YOUR fault." "ZOMG the ice is melting! we're all doomed!" It's the oldest trick in the book: playing on man's inner ability to feel guilty and using it to control his behavior. Religions have been doing it since there was religion. Original sin. "You were born guilty!"
Not one catastrophist prediction has come true yet. Not one. Not that anybody is paying attention to that.
Consensus science is not science.
People make the alarmist argument of "what if we do nothing about it?" and assuming that we can effect the outcome, what if we guess wrong? What if we switch to hydrogen cars that emit water vapor (a way bigger greenhouse gas then CO2) and we make the problem worse? Hard to make a good decision without the backing of real science. Personally, I don't think man is the cause one way or another, and if you think I'm wrong, PROVE IT. That's what science does.
Skepticism is a pillar of science and I side with the skeptics when it comes to global warming. but I am man enough to be proven wrong if I am, and accept it; but we need to agree on what we are talking about first. I am further empowered by my desire to roote for the underdog in the face of this new rising religion. And I'm entitled to my beliefs, along with all my human flaws. And if the day comes where we get the global warming inquisition, and I am jailed as a heretic, I will not recant. Someone needs to stand up for the spirit of reason.
The article the OP posted is nothing more than a sophisticated looking version of someone on the street saying "boy, it's hotter this year than in my whole life." Compared to geologic time, our good records and measurements on weather are a drop in the bucket and I won't be alarmed until we actually have solid systems of prediction down, for some real frame of reference. Further, the whole post is just troll baiting and demonizing people who disagree with something that is ill-defined at best. (hey, that's ok, at least it's the right forum )Saying something is a problem is a judgement call and a man-made contrivance. Without man to say it is, nothing is a problem.
If global warming is right, it will be proven right.
Until then, I am pissed at every single last one of you who dishonor the spirit and name of science by using its good name to further preach your religion.
Fuck you all.
I'm done talking about this. It's not worth a bit more of my energy dealing with this circus. I'm just going to wait and see.
Man has been trying to predict the weather since the beginning of time and the science is still not direct, predictable science. We can't conduct closed experiments on the whole earth and try to get repeatable results.
That's the key to real, good science, is the repeatability of experimental results. If I don't believe Newton's third law, I can recreate the experiment in my garage to attempt to prove/disprove it. If I have X amount of gasoline and I combust it, Y will happen. Again, I can recreate and verify the experiment. That is what gives science it's credibility, it's ability to repeat and make reliable predictions.
Climate science isn't done that way, for a lot of good reasons, but it's mostly statistics which is legitimate study, don't get me wrong. It would be cool if we had some breakthroughs in their research and could predict the weather better with a couple years precision.
So first off, I haven't seen one grand, unified, scientific prediction model for global warming that people are buying into and has been correct. Have people even been tracking the predictive models to see which one is the most accurate? Last I knew they weren't even willing to take their model out 5 or 10 years, instead make catastrophic claims about 50 to 100 years from now. In fact no one metric has been agreed upon as the measured problem, so we won't even know when it gets better.
As has been mentioned, 200 years is nothing in geologic time. Prove to me in with geological statistics that the atmosphere, or the ocean, or whatever, wasn't warmer than it is now sometime in the past with us humans around, and then I might start to get concerned.
Alarmism is not science. Catastrophism is not science. Those things just keep the science well-funded. It's sledge-hammer marketing.
What pisses me off is that I do take the spirit of science seriously and have a deep respect for it. It is about patiently studying, observing, and being open to the possibility that your theory is wrong, while still trying to prove it true. Instead I am met with a massive throng of zealots who say "believe this, or you're a heretic." "The sky is falling, and it's YOUR fault." "ZOMG the ice is melting! we're all doomed!" It's the oldest trick in the book: playing on man's inner ability to feel guilty and using it to control his behavior. Religions have been doing it since there was religion. Original sin. "You were born guilty!"
Not one catastrophist prediction has come true yet. Not one. Not that anybody is paying attention to that.
Consensus science is not science.
People make the alarmist argument of "what if we do nothing about it?" and assuming that we can effect the outcome, what if we guess wrong? What if we switch to hydrogen cars that emit water vapor (a way bigger greenhouse gas then CO2) and we make the problem worse? Hard to make a good decision without the backing of real science. Personally, I don't think man is the cause one way or another, and if you think I'm wrong, PROVE IT. That's what science does.
Skepticism is a pillar of science and I side with the skeptics when it comes to global warming. but I am man enough to be proven wrong if I am, and accept it; but we need to agree on what we are talking about first. I am further empowered by my desire to roote for the underdog in the face of this new rising religion. And I'm entitled to my beliefs, along with all my human flaws. And if the day comes where we get the global warming inquisition, and I am jailed as a heretic, I will not recant. Someone needs to stand up for the spirit of reason.
The article the OP posted is nothing more than a sophisticated looking version of someone on the street saying "boy, it's hotter this year than in my whole life." Compared to geologic time, our good records and measurements on weather are a drop in the bucket and I won't be alarmed until we actually have solid systems of prediction down, for some real frame of reference. Further, the whole post is just troll baiting and demonizing people who disagree with something that is ill-defined at best. (hey, that's ok, at least it's the right forum
)Saying something is a problem is a judgement call and a man-made contrivance. Without man to say it is, nothing is a problem.If global warming is right, it will be proven right.
Until then, I am pissed at every single last one of you who dishonor the spirit and name of science by using its good name to further preach your religion.
Fuck you all.
I'm done talking about this. It's not worth a bit more of my energy dealing with this circus. I'm just going to wait and see.
HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
Where is the hypothesis, prediction and repeatable experiment? If you start with measurements, you can work back to pretty much whatever you want.
How about, recent earthquakes in the pacific brought more lava to the seafloor, warming the water? Just as plausible as any other explanation
How about, recent earthquakes in the pacific brought more lava to the seafloor, warming the water? Just as plausible as any other explanation
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Originally posted by: Titan
The bottom line when it comes to these global warming/climate change debates is that we just don't know.
Man has been trying to predict the weather since the beginning of time and the science is still not direct, predictable science. We can't conduct closed experiments on the whole earth and try to get repeatable results.
That's the key to real, good science, is the repeatability of experimental results. If I don't believe Newton's third law, I can recreate the experiment in my garage to attempt to prove/disprove it. If I have X amount of gasoline and I combust it, Y will happen. Again, I can recreate and verify the experiment. That is what gives science it's credibility, it's ability to repeat and make reliable predictions.
Climate science isn't done that way, for a lot of good reasons, but it's mostly statistics which is legitimate study, don't get me wrong. It would be cool if we had some breakthroughs in their research and could predict the weather better with a couple years precision.
So first off, I haven't seen one grand, unified, scientific prediction model for global warming that people are buying into and has been correct. Have people even been tracking the predictive models to see which one is the most accurate? Last I knew they weren't even willing to take their model out 5 or 10 years, instead make catastrophic claims about 50 to 100 years from now. In fact no one metric has been agreed upon as the measured problem, so we won't even know when it gets better.
As has been mentioned, 200 years is nothing in geologic time. Prove to me in with geological statistics that the atmosphere, or the ocean, or whatever, wasn't warmer than it is now sometime in the past with us humans around, and then I might start to get concerned.
Alarmism is not science. Catastrophism is not science. Those things just keep the science well-funded. It's sledge-hammer marketing.
What pisses me off is that I do take the spirit of science seriously and have a deep respect for it. It is about patiently studying, observing, and being open to the possibility that your theory is wrong, while still trying to prove it true. Instead I am met with a massive throng of zealots who say "believe this, or you're a heretic." "The sky is falling, and it's YOUR fault." "ZOMG the ice is melting! we're all doomed!" It's the oldest trick in the book: playing on man's inner ability to feel guilty and using it to control his behavior. Religions have been doing it since there was religion. Original sin. "You were born guilty!"
Not one catastrophist prediction has come true yet. Not one. Not that anybody is paying attention to that.
Consensus science is not science.
People make the alarmist argument of "what if we do nothing about it?" and assuming that we can effect the outcome, what if we guess wrong? What if we switch to hydrogen cars that emit water vapor (a way bigger greenhouse gas then CO2) and we make the problem worse? Hard to make a good decision without the backing of real science. Personally, I don't think man is the cause one way or another, and if you think I'm wrong, PROVE IT. That's what science does.
Skepticism is a pillar of science and I side with the skeptics when it comes to global warming. but I am man enough to be proven wrong if I am, and accept it; but we need to agree on what we are talking about first. I am further empowered by my desire to roote for the underdog in the face of this new rising religion. And I'm entitled to my beliefs, along with all my human flaws. And if the day comes where we get the global warming inquisition, and I am jailed as a heretic, I will not recant. Someone needs to stand up for the spirit of reason.
The article the OP posted is nothing more than a sophisticated looking version of someone on the street saying "boy, it's hotter this year than in my whole life." Compared to geologic time, our good records and measurements on weather are a drop in the bucket and I won't be alarmed until we actually have solid systems of prediction down, for some real frame of reference. Further, the whole post is just troll baiting and demonizing people who disagree with something that is ill-defined at best. (hey, that's ok, at least it's the right forum
If global warming is right, it will be proven right.
Until then, I am pissed at every single last one of you who dishonor the spirit and name of science by using its good name to further preach your religion.
Fuck you all.
I'm done talking about this. It's not worth a bit more of my energy dealing with this circus. I'm just going to wait and see.
^^ What he said.
you answered your own question earlier. we don't really know, as recordkeeping beyond the previous 100 years is spotty at best.But there certainly are indications that the earth has gone through warming and cooling periods before. And that was before the industial revolution.
I have also heard that mars Polar caps have shrunk? should I take that data and conclude that Martians are driving thier SUV's too much?
Blackjack200
Lifer
- May 28, 2007
- 15,995
- 1,688
- 126
Originally posted by: Titan
The bottom line when it comes to these global warming/climate change debates is that we just don't know.
Man has been trying to predict the weather since the beginning of time and the science is still not direct, predictable science. We can't conduct closed experiments on the whole earth and try to get repeatable results.
That's the key to real, good science, is the repeatability of experimental results. If I don't believe Newton's third law, I can recreate the experiment in my garage to attempt to prove/disprove it. If I have X amount of gasoline and I combust it, Y will happen. Again, I can recreate and verify the experiment. That is what gives science it's credibility, it's ability to repeat and make reliable predictions.
Climate science isn't done that way, for a lot of good reasons, but it's mostly statistics which is legitimate study, don't get me wrong. It would be cool if we had some breakthroughs in their research and could predict the weather better with a couple years precision.
So first off, I haven't seen one grand, unified, scientific prediction model for global warming that people are buying into and has been correct. Have people even been tracking the predictive models to see which one is the most accurate? Last I knew they weren't even willing to take their model out 5 or 10 years, instead make catastrophic claims about 50 to 100 years from now. In fact no one metric has been agreed upon as the measured problem, so we won't even know when it gets better.
As has been mentioned, 200 years is nothing in geologic time. Prove to me in with geological statistics that the atmosphere, or the ocean, or whatever, wasn't warmer than it is now sometime in the past with us humans around, and then I might start to get concerned.
Alarmism is not science. Catastrophism is not science. Those things just keep the science well-funded. It's sledge-hammer marketing.
What pisses me off is that I do take the spirit of science seriously and have a deep respect for it. It is about patiently studying, observing, and being open to the possibility that your theory is wrong, while still trying to prove it true. Instead I am met with a massive throng of zealots who say "believe this, or you're a heretic." "The sky is falling, and it's YOUR fault." "ZOMG the ice is melting! we're all doomed!" It's the oldest trick in the book: playing on man's inner ability to feel guilty and using it to control his behavior. Religions have been doing it since there was religion. Original sin. "You were born guilty!"
Not one catastrophist prediction has come true yet. Not one. Not that anybody is paying attention to that.
Consensus science is not science.
People make the alarmist argument of "what if we do nothing about it?" and assuming that we can effect the outcome, what if we guess wrong? What if we switch to hydrogen cars that emit water vapor (a way bigger greenhouse gas then CO2) and we make the problem worse? Hard to make a good decision without the backing of real science. Personally, I don't think man is the cause one way or another, and if you think I'm wrong, PROVE IT. That's what science does.
Skepticism is a pillar of science and I side with the skeptics when it comes to global warming. but I am man enough to be proven wrong if I am, and accept it; but we need to agree on what we are talking about first. I am further empowered by my desire to roote for the underdog in the face of this new rising religion. And I'm entitled to my beliefs, along with all my human flaws. And if the day comes where we get the global warming inquisition, and I am jailed as a heretic, I will not recant. Someone needs to stand up for the spirit of reason.
The article the OP posted is nothing more than a sophisticated looking version of someone on the street saying "boy, it's hotter this year than in my whole life." Compared to geologic time, our good records and measurements on weather are a drop in the bucket and I won't be alarmed until we actually have solid systems of prediction down, for some real frame of reference. Further, the whole post is just troll baiting and demonizing people who disagree with something that is ill-defined at best. (hey, that's ok, at least it's the right forum
If global warming is right, it will be proven right.
Until then, I am pissed at every single last one of you who dishonor the spirit and name of science by using its good name to further preach your religion.
Fuck you all.
I'm done talking about this. It's not worth a bit more of my energy dealing with this circus. I'm just going to wait and see.
Fuck you.
You pretend to care about science but have no problem taking a convenient position that flies in the face of mountains of recent scientific research. You want scientists to recreate global warming in a lab? In a way, they can and do. They can replicate the effects of adding CO2 and other greenhouse gasses to gaseous mixtures that simulate our atmosphere.
If you even had a clue about global warming you would know that it has nothing to do with "predicting the weather". If anthropogenic climate change was not accepted science at this point, why would scientists spend so much time studying its anticipated effects?
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_...-12/uoc--ssg121703.php
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/s...rests.dying/index.html
http://cornellsun.com/section/...-global-warming-oceans
http://topnews.us/content/2276...effects-global-warming
Don't you think that if a scientist could actually show that global warming was false, & tear down this false science, he would make a huge name for himself? This is not unprecedented. Where is the Noam Chomsky tearing down Behaviorism with his brilliant Linguistic work, where is Einstein tearing down Newtonian physics?
Do you have anything? One single, respected, peer reviewed study, published in a major journal, that substantially rebuts the idea that the earth is getting measurably warmer due to man's impact on the atmosphere?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter