• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Global warming revisited

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I could have used some inconvenient truth over the weekend. Visited Atlanta over the weekend and it rained the whole time with temps 15-20 degrees cooler than average. Al Gore failed me. :(
Isolated examples again? Well, it's mid-March and our A/C has been running for the past 3 weeks. Not only that, we used to have several hard freezes during the 'winter' where I live. Now we rarely get them if at all. I guess that's global warming proven, right?

 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
That's like saying evolution is not proven.
Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's not fact.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Exactly, evolution isn't proven and neither is GW but we have evidence that it is real and no evicence points to any other explanation.

Now, Gravity, Evolution and GW are facts, the theories are just the explanations of HOW it happens.
THAT it happens is an established fact.
Nope... sorry. Not the case. Evolution happened. We know it happened. Fossil evidence proves it happened, DNA evidence proves it happened, and we can watch it happening with bacterial strains becoming immune to penecillin variants. THAT is proof. (HOW is another totally separate matter)

As far as global warming, there isnt such evidence. There are alot of scientists that say its happening faster than it should because of man. and there are many others that say it isnt. There are some places where ice and glaciers have melted and it looks really scary . There are others where the ICE is larger and thicker than ever. Like I said - it depends on what "science" you look at. That is not the same.

Either way, whats the difference. I keep saying this - we need to get off fossil fuels for many reasons. I just don't happen to think global warming is tops on that list. If that angers you, because you have some dire need for it to be on top of that list, then get a life, and a clue. We freegin agree on the majorly important fact that we need to get off fossil fuels FFS. What more do you want?

 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,386
3,518
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
That's like saying evolution is not proven.
Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's not fact.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Exactly, evolution isn't proven and neither is GW but we have evidence that it is real and no evicence points to any other explanation.

Now, Gravity, Evolution and GW are facts, the theories are just the explanations of HOW it happens.
THAT it happens is an established fact.
Nope... sorry. Not the case. Evolution happened. We know it happened. Fossil evidence proves it happened, DNA evidence proves it happened, and we can watch it happening with bacterial strains becoming immune to penecillin variants. THAT is proof. (HOW is another totally separate matter)

As far as global warming, there isnt such evidence. There are alot of scientists that say its happening faster than it should because of man. and there are many others that say it isnt. There are some places where ice and glaciers have melted and it looks really scary . There are others where the ICE is larger and thicker than ever. Like I said - it depends on what "science" you look at. That is not the same.

Either way, whats the difference. I keep saying this - we need to get off fossil fuels for many reasons. I just don't happen to think global warming is tops on that list. If that angers you, because you have some dire need for it to be on top of that list, then get a life, and a clue. We freegin agree on the majorly important fact that we need to get off fossil fuels FFS. What more do you want?
There's lots of Evidence of GW. You're the one making the big deal between the GW reasons and you're own. You're trying to ride the fence, being aceptable to both sides. Or maybe unacceptable, either way you're wrong about GW/CG.
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel49

I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
In point of fact, the net result of proposed ecological regulations would make industry much healthier as it would require a funded shift in manufacturing energy away from petroleum at a time when Hubbert's peak is already well past. Continuing as we have been using carbon based fuels is ludicrous and bordering on the suicidal.

As to climate change being "imaginary", just because it hasn't been proven to the satisfaction of 100% of the scientific community (though it certainly has to the majority of them), the use of the term "imaginary" is disingenuous at best!
 

nerp

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,843
93
91
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: nerp
Originally posted by: JS80
such waste time and effort. there's going to be a geomagnetic shift on Dec 21, 2012 and 99% of us will die.
Fossil record shows that there were no mass die-offs during previous geomagnetic shifts. It's been specifically looked at. Unlike other major catastrophic events that can be documented in geological layers, the orientation of metallic particles in rocks and the sea floor that conveniently recorded those shifts like a planetary tape recorder tells us that geomagnetic shifts did not cause mass die offs.
It would this time, if it would cause all of our electronics to fail.
Dead electronics doesn't constitute 'mass dieoffs' nor would it spell the end of our species.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,529
0
0
forgive the references to previous ignorance a month or so ago, but I'll keep re-posting this as long as you people make GW a political issue:

a few more thoughts - no proof of global warming? I suppose that depends on your definition of proof, but lets start with agreed upon scientific data

temperature chart from Nasa: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif

another from the Climatic Research Unit: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/


glacial melting as seen here: http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

scroll down on that one to see the graph

sea ice melt: http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trends_fig1.html

I would hope most logical people - Al Gore haters included, could at least look at data like this - which climatologists have - and conclude that indeed the earth is warming.

With that first big step out of the way - the next discussion is 'what is the cause'?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - yes, it is not the only one. Take a look at this graph: http://www.brighton73.freeserv...aleoclimate.htm#iceage


Take a look at this one as well:http://commons.wikimedia.org/w...n_Emission_by_Type.png

Clearly - our co2 output is the primary cause of the increased levels of atmoshperic co2 - note that I'm not saying that it proves this is the cause of global warming, but it certainly qualifies as something close to a smoking gun.

Don't bring up the garbage out the famous 'hockey stick graph' either - there is plenty of open debate about both sides of that discussion - and there are dozens of other studies which produce very similar results - and even the people who don't like how the 'hockey stick graph - aka the IPC TAR Summary' data was used don't refute these other studies.

Finally - the Hansen model - which had 3 possible scenarios - not the one scenario that anti-GW talking points say was "300% off". His "B" scenario has come remarkably close to what has actually happened over the past 20 years - and if you roll the model used for these scenarios backwards in time, they again appear to be remarkably accurate, as seen here: http://www.grida.no/publicatio...c_tar/wg1/figspm-4.htm

Again - CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but it's contribution is: "According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect." I'll grant you that is a wide spectrum of possible impact - but when you consider the dramatic rise in CO2 concentration that corresponds with temperature increases, it can't simply be tossed aside either.

As for other 'talking points' against man's impact on global warming:

Water Vapor - changes in water vapor levels tend to be leveled out naturally - too much water vapor leads to increased rains, too little is fixed with increased evaporation - more details here: http://www.atmo.arizona.edu/st...df/RadiationBudget.pdf

Mars is getting warmer too! - this is a good one - I believe it's even been mentioned in this thread. As mentioned earlier -the only common factor is the sun - and I've already pointed out (in a prior post, more details on satellite observation are available if you want to see them) where that isn't the cause - and when you consider the vast amount of data we have for earth's climate - only talking recent history here - and compare it to the practically non-existent 'evidence' of warming on mars - which apparently only consists of a series of photographs that show some polar melting. We do have some data as well, going back to the Viking landers and the subsequent missions there, but to conclude that global warming is taking place there is just plain false - see this article: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Oh, and it's not "the sun is the cause of this rise in temperature" see here: http://www.universetoday.com/2...k-with-global-warming/


A few final comments - to say there is as much money in the GW-"con" as their is in current energy tech is just plain silly - did you see Exxon's earnings announcement today? Same thing last year - this is the most profitable company in the world - 2 years running - do you really think anything related to GW, or going green, is going to come anywhere close to that in the next 1-15 years?

Why is it a bad thing to try and make the air cleaner - GW or not? Ask people who suffer from asthma about that.
Why is it a bad thing to try and lessen our dependence on foreign fuel sources?
Why is it a bad thing to utilize more nuclear plants - if you are going to make cars electric - fully or partially - more coal plants aren't the answer - and clean coal as it stands today is a pipe-dream. Spend that money to improve the ways nuclear waste is stored, and start building more nuclear plants!
Stop using corn as a source of ethanol - it's a complete waste of time - until you have a better, technologically ready, solution - switchgrass perhaps - keep using corn for food!

I don't like the whole 'carbon credits' thing either - but it's a start.

My final take - the best thing about the whole GW discussion - at least we are finally having it. We are finally taking steps now, and talking about spending money, on solving some of these issues - and whether you believe in man-influenced global warming or not - I find it nearly impossible to say why we shouldn't be taking these steps regardless.


 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: retrospooty

Nope... sorry. Not the case. Evolution happened. We know it happened. Fossil evidence proves it happened, DNA evidence proves it happened, and we can watch it happening with bacterial strains becoming immune to penecillin variants. THAT is proof. (HOW is another totally separate matter)

As far as global warming, there isnt such evidence. There are alot of scientists that say its happening faster than it should because of man. and there are many others that say it isnt. There are some places where ice and glaciers have melted and it looks really scary . There are others where the ICE is larger and thicker than ever. Like I said - it depends on what "science" you look at. That is not the same.

Either way, whats the difference. I keep saying this - we need to get off fossil fuels for many reasons. I just don't happen to think global warming is tops on that list. If that angers you, because you have some dire need for it to be on top of that list, then get a life, and a clue. We freegin agree on the majorly important fact that we need to get off fossil fuels FFS. What more do you want?
There is absolutely no proof that "Evolution happened"...there is only a hypothesis with a whole lot of evidence. However, it is certainly possible that other explanations are more correct. Do I believe that Evolution is in fact an accurate model? Sure I do...but I can't prove it (and there are a LOT of holes in the theory!)

The same is true in physics...
Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have mountains of evidence showing the accuracy of the models. However, they are mathematically mutually exclusive when it comes to gravity (meaning that ONE of them has to at least be partially wrong).

 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
That's like saying evolution is not proven.
Just because you don't understand the science, doesn't mean it's not fact.
Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Exactly, evolution isn't proven and neither is GW but we have evidence that it is real and no evicence points to any other explanation.

Now, Gravity, Evolution and GW are facts, the theories are just the explanations of HOW it happens.
THAT it happens is an established fact.
Nope... sorry. Not the case. Evolution happened. We know it happened. Fossil evidence proves it happened, DNA evidence proves it happened, and we can watch it happening with bacterial strains becoming immune to penecillin variants. THAT is proof. (HOW is another totally separate matter)

As far as global warming, there isnt such evidence. There are alot of scientists that say its happening faster than it should because of man. and there are many others that say it isnt. There are some places where ice and glaciers have melted and it looks really scary . There are others where the ICE is larger and thicker than ever. Like I said - it depends on what "science" you look at. That is not the same.

Either way, whats the difference. I keep saying this - we need to get off fossil fuels for many reasons. I just don't happen to think global warming is tops on that list. If that angers you, because you have some dire need for it to be on top of that list, then get a life, and a clue. We freegin agree on the majorly important fact that we need to get off fossil fuels FFS. What more do you want?
There's lots of Evidence of GW. You're the one making the big deal between the GW reasons and you're own. You're trying to ride the fence, being aceptable to both sides. Or maybe unacceptable, either way you're wrong about GW/CG.
There is lots of evidence that the climate has gone through many changes like this in the past. In the most recent several million years there have been many ice ages and thaws... The point is question here is "manmade" GW, or rather the idea that our emissions are making it worse. It happens naturally, not necesarily worsening by our emissions. Whatever...
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: Retrospooty
Evolution happened. We know it happened. Fossil evidence proves it happened, DNA evidence proves it happened, and we can watch it happening with bacterial strains becoming immune to penecillin variants. THAT is proof. (HOW is another totally separate matter)
Originally posted by: Viditor

There is absolutely no proof that "Evolution happened" there is only a hypothesis with a whole lot of evidence
Ugh... OK - :roll:

We need to get off fossil fuels for many valid reasons.
 

TallBill

Lifer
Apr 29, 2001
46,044
62
91
Originally posted by: JS80
such waste time and effort. there's going to be a geomagnetic shift on Dec 21, 2012 and 99% of us will die.
Do you realize how long the reversal actually takes? Estimates are in the 100's to 1000's of years.

The the poles are almost horizontal there will be a big increase in UV waves reaching earth causing an increase in mutation and cancer, but it shouldn't kill 99% of us.
 
Dec 10, 2005
21,053
2,538
126
Originally posted by: Viditor
Originally posted by: retrospooty

Nope... sorry. Not the case. Evolution happened. We know it happened. Fossil evidence proves it happened, DNA evidence proves it happened, and we can watch it happening with bacterial strains becoming immune to penecillin variants. THAT is proof. (HOW is another totally separate matter)

As far as global warming, there isnt such evidence. There are alot of scientists that say its happening faster than it should because of man. and there are many others that say it isnt. There are some places where ice and glaciers have melted and it looks really scary . There are others where the ICE is larger and thicker than ever. Like I said - it depends on what "science" you look at. That is not the same.

Either way, whats the difference. I keep saying this - we need to get off fossil fuels for many reasons. I just don't happen to think global warming is tops on that list. If that angers you, because you have some dire need for it to be on top of that list, then get a life, and a clue. We freegin agree on the majorly important fact that we need to get off fossil fuels FFS. What more do you want?
There is absolutely no proof that "Evolution happened"...there is only a hypothesis with a whole lot of evidence. However, it is certainly possible that other explanations are more correct. Do I believe that Evolution is in fact an accurate model? Sure I do...but I can't prove it (and there are a LOT of holes in the theory!)

The same is true in physics...
Both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have mountains of evidence showing the accuracy of the models. However, they are mathematically mutually exclusive when it comes to gravity (meaning that ONE of them has to at least be partially wrong).
Fail. Evolution is more than a hypothesis at this point. Plus, you know what a hypothesis with a whole lot of evidence is? It's called a theory, and scientific theories are generally pretty strong (though, that is dependent on the field and number of studies done in the area).

I believe you mean general relativity vs. newtonian mechanics, in which General Relativity combined some concepts together to get a more wholistic picture of gravity, where as Newtonian mechanics ignores relativistic effects. But it doesn't matter if Newtonian mechanics ignores those effects, as the scales that we deal with in Newtonian Mechanics greatly overwhelm any sort of relativistic effects. And quantum mechanics ignores gravity for the most part, as the scales are so small, and nuclear forces are the dominant forces by far.
 

zerogear

Diamond Member
Jun 4, 2000
5,611
9
81
It may or may not be bunk, but isn't it a good thing to conserve energy and have a clean environment?
 

scruffypup

Senior member
Feb 3, 2006
371
0
0
The main problem is that people are intertwining different things and using bad logic to state that those connections are fact.

*There has been some warming of the globe for a period of time, until recently, which may continue its cooling for an unknown time,... possibly the next 100 years.

*There has been an increase of man made CO2 as well as pollutants which are bad for most animals health

*There has been higher and cooler temps in the past and there will continue to be.

*There is debate among scientists as to what caused the increase in temps, as well as the current cooling. (the northwest pacific is expected to cool over the next decade). The "majority consensus" argument is crap since there is no poll of world scientists stating what they believe,.. there have been some small polls only (especially those hand picked by Gore at one time,...)

*There has been manipulation of data by some who want there to be warming to prove their point. There has also been manipulation of the media who want the same.

*There is little data overall, we are trying to piece together the past from geological records,... but that only gives part of the story, we have no idea how much certain external factors play a role overall (the sun is the biggest example and is now going through a period that may cool our planet)

Al Gore and the global warming side want to connect some of these and say,.... there it is, absolute proof. Then they jump on those that say,... wait a second,... that is not logical and we need to look at the other possibilities.

Sorry people, there is no hard link that humans caused the warming some refer to is not there and the argument that humans have not made a difference in that warming is very valid.

Also, the gloom and doom is overhyped as well,... sure some growing zones would be hurt if there was an increase in global temps of a few degrees like the "global warming fearmongers" have us fear,.. but new ones would open up,..... People would still survive. Plants and animals would survive.
 

scruffypup

Senior member
Feb 3, 2006
371
0
0
Originally posted by: zerogear
It may or may not be bunk, but isn't it a good thing to conserve energy and have a clean environment?
Yes, but that was not the debate of the original poster.

However, to that point,... there are different ways to do so and at what cost,... those are debatable.

Should we just push certain things that are inefficient, expensive and maybe not the best avenue due to some fearmongering, politics and bad information?

Wind power is being pushed,... bad for migratory birds.
Solar power is being pushed,... costly, inefficient and solar plants are bad for animals,... it takes up vast tracks of land.
Tidal power is being pushed,... costly, inefficient and who knows about the sealife,...

Nuclear is not being pushed,... yet it is efficient, little effect on animals and land, waste is minimal anymore compared to last plants built in US.

Personally I am for solar on buildings in cities, nuclear plants, cellusotic ethanol and electric vehicles,... but I am not for the fearmongering, the shoving the misinformation down America's throat, the huge amount shoved into inefficient ways by people with an agenda or due to lobbying groups.

What cost do we burden taxpayers, way of living, certain groups just to get this agenda done of some people done?
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: daniel49
I have no problem with the concept of being a good steward of the planet, but to spend unknown billions , and cripple industry with excessive regulation to cure an imaginary problem is simply foolish at best and moronic at the worst.
It's nothing more than a political agenda with a faux excuse behind it.
Nice summation of the Denial Industry.
Are you trying to tell me that all the hoopla about DDT and the American Eagle eggs wasn't anything more than a smoke screen put up by folk who love mosquitoes?
the mosquito lobby is quite powerful..lol
No, now back to topic.
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I could have used some inconvenient truth over the weekend. Visited Atlanta over the weekend and it rained the whole time with temps 15-20 degrees cooler than average. Al Gore failed me. :(
Isolated examples again? Well, it's mid-March and our A/C has been running for the past 3 weeks. Not only that, we used to have several hard freezes during the 'winter' where I live. Now we rarely get them if at all. I guess that's global warming proven, right?
we just had the latest snow here yesterday, next.
 

WaTaGuMp

Lifer
May 10, 2001
21,207
2,506
126
I have proof global warming is real. today is going to be warmer then yesterday, try and argue that fact bitches. :D
 

daniel49

Diamond Member
Jan 8, 2005
4,814
0
71
Originally posted by: zerogear
It may or may not be bunk, but isn't it a good thing to conserve energy and have a clean environment?
yes, but don't do it by throwing money and jobs down a bottomless hole.
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: scruffypup
The main problem is that people are intertwining different things and using bad logic to state that those connections are fact.

*There has been some warming of the globe for a period of time, until recently, which may continue its cooling for an unknown time,... possibly the next 100 years.

*There has been an increase of man made CO2 as well as pollutants which are bad for most animals health

*There has been higher and cooler temps in the past and there will continue to be.

*There is debate among scientists as to what caused the increase in temps, as well as the current cooling. (the northwest pacific is expected to cool over the next decade). The "majority consensus" argument is crap since there is no poll of world scientists stating what they believe,.. there have been some small polls only (especially those hand picked by Gore at one time,...)

*There has been manipulation of data by some who want there to be warming to prove their point. There has also been manipulation of the media who want the same.

*There is little data overall, we are trying to piece together the past from geological records,... but that only gives part of the story, we have no idea how much certain external factors play a role overall (the sun is the biggest example and is now going through a period that may cool our planet)

Al Gore and the global warming side want to connect some of these and say,.... there it is, absolute proof. Then they jump on those that say,... wait a second,... that is not logical and we need to look at the other possibilities.

Sorry people, there is no hard link that humans caused the warming some refer to is not there and the argument that humans have not made a difference in that warming is very valid.

Also, the gloom and doom is overhyped as well,... sure some growing zones would be hurt if there was an increase in global temps of a few degrees like the "global warming fearmongers" have us fear,.. but new ones would open up,..... People would still survive. Plants and animals would survive.
You started out neutral and ended presenting only 1 side of the debate. How do *you* know plants/animals will survive?

Why has no one responded to NeoV's post?
 

Robor

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
16,979
0
0
Originally posted by: daniel49
Originally posted by: Robor
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I could have used some inconvenient truth over the weekend. Visited Atlanta over the weekend and it rained the whole time with temps 15-20 degrees cooler than average. Al Gore failed me. :(
Isolated examples again? Well, it's mid-March and our A/C has been running for the past 3 weeks. Not only that, we used to have several hard freezes during the 'winter' where I live. Now we rarely get them if at all. I guess that's global warming proven, right?
we just had the latest snow here yesterday, next.
Check your batteries.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Originally posted by: zerogear
It may or may not be bunk, but isn't it a good thing to conserve energy and have a clean environment?
Exactly... Why is that so hard for some people to see.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
30,116
3,653
126
Originally posted by: retrospooty
Originally posted by: zerogear
It may or may not be bunk, but isn't it a good thing to conserve energy and have a clean environment?
Exactly... Why is that so hard for some people to see.
Then you can stop throwing up junk science as the excuse to do those things. I will support it on its own merits, but I will oppose it when based on lies.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
So What the climate is changing. The climate has been changing since I was born. The funny thing is there is less pollution now than when I was a little kid. There are other things going on in the Southwest besides climate changes. A lot have to do with people using all the groundwater and draining the Colorado River so people in arizona and California can have drinking water in the middle of an arid desert environment. This of course has nothing to do with pollution. You cant settle people in the middle of a desert and expect them not to change the environment. They are pushing the available water supply to the very edge of what is possible.

Can we prove what some people propose to change in the USA will change the current climage change even 1%?

The answer is no, we dont have a clue.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY