There is plenty of evidence for global warming. A diverse and global group of scientists agree on this. Strong correlation evidence shows an upward trend in CO2 levels and temperatures worldwide. No, this is not a direct proof, but the correlation is straightforward enough to cause concern.
The people who know what they are talking about believe there is enough evidence to warrant preventative action. Really, that should be enough. People need to listen to scientists more.
The people who know what they are talking about believe there is enough evidence to warrant preventative action. Really, that should be enough. People need to listen to scientists more.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Duwelon, if you're really interested in looking at the evidence I suggest you broaden your search to websites such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://environment.newscientis.../earth/climate-change/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
...or Google it yourself. There is a ton of information out there and plenty of positive evidence. Perhaps I'll return to this thread after the debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://environment.newscientis.../earth/climate-change/
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
...or Google it yourself. There is a ton of information out there and plenty of positive evidence. Perhaps I'll return to this thread after the debate.
I have no problem with 'global warming' per se. I haven't heard of many scientists saying temperatures are not going up, but you bring up something interesting about this in a completely forward and honest way, and it's very commendable. Actually eskimospy hinted at this too but he didn't feel it necessary to expound on his statement.
The problem I have is the "man made" part. You mentioned the correlation of CO2 and temperature increase. We've all heard the cliche' of "correlation does not mean causation" i'm sure. Before I start giving in to enviornmentalists, they better have more than just a correlation and they better answer the critics too.
Another problem I see with the whole "climate change" movement is that nobody really knows what the correct world temperature is. Obviously we don't all of antarica melting or anything though.
I have learned one thing out of this thread, that the belief in man made global warming is because of a correlation between CO2 emissions and temperature change. Fine.
According to this (IPCC supported piece) the total mass of Antartica is increasing?
worldclimatereport
No idea how reputable they are, but one thing is for sure, the Global Warming Wikipedia entry doesn't do the controversy around global warming much effort.
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
Do you raise this issue about general relativity? Do you doubt that general relativity offers a pretty good explanation of the laws of physics in accelerating reference frames? And if you don't doubt, why? I'll bet you haven't analyzed the evidence, yet you "believe." How come you're not demanding proof? I'll bet it's that you're aware that there's a strong consensus among qualified scientists that general relativity is accurate.
So we have evidence that you trust what a consensus of scientists tells us is true.
So the real question is: What's so different about the theory of anthropogenic climate change - for which there is a VERY strong consensus among climatologists - that leads you to disregard what the scientists are telling us? What's so special about this one area of science that you appear to believe that there's some huge conspiracy of misinformation?
If you want more than correlation you will be disappointed. People have already explained in this thread that it is impossible. The thing is, this doesn't mean it's unsound. If you look at a chart of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, there is a very striking trend beginning shortly after the industrial revolution. If you assume this is a coincidence, I would call that pretty reckless. There is a lot at stake here, and the correlation is strong enough to take action.
Also, the increased CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made. Even if you don't accept the obvious relation to the increase of CO2 production by mankind, this has been shown due to isotope levels. If the CO2 were natural, it would have isotope levels consistent with natural ones.
As for world temperature, the easiest way to see a change is in the fact that ice is receding further each year. This means it is warmer (on average) each successive year. If on-land ice begins to melt into the ocean in large quantities, it will raise the sea level. A small rise would be enough to flood towns and cities near rivers or the coast (almost all of civilization is near rivers or the coast).
Read this: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessm...r4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf
The difference is, we don't have a group of people advocating we give up our personal freedoms for the safety from the general relativity monster. I'll be happy to do my part to curb global warming once the proponents start acting less like a religion and more like a real segment of science.
I don't think GW is a hoax......in the traditional sense. Scientists are not out there wringing their hands laughing about how the pulled the wool every everyone's eyes to get funding - nor are politicians lining up behind behind GW solely to take are rights away. There are people who genuinely believe that there is a problem and it must be dealt with. Though some people will exaggerate the problem to bring attention to it.
My concern is human nature. People have very short term memories and are very subseptable to the 'do something disease.' The mentality that we must do something now - even if it is counter productive - just for the sake of doing something. That type of thinking spawns bad laws and policy - things that can make the situation worse. Already the term has had to been changed from Global Warming to Global Climate Change.
Which is kinda dumb...Of course the climate changes. Nature is never in balance and never will be. Man's problem is we have a hard time accepting anything that is not static. I've watched the small weather shifts in the last twenty years where i live; last few years has seen a increase in the amount and frequency of snow fall. From my prospective this is cooling trend. But after talking to people who have been here 50 years - its returning how it used to be. 40 years ago it was common to have snow in April and even a blizzard in May. When i moved here 20 years ago snow in April was freak thing. We only have a very small window of 'detailed' information to make any determinations.
We have a hard time figuring out how things work and the relationships in the natural world. Example: In china it was determined that a certain type of bird was not needed ( i forgot the species) and was considered a nuisance. Well they had a campaign to kill off the bird, which succeeded fairly well. Turns out the bird kept a certain worm in check, the population of the worm exploded and caused all sorts of problems.
oops
The US has done similar things with animal management. Now we are trying to tackle something more complex and absolutely huge in scope? sorry, not quite on board yet.
What we should do is devote resources that we know will help with pollution and improving quality of life. America has done a good job of cleaning up the air of its major cities - think what we could do if the rest of the world did the same? Bring clean water to developing nations - it would help millions! Stuff that may not be currently 'hip' but will be beneficial to people int both the short and long term.
My concern is human nature. People have very short term memories and are very subseptable to the 'do something disease.' The mentality that we must do something now - even if it is counter productive - just for the sake of doing something. That type of thinking spawns bad laws and policy - things that can make the situation worse. Already the term has had to been changed from Global Warming to Global Climate Change.
Which is kinda dumb...Of course the climate changes. Nature is never in balance and never will be. Man's problem is we have a hard time accepting anything that is not static. I've watched the small weather shifts in the last twenty years where i live; last few years has seen a increase in the amount and frequency of snow fall. From my prospective this is cooling trend. But after talking to people who have been here 50 years - its returning how it used to be. 40 years ago it was common to have snow in April and even a blizzard in May. When i moved here 20 years ago snow in April was freak thing. We only have a very small window of 'detailed' information to make any determinations.
We have a hard time figuring out how things work and the relationships in the natural world. Example: In china it was determined that a certain type of bird was not needed ( i forgot the species) and was considered a nuisance. Well they had a campaign to kill off the bird, which succeeded fairly well. Turns out the bird kept a certain worm in check, the population of the worm exploded and caused all sorts of problems.
oops
The US has done similar things with animal management. Now we are trying to tackle something more complex and absolutely huge in scope? sorry, not quite on board yet.
What we should do is devote resources that we know will help with pollution and improving quality of life. America has done a good job of cleaning up the air of its major cities - think what we could do if the rest of the world did the same? Bring clean water to developing nations - it would help millions! Stuff that may not be currently 'hip' but will be beneficial to people int both the short and long term.
Lets face it, we are not advanced enough in science to understand and predict global climate trends, and all the variables that impact those trends. The MMGW crowd ran too aggressive of a campaign, and a backlash is starting to be the result of it. Whether CO2 influences global warming or not is unknown, but we should still take measures to reduce it, along with any other atmospheric emissions. However, we should take a slow and steady approach rather than the typical kneejerk reactions that environmentalists want. Look at the rush to biofuels and food prices to see the results of kneejerk, feel good responses to problems. People have died as a result of increased food prices spurred by this biofuel rush designed to enrich the corn lobby.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
I agree with everything you stated except for the tired BS of your last sentence. We just had a thread on this where it in essence shows your claim(the claim of people against bio-fuel) is BS.
I'd be willing to bet that 90% of global warming critics don't even have a basic understanding of what it is they reject. Much is the same when discussing evolution and the reason being is that most people already have their mind made up due to some psychological bias one way or the other. Unfortunately for the skeptics, the logical route when dealing with any kind of science is to side with expert opinion and not ignorant knee jerk reactions or tradition.
We get fined hundreds of dollars if caught littering on the side of the road, yet apparently it is acceptable that thousands of tons of pollution gets pumped into the environment on a regular basis.
I am still waiting for the peer reviewed scientific articles doubting GW...
We get fined hundreds of dollars if caught littering on the side of the road, yet apparently it is acceptable that thousands of tons of pollution gets pumped into the environment on a regular basis.
I am still waiting for the peer reviewed scientific articles doubting GW...
Mankind?s scientific 'evidence' should always be open to debate. Obviously, we need to take care of our planet and the way that we've been abusing it really needs to change. But being closed minded on either side of this debate may allow ignorance and/or greed to rule the day. Greed from either side: maintain current lifestyle without making any sacrifice, or things like "carbon credits" become a hot commodity and serve little purpose other than making a few people wealthy.
Understand that there's going to be skepticism of such broad global warming claims. Look at how well weather forecasting works, even a week out. Regardless, responsible action should be taken?.but not through fear mongering.
Predispositions and theory?s can influence observations.
Understand that there's going to be skepticism of such broad global warming claims. Look at how well weather forecasting works, even a week out. Regardless, responsible action should be taken?.but not through fear mongering.
Predispositions and theory?s can influence observations.
ProfJohn
Lifer
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
That isn't as great a bell wether as you proclaim it to be.
The snow caps on Mt. Kilimanjaro have been decreasing since at least the 1920 (there is photographic evidence from back then that proves this.) It has actually been going on for over a 100 years.
The decrease has NOTHING to do with warming. The ice isn't melting, it is evaporating. And because of the dry conditions around the Mt. the ice isn't being replaced via new snow fall. link
I believe there are also studies that show that the ice caps in Antarctica are actually growing thicker in some places. The problem is perception. When the ice caps in one part of Greenland recede and show the remains of some 1000 year old village it is very apparent to the world what is happening. But when another ice sheet goes from being 100 ft thick to 101 ft thick you really don't notice the difference.
people have known the earth was round thousands of years and have know accurate measurements of the earths size for over 2000 years, especially among the educated. the algemest and other ancient mathematical works in navigation proved it and were then the standard for 2000 years. The mythology of people thinking the earth being flat is a bunch of garbage, and any such belief was limited to the ignorant.
That really wasn't the most important point in my post.
I didn't say it was evidence for global warming as such. It is just a good indicator. Also, saying that Antarctica is growing means nothing. The fact is the earth's climate is.. destabilized. That aside, there is much more empirical data to support global warming than looking at the Greenland or Arctic ice with a ruler. Some examples are included in the link I posted, which you quoted.
Also, I would like to point out that Mt. Kilimanjaro.. a single mountain.. is not very convincing evidence on a global scale. This is actually referred to in the very article you linked. The cause for the loss of ice there may have nothing to do with global warming, but this doesn't mean global warming is false by a long shot.
Druidx
Platinum Member
- Jul 16, 2002
- 2,971
- 0
- 76
The whole basis for global warming comes from dozens of conflicting computer models used to predict the future impact of an incredible variety of factors. I'm sorry but if the best computer model can't predict with any certainty if it will rain next week, I'm not going to buy into the fact it can predict global mean temperature a 100 years from now.
The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
Even the UN IPCC Panel report which is brought up in every discussion, list 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
The global warming theory ( that's what it is a theory ), is mostly based on mathematical models where they can't even backup many of their assumptions used in the model.
Even the UN IPCC Panel report which is brought up in every discussion, list 12 causes of global warming, then later admits they have little scientific understanding of 6 of the 12 factors and only marginal understanding of another 4.
So we are suppose to go by their predictions when they admit, at best only understand 1/4 of the reason?
Don't forget right up to the mid 70's the overwhelming belief was we were heading into another mini ice-age.
This made me chuckle. Global warming is based on scientific evidence showing an upward trend in global temperatures. Like, they measured the temperature and made a graph and hey.. it's going up. Hence, global warming.
They do use models to predict the future effects sure, but they know that it's happening right now. It's naive to compare it to weather forecasting. This sort of prediction is a much more general one, and therefore more accurate. Obviously they can't figure out exactly what is going to happen though. The point is something will.
A side note, you talk about "theory" as if that means something. A scientific theory is a fact, not a guess.
The reason is a lot less important than the fact that it's happening, and it is related to the influence of mankind. Science never knows everything, but right now the smartest move based on what we do know would be to act to reduce global warming.
A link would be nice to support the supposed "shakiness" of an international group of climate specialists.
My view on global warming is basically; "better safe than sorry". I really don't see how it is worth the risk. The effects would be devastating.
Why do people argue against global warming (beyond reason)? Money. Why do people argue for global warming? Concern.
I'm not trying to convince you global warming is real for some sort of malicious conspiracy. We are facing a serious issue here.
Druidx
Platinum Member
- Jul 16, 2002
- 2,971
- 0
- 76
Actually I'm not dismissing the possibility of global warming, I am only dismissing the fanatical environmentalist and alarmists view it's caused by man and the sky is falling. That is an incredibly simplified view but is what's accepted by the general population. My point is, Mt. St. Helens in one day created more green house gases than Man has in our whole history.
I don't have any problem with conservationist or environmentalist in general, to me it's only common sense to not waste our limited resources or not try to limit unnecessary pollution.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off what I think are the bigger subjects. ( conservation and reasonable pollution controls ).
Many projections put the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than the
percentage of error in the temperatures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.
I don't have any problem with conservationist or environmentalist in general, to me it's only common sense to not waste our limited resources or not try to limit unnecessary pollution.
I think that's why the whole global warming issue is such a pet peeve as it take focus off what I think are the bigger subjects. ( conservation and reasonable pollution controls ).
Many projections put the man-made portion of CO2 around 0.2%. This is less than the
percentage of error in the temperatures cited in their own predictions of global warming.
So if EVERY man-made source of C02 was stopped tomorrow, it would have less than 0.2% impact on the problem.
Nope. 'Global Cooling' was the view of a few scientists. It was the product of a tiny fraction of the research that has been put into global warming, and most of the papers supporting it only raised it as a possibility requiring further research instead of a conclusion. Just because Newsweek publishes an article about something doesn't mean it is the 'overwhelming belief' or anywhere even close to it.
As for Mount St. Helens releasing more greenhouse gas then mankind throughout all of history... I searched for a good bit on that one and could not find the slightest shred of evidence for that. (all I found were links at like globarwarminghoax.com that claimed it with absolutely no backup) Do you have a link detailing the amounts of gases that were released, and a comparison to the amount of CO2 released by man caused elements each year? If this was the case, then why was there no spike in atmospheric CO2 levels the year MSH exploded? I have not heard very many deniers attempt to claim that man is not causing atmospheric CO2 levels to increase, are you claiming this? If not, how can you explain a singular event of such gigantic magnitude not causing even a blip?
Your ideas about computer models seem a little strange as well. While I'm no expert on them, to dismiss them because they can't predict when it is going to rain seems silly as macro level trends are often far easier to predict then micro ones. (ie. it would be very difficult to predict where the specific subatomic particles were in your hand if you waved it back and forth, but it's pretty easy to predict where your hand is going to be)
Druidx
Platinum Member
- Jul 16, 2002
- 2,971
- 0
- 76
See this is why I enjoy these debates, always educational
I stand corrected about the CO2 output from Mt. St. Helens. It turns out that wasn't true even though it has been mentioned several times in the past.
Interestingly, while checking up on that I did find it's the biggest polluter in Washington State.
Since the presumption always is global warming is a direct result of man made CO2, which has a greater impact on global warming CO2 or methane?
I stand corrected about the CO2 output from Mt. St. Helens. It turns out that wasn't true even though it has been mentioned several times in the past.
Interestingly, while checking up on that I did find it's the biggest polluter in Washington State.
Since the presumption always is global warming is a direct result of man made CO2, which has a greater impact on global warming CO2 or methane?
shira
Diamond Member
- Jan 12, 2005
- 9,500
- 6
- 81
You've got things entirely backward: Predicting the weather next week is a short-term phenomenon, subject to statistical fluctuations that swamp the models. But long term predictions about climate are MUCH more accurate, since those statistical variations even out over the long term.
An excellent analogy is predictions about how a particular baseball player will do in tonight's game. Consider Albert Pujols. Over the course of a season, we can be pretty confident he's going to bat in the 300 to 370 range. Just look at his season totals:
2001: 329
2002: 314
2003: 359
2004: 331
2005: 330
2006: 327
2007: 327
But how will he do tonight? He might go 0 for 5 (batting 0) or 5 for 5 (batting 1000) or anything in between. Tonight's game is just like next week's weather - highly variable.
I think you have your decimals off. Man made CO2 accounts for about 5 percent of the CO2 in the atmosphere. (some people say less, some more, but that's an average). So first of all, it's not 0.2% or 0.5%, it's 5%. That's an order of magnitude of difference.
That's not particularly important though, as what we should be looking at is the percentage of the increase in CO2. We're responsible for nearly all of that.
As far as methane goes, it's a different problem. It is worse then CO2 pound for pound, but there is a lot less of it. It also sticks around in our atmosphere for a lot shorter period of time.
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