Okay, its currently -18F out. Where are all the global warming freaks?

[cavemanmoron]

Originally posted by: alm99
Are you in UPstate NY. Its freakin cold!

Albany,NY USA

Albany International Airport
Last Update on Feb 4, 11:51 am EST


Fair

16°F
(-9°C) Humidity: 38 %
Wind Speed: W 16 G 23 MPH
Barometer: 29.96" (1015.1 mb)
Dewpoint: -5°F (-21°C)
Wind Chill: 1°F (-17°C)

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: monk3y
I don't believe anything either way (I don't have any more proof to prove either agenda). I just hope Global Warming doesn't exist.

Thats what I told my students when I was a chemistry TA (while getting my Masters). We covered CFCs, global warming, and nuclear power in one section.

When the students asked what I felt (on global warming), I told them IMO it was highly unscientific for people to claim that they know humans are the cause of global warming and that the real reason for global warming is not known beacuse of too many possible affects.

I told them CFCs destroying the ozone was and is real because the data indicates CFC contributions. We know this because the ozone cycle is almost completely understood and the affect of CFCs on ozone via free radicals was well documented. And there was one simple fact: CFCs are man made they were not here before so any CFCs in the atmosphere was because of humans. IE two main affects on ozone concentration is amount of avalible oxygen (constant) and amount of CFCs (none before then some after). Well one variable changed and ozone levels changed therefore CFCs were responsible. Basically the scientific process: test one thing (and only one thing) and see the affects.
But...
Global temperatures are less understood and there are far too many contributing factors: the sun (notice solar flares have been on the rise the last couple of decades), the main greenhouse gas--water is ignored entirely (4% of atmosphere), volcanic affects are ignored (yes it's nature but is nature so consitant that we can tell to the year when the next volcano will blow), the affects of ocean currents and temperatures, we have only have been measuring temperatures for the last 50-120 years (all for a .5 degree change)--like determining the next 3 years of US economy based looking at the stock market for 1 second, many unexplained temperature fluctuations, etc.

So for us to say that we know global warming is human caused is just completely unscientific. I told them all the data indicates that temperature in the last 50 years has risen but the WHY is not understood. I also told them that I feel that the "global warming is man's fault" argument is more political (scientists like me who want more proof are considered unscientific--ironic isnt it); people tend to believe what they want to believe.

So my conclusion on the cause of global warming was this--I dont know and neither does anyone else.

 

[ManBearPig]

its like -15 with wind chill here.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: bobdelt

Originally posted by: ebaycj
Local temporary cold snaps are NOT what is being described by the phrase "Global Warming".

But local temporary heat waves are?

Hey, if it can fit the agenda, then they can make it work!

Is this a result of "Global Cooling"?

Global warming causes change in local weather... The 1 degree increase in average global temperature does not mean that you go outside and feel warmer. Heat waves, increased tropical storm and hurricane activity, increased rainfall, colder weather in some places... all are affected by global warming.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: monk3y
I don't believe anything either way (I don't have any more proof to prove either agenda). I just hope Global Warming doesn't exist.

Thats what I told my students when I was a chemistry TA (while getting my Masters). We covered CFCs, global warming, and nuclear power in one section.

When the students asked what I felt (on global warming), I told them IMO it was highly unscientific for people to claim that they know humans are the cause of global warming and that the real reason for global warming is not known beacuse of too many possible affects.

I told them CFCs destroying the ozone was and is real because the data indicates CFC contributions. We know this because the ozone cycle is almost completely understood and the affect of CFCs on ozone via free radicals was well documented. And there was one simple fact: CFCs are man made they were not here before so any CFCs in the atmosphere was because of humans. IE two main affects on ozone concentration is amount of avalible oxygen (constant) and amount of CFCs (none before then some after). Well one variable changed and ozone levels changed therefore CFCs were responsible. Basically the scientific process: test one thing (and only one thing) and see the affects.
But...
Global temperatures are less understood and there are far too many contributing factors: the sun (notice solar flares have been on the rise the last couple of decades), the main greenhouse gas--water is ignored entirely (4% of atmosphere), volcanic affects are ignored (yes it's nature but is nature so consitant that we can tell to the year when the next volcano will blow), the affects of ocean currents and temperatures, we have only have been measuring temperatures for the last 50-120 years (all for a .5 degree change)--like determining the next 3 years of US economy based looking at the stock market for 1 second, many unexplained temperature fluctuations, etc.

So for us to say that we know global warming is human caused is just completely unscientific. I told them all the data indicates that temperature in the last 50 years has risen but the WHY is not understood. I also told them that I feel that the "global warming is man's fault" argument is more political (scientists like me who want more proof are considered unscientific--ironic isnt it); people tend to believe what they want to believe.

So my conclusion on the cause of global warming was this--I dont know and neither does anyone else.

You have a masters and don't believe cutting down the majority of trees on the planet would not have a negative affect?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269

Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
I hope everyone here was joking, but I will explain it anyway.


Global warming is the old term. It was long ago realized that the proper term is global climate change, but the old term has stuck. Some areas will get colder, some will get warmer. For example, if the polar ice caps (including Greenland) melt enough, it could cause the upper loop of the warm ocean currents to collapse (there is historic data that suggests that this has happened at least once before). If this happens, Europe would be thrown into an ice age as the only thing keeping it warm in this ocean current.

The evidence says it may have happened once before? ZOMG the dinosaurs were destroying the environment with their dinomobiles.

It's happened many times before. Climate change is always happening. The issue is drastically accelerated climate change...

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: nkgreen
This thread stinks of P&N.

Send it back to the abyss from which it came!

Isn't it sad when a debate about science has to be relegated to P&N?

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: monk3y
I don't believe anything either way (I don't have any more proof to prove either agenda). I just hope Global Warming doesn't exist.

Thats what I told my students when I was a chemistry TA (while getting my Masters). We covered CFCs, global warming, and nuclear power in one section.

When the students asked what I felt (on global warming), I told them IMO it was highly unscientific for people to claim that they know humans are the cause of global warming and that the real reason for global warming is not known beacuse of too many possible affects.

I told them CFCs destroying the ozone was and is real because the data indicates CFC contributions. We know this because the ozone cycle is almost completely understood and the affect of CFCs on ozone via free radicals was well documented. And there was one simple fact: CFCs are man made they were not here before so any CFCs in the atmosphere was because of humans. IE two main affects on ozone concentration is amount of avalible oxygen (constant) and amount of CFCs (none before then some after). Well one variable changed and ozone levels changed therefore CFCs were responsible. Basically the scientific process: test one thing (and only one thing) and see the affects.
But...
Global temperatures are less understood and there are far too many contributing factors: the sun (notice solar flares have been on the rise the last couple of decades), the main greenhouse gas--water is ignored entirely (4% of atmosphere), volcanic affects are ignored (yes it's nature but is nature so consitant that we can tell to the year when the next volcano will blow), the affects of ocean currents and temperatures, we have only have been measuring temperatures for the last 50-120 years (all for a .5 degree change)--like determining the next 3 years of US economy based looking at the stock market for 1 second, many unexplained temperature fluctuations, etc.

So for us to say that we know global warming is human caused is just completely unscientific. I told them all the data indicates that temperature in the last 50 years has risen but the WHY is not understood. I also told them that I feel that the "global warming is man's fault" argument is more political (scientists like me who want more proof are considered unscientific--ironic isnt it); people tend to believe what they want to believe.

So my conclusion on the cause of global warming was this--I dont know and neither does anyone else.

You have a masters and don't believe cutting down the majority of trees on the planet would not have a negative affect?

but is that the only change to the earth? THAT'S my point.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: monk3y
I don't believe anything either way (I don't have any more proof to prove either agenda). I just hope Global Warming doesn't exist.

Thats what I told my students when I was a chemistry TA (while getting my Masters). We covered CFCs, global warming, and nuclear power in one section.

When the students asked what I felt (on global warming), I told them IMO it was highly unscientific for people to claim that they know humans are the cause of global warming and that the real reason for global warming is not known beacuse of too many possible affects.

I told them CFCs destroying the ozone was and is real because the data indicates CFC contributions. We know this because the ozone cycle is almost completely understood and the affect of CFCs on ozone via free radicals was well documented. And there was one simple fact: CFCs are man made they were not here before so any CFCs in the atmosphere was because of humans. IE two main affects on ozone concentration is amount of avalible oxygen (constant) and amount of CFCs (none before then some after). Well one variable changed and ozone levels changed therefore CFCs were responsible. Basically the scientific process: test one thing (and only one thing) and see the affects.
But...
Global temperatures are less understood and there are far too many contributing factors: the sun (notice solar flares have been on the rise the last couple of decades), the main greenhouse gas--water is ignored entirely (4% of atmosphere), volcanic affects are ignored (yes it's nature but is nature so consitant that we can tell to the year when the next volcano will blow), the affects of ocean currents and temperatures, we have only have been measuring temperatures for the last 50-120 years (all for a .5 degree change)--like determining the next 3 years of US economy based looking at the stock market for 1 second, many unexplained temperature fluctuations, etc.

So for us to say that we know global warming is human caused is just completely unscientific. I told them all the data indicates that temperature in the last 50 years has risen but the WHY is not understood. I also told them that I feel that the "global warming is man's fault" argument is more political (scientists like me who want more proof are considered unscientific--ironic isnt it); people tend to believe what they want to believe.

So my conclusion on the cause of global warming was this--I dont know and neither does anyone else.

You have a masters and don't believe cutting down the majority of trees on the planet would not have a negative affect?

Chemistry != climatology. BigJelly, if you weren't a chemist and understood the process of ozone depletion, you might say the same thing about that as you are saying about climate change now.

 

[CtK]

its a toasty 66 degrees in South Florida

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
They are busy at dailytech:
http://www.dailytech.com/Dirty+Little+Secrets+of+Global+Warming/article5960.htm

since when are all enviromentalists against nuclear power? seems the U.S. is mainly against it favoring coal... even though clean coal isn't half bad nuclear power would still seem far better to me atleast.

 

[Hammerhead]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Global warming causes change in local weather... The 1 degree increase in average global temperature does not mean that you go outside and feel warmer. Heat waves, increased tropical storm and hurricane activity, increased rainfall, colder weather in some places... all are affected by global warming.

Do you believe in the Butterfly Effect as well?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Hammerhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Global warming causes change in local weather... The 1 degree increase in average global temperature does not mean that you go outside and feel warmer. Heat waves, increased tropical storm and hurricane activity, increased rainfall, colder weather in some places... all are affected by global warming.

Do you believe in the Butterfly Effect as well?

The butterfly effect has nothing to do with anything. In the case of climate change, a slight global change has drastic effects on local weather and climate... If anything it's the opposite of "the butterfly effect".

 

[Hammerhead]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
If anything it's the opposite of "the butterfly effect".

Please explain...I'm curious

"small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena"

sounds like it fits

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: Hammerhead

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
If anything it's the opposite of "the butterfly effect".

Please explain...I'm curious

"small change in the initial condition of the system, which causes a chain of events leading to large-scale phenomena"

sounds like it fits

Climate change is not a small change. Global warming is a HUGE change in heat retained by the planet. It would be a butterfly effect if a storm somewhere had an effect on global climate.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Not sure if its been said yet, but haven't they (scientists/meteorologists) said El Nino is to blame for the way the weather's been this past year?

 

[mercanucaribe]

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17
Not sure if its been said yet, but haven't they (scientists/meteorologists) said El Nino is to blame for the way the weather's been this past year?

Technically El Nino is altered by global climate change too.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: EngenZerO
we are gonna have another ice age,

Another Ice Age?

Funny to think that people were concerned over the possibility of another ice age not too long ago.

Originally posted by: Midlander
I see this as an opportunity to improve our management of resources. :beer:

That's the best idea yet.

Originally posted by: Jawo
Suprising...its one of the first reports that I have seen that look at this warming trend as a natural CYCLICAL pattern of the Earth. What most enviromentalists dont want you to know is that there was a minor Ice Age in the 18th century...therefore, the Earth warms after an Ice Age. DUH!

From Wikipedia: "It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals"

1650
1770
1850
...
1974?

Maybe we're still in this strange cycle, and in 50-80 years there will be another cold spell? If so, we're in a warming cycle which should go on for another 20-30 years before temperatures cool down again.

Or not.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: BigJelly

Originally posted by: monk3y
I don't believe anything either way (I don't have any more proof to prove either agenda). I just hope Global Warming doesn't exist.

Thats what I told my students when I was a chemistry TA (while getting my Masters). We covered CFCs, global warming, and nuclear power in one section.

When the students asked what I felt (on global warming), I told them IMO it was highly unscientific for people to claim that they know humans are the cause of global warming and that the real reason for global warming is not known beacuse of too many possible affects.

I told them CFCs destroying the ozone was and is real because the data indicates CFC contributions. We know this because the ozone cycle is almost completely understood and the affect of CFCs on ozone via free radicals was well documented. And there was one simple fact: CFCs are man made they were not here before so any CFCs in the atmosphere was because of humans. IE two main affects on ozone concentration is amount of avalible oxygen (constant) and amount of CFCs (none before then some after). Well one variable changed and ozone levels changed therefore CFCs were responsible. Basically the scientific process: test one thing (and only one thing) and see the affects.
But...
Global temperatures are less understood and there are far too many contributing factors: the sun (notice solar flares have been on the rise the last couple of decades), the main greenhouse gas--water is ignored entirely (4% of atmosphere), volcanic affects are ignored (yes it's nature but is nature so consitant that we can tell to the year when the next volcano will blow), the affects of ocean currents and temperatures, we have only have been measuring temperatures for the last 50-120 years (all for a .5 degree change)--like determining the next 3 years of US economy based looking at the stock market for 1 second, many unexplained temperature fluctuations, etc.

So for us to say that we know global warming is human caused is just completely unscientific. I told them all the data indicates that temperature in the last 50 years has risen but the WHY is not understood. I also told them that I feel that the "global warming is man's fault" argument is more political (scientists like me who want more proof are considered unscientific--ironic isnt it); people tend to believe what they want to believe.

So my conclusion on the cause of global warming was this--I dont know and neither does anyone else.

You have a masters and don't believe cutting down the majority of trees on the planet would not have a negative affect?

Chemistry != climatology. BigJelly, if you weren't a chemist and understood the process of ozone depletion, you might say the same thing about that as you are saying about climate change now.

FYI ozone depeletion was explained chemically here's the mechanism (period= electron--Cl. means chlorine free radical):
CF2Cl2 + photons -> .CF2Cl + Cl.

Reactions after chlorine free radical:
2Cl. + 2O3 -> 2 ClO. + 2O2
2ClO. -> ClOOCl
ClOOCl + photon -> Cl. +ClOO.
ClOO. -> Cl. + O2
net reaction 2O3 -> 3O2 and more importantly 2Cl. in and 2Cl. out so it just keeps going until the Cl. leaves the atmosphere (70-120 years)

and I used it to explain the scientific process--maybe you missed what I said. CFCs do not exsist in nature. Man makes them. CFCs get in atmosphere. Ozone concentrations fall. CFCs are the cause, chemically. Scientific process: ONE CHANGE produces effect; then the change causes the effect. CFCs were the cause of ozone destruction (from your comments you think I said CFCs dont cause ozone destruction but I showed that they were--hope this clears it up). So I used the CFC example to explain the scientific process to my students. Then when ti came to global warming: I pointed out that there are too many possible cause of global warming to blame man for it right now.

Also I realize that as a chemist I can not explain the cause of global warming--I don't know whats causing it (there I said it again for those that didn't get it the first time). My point is to follow the scientific process and currently there is not enough data to prove man responsibe for global warming. Sadly there will not be enough data in my lifetime. So conserve for the enviroment or for saving money.

Finally, since not all climatologists follow with the "human causing global warming" argument then what do people that blame man for it know that some climatologists dont (that's my point--facts are key and I just explained how you interpret the facts). And the same goes for people that say man is not causing global warming--you can't prove it either way.

Trying to explain the cause of global warming is trying to explain conservative principles rational to a liberal and vise versa.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: Hammerhead
The earth is 4.5 billion years old. you think 50 or even 100 years is a good sample to conclude global warming? Just asking.

Well, our sample is actually a little bit more than that... but yes, anyways. Especially with every year, you're getting records of the previous year being broken. Maybe it's not enough to truly be worry and all hide underground, but is it just a coincident that we're experiencing such severe weather just as we're peaking industrially? I guess in those that don't use logic and base things on 'faith', you'd rather place responsibility on something supernatural, but i'd rather we err on the side of caution.

 

[Mo0o]

Does carbon monoxide emissions increase the carbon dioxide content in the upper atmosphere?

 

[mercanucaribe]

BigJelly, you misread. I was saying that if you were not a chemist, which you are, you might be inclined to dispute that CFCs cause ozone depletion, which a lot of people did.

The majority of climatologists do agree that human activity has caused a big acceleration in the natural rate of climate change. The problem is politics and the media-- the opinion of a few dissenting scientists is presented as having equal weight as the consensus of the majority, for obvious political reasons. That's not to say that liberals aren't also responsible for politicizing climate change.

 

[Mo0o]

im also not sure why people say there's a huge political or financial agenda for promoting global warming. This has been supported by a lot of top notch scientists from around the world, evecryone with different sources of funding. And wouldn't there be more financial support from companies for scientists that can conclude corporate carbon emissions are not causing global warming?

 

[Amused]

I'm not going to debate global warming/climate change or it's causes.

I merely want to point out that environmental groups and the cause have destroyed their credibility by allowing themselves to be taken over by anti-capitalist, anti-industry radicals. So much so that anything they say, or anything related to them is bound to be immediately disbelieved by a large chunk of the population. The only thing that separates many of these lunatics from Ted Kaczynski is a Montana cabin and a few bombs.

If they want environmental concerns taken seriously, they need to dump the radicals and nutjobs.

 

[BigJelly]

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
BigJelly, you misread. I was saying that if you were not a chemist, which you are, you might be inclined to dispute that CFCs cause ozone depletion, which a lot of people did.

The majority of climatologists do agree that human activity has caused a big acceleration in the natural rate of climate change. The problem is politics and the media-- the opinion of a few dissenting scientists is presented as having equal weight as the consensus of the majority, for obvious political reasons. That's not to say that liberals aren't also responsible for politicizing climate change.

Sorry I miss interpreted you. At least you and I agree with the notion of listening to the experts. But the view point that "humans may not be the cause of global warming" gets scientists shunned and can ruin one's reputation. That's a huge concern--when scientists can't be scientists and are forced to become lemmings we're really screwed.