It's just winter.
The rest is just talks.
User was warned for this post
Forum Index > General Forum |
Rimak
Denmark434 Posts
It's just winter. The rest is just talks. User was warned for this post | ||
![]()
Pandemona
![]()
Charlie Sheens House51449 Posts
He is going to produce a documentary about it later this year on the BBC, showing whats changed in the 60 years. Due to its his 60th year in television as he is 80 something. He is very well respected in England, and has this amazing captavating voice so if you have not heard of him go check out a docuementary or two. He also said, after reporting this to sceintists it caused a huge uproar with people saying his evidence was false and miss leading. Which he didnt take to kindly too. My view is that of course the climate is changing its only natural for a planet so big vast and old, dont forget its frigging old!!! Also records only go back to the late 1800s? So how do we not know its a huge cycle of say 200 years? Some people say were going to be due an ice age before long due to the polar caps moving and the magnetic field changing positions which causes freak weather conditions too. So all we can do in my opinion is keep recording data and preparing ourselves as quickly as possible if we notice things are changing. At the end of the day if the water level is rising, how fuck we stop it anyway? lol http://www.davidattenborough.co.uk/ His website if anyones interested in some views/opinions or just titles of docuemntaries to "buy" or "download" ![]() | ||
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
Think of the car as our atmosphere and the fumes from the car as the gases we refine and pump up into the air. The result is the same. We live in a closed eco system, and using sustainable methods instead of oil is common sense. The gases we pump up into the air don't go into space. Edit. I'm pretty sure it's almost impossible to convince anyone of this over a forum, as it's simply so much more comfortable to deny that there's a problem. | ||
![]()
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 30 2012 05:14 SniperVul5 wrote: I think this topic is really interesting actually. One thing people do not address as much is the chemical nature of global warming and climate change. For example... increases in CO2 changes the equilibrium between CO2(g) and CO2(aq) which can lead to a change in pH in the oceans. Over time our oceans can become more acidic as a result... which can also affect the frequency of acid rain over time. It is really hard to get acid rain because of carbon dioxide. Rain is already acidic because of carbon dioxide (pH 5.5-5.7). The solubility of carbon dioxide is too low in the clouds to make it below a pH of 5. (hint, there should be copious amounts of nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide as those dissolve better.) Ocean acidity has no effect on acid rain. Evaporation is only going to be of the water molecules, not the bicarbonate molecules or carbonic acid dissolved in water. Only the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air matters. Currently ocean is a highly buffered solution. More carbon dioxide might move the pH from 8+ to maybe 7+. Any more than that is beyond the current scope of carbon dioxide emissions. The resulting increase in bicarbonate ions available to shell organism and plankton is more likely to be a boon than a disaster. On January 30 2012 20:12 Euronyme wrote: Imagine you're in a car. You extend the exhaust pipe into the the car. You die. Think of the car as our atmosphere and the fumes from the car as the gases we refine and pump up into the air. The result is the same. We live in a closed eco system, and using sustainable methods instead of oil is common sense. The gases we pump up into the air don't go into space. If it were that simple, and isn't even a good argument against oil combustion. Where do we get oil? Out of rock formations buried millions of years ago, which happens to be inside the "closed ecosystem." Cleaning up pollutants is a matter of priorities. It's not common sense to identify carbon dioxide as the first priority. It isn't common sense to force people live miserably when cutting back on energy use to reduce carbon dioxide (it's not making the world a nicer place to live). And don't conflate reduction of oil consumption with reduction of pollution. Most common forms of bio-fuel burn more dirty than oil. Just because some people like the clarity of black and white doesn't mean that the issue is really that dumb. | ||
ACatInTheHat
19 Posts
You can begin explaining why we should believe in it when there exists *NO* valid data of global warming since 1997. You can also explain how there even can be a global temperature when it's impossible to clump temperatues together and average them, if you want to produce something meaningful. There exists over 200 different methods to average temperatures, and depending on what result you want to show, you can choose the "right" method for that. | ||
Acrofales
Spain17831 Posts
On January 30 2012 20:44 ACatInTheHat wrote: If you still believe in global warming or climate change or whatever you call it nowadays, you possess more blind faith than the most devoted religious zealot. You can begin explaining why we should believe in it when there exists *NO* valid data of global warming since 1997. You can also explain how there even can be a global temperature when it's impossible to clump temperatues together and average them, if you want to produce something meaningful. There exists over 200 different methods to average temperatures, and depending on what result you want to show, you can choose the "right" method for that. Nice data you have to back your point up! As to the poster above you: CO2 should not be a top priority, I agree. There are plenty of things to balance. However, that is kinda beside the point. If you say man-made global warming is a real thing, but it's not an important problem compared to X, Y and Z, then we're in a completely different discussion. | ||
ACatInTheHat
19 Posts
On January 30 2012 21:00 Acrofales wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 20:44 ACatInTheHat wrote: If you still believe in global warming or climate change or whatever you call it nowadays, you possess more blind faith than the most devoted religious zealot. You can begin explaining why we should believe in it when there exists *NO* valid data of global warming since 1997. You can also explain how there even can be a global temperature when it's impossible to clump temperatues together and average them, if you want to produce something meaningful. There exists over 200 different methods to average temperatures, and depending on what result you want to show, you can choose the "right" method for that. Nice data you have to back your point up! As to the poster above you: CO2 should not be a top priority, I agree. There are plenty of things to balance. However, that is kinda beside the point. If you say man-made global warming is a real thing, but it's not an important problem compared to X, Y and Z, then we're in a completely different discussion. I'm saying there could possibly have been a global warming at one time, which now is over, but both of those claims are uncertain. I'm also saying there is not any man-made global warming, and if anyone believe there is it's akin to believing in god, ghosts or astrology. It's obviously stupid to worry about, I think everyone with an iq above ~120 can agree with that. edit: What data do you want to back up what? I haven't made any claims that needs to be backed up, like I don't need data to say that ghosts don't exist. Those who say they do need it. | ||
Euronyme
Sweden3804 Posts
On January 30 2012 20:43 TanGeng wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 30 2012 05:14 SniperVul5 wrote: I think this topic is really interesting actually. One thing people do not address as much is the chemical nature of global warming and climate change. For example... increases in CO2 changes the equilibrium between CO2(g) and CO2(aq) which can lead to a change in pH in the oceans. Over time our oceans can become more acidic as a result... which can also affect the frequency of acid rain over time. It is really hard to get acid rain because of carbon dioxide. Rain is already acidic because of carbon dioxide (pH 5.5-5.7). The solubility of carbon dioxide is too low in the clouds to make it below a pH of 5. (hint, there should be copious amounts of nitrogen dioxide or sulfur dioxide as those dissolve better.) Ocean acidity has no effect on acid rain. Evaporation is only going to be of the water molecules, not the bicarbonate molecules or carbonic acid dissolved in water. Only the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air matters. Currently ocean is a highly buffered solution. More carbon dioxide might move the pH from 8+ to maybe 7+. Any more than that is beyond the current scope of carbon dioxide emissions. The resulting increase in bicarbonate ions available to shell organism and plankton is more likely to be a boon than a disaster. Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 20:12 Euronyme wrote: Imagine you're in a car. You extend the exhaust pipe into the the car. You die. Think of the car as our atmosphere and the fumes from the car as the gases we refine and pump up into the air. The result is the same. We live in a closed eco system, and using sustainable methods instead of oil is common sense. The gases we pump up into the air don't go into space. If it were that simple, and isn't even a good argument against oil combustion. Where do we get oil? Out of rock formations buried millions of years ago, which happens to be inside the "closed ecosystem." Cleaning up pollutants is a matter of priorities. It's not common sense to identify carbon dioxide as the first priority. It isn't common sense to force people live miserably when cutting back on energy use to reduce carbon dioxide (it's not making the world a nicer place to live). And don't conflate reduction of oil consumption with reduction of pollution. Most common forms of bio-fuel burn more dirty than oil. Just because some people like the clarity of black and white doesn't mean that the issue is really that dumb. We get it from bound coal and oil in the ground hundreds of meters below us, and bring it up into the atmosphere.... What the hell are you talking about making people live miserably? Compare the living standards in US and Scandinavia, and then compare pollution per capita. Bio gas fuel burns more dirty than oil? Yeah, whatever you say... | ||
Acrofales
Spain17831 Posts
On January 30 2012 21:49 ACatInTheHat wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 21:00 Acrofales wrote: On January 30 2012 20:44 ACatInTheHat wrote: If you still believe in global warming or climate change or whatever you call it nowadays, you possess more blind faith than the most devoted religious zealot. You can begin explaining why we should believe in it when there exists *NO* valid data of global warming since 1997. You can also explain how there even can be a global temperature when it's impossible to clump temperatues together and average them, if you want to produce something meaningful. There exists over 200 different methods to average temperatures, and depending on what result you want to show, you can choose the "right" method for that. Nice data you have to back your point up! As to the poster above you: CO2 should not be a top priority, I agree. There are plenty of things to balance. However, that is kinda beside the point. If you say man-made global warming is a real thing, but it's not an important problem compared to X, Y and Z, then we're in a completely different discussion. I'm saying there could possibly have been a global warming at one time, which now is over, but both of those claims are uncertain. I'm also saying there is not any man-made global warming, and if anyone believe there is it's akin to believing in god, ghosts or astrology. It's obviously stupid to worry about, I think everyone with an iq above ~120 can agree with that. edit: What data do you want to back up what? I haven't made any claims that needs to be backed up, like I don't need data to say that ghosts don't exist. Those who say they do need it. Between the ad hominems and the trolling, you have made a claim that the world is not warming up, whereas science disagrees with you: NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/ Nature: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1292.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201112 Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weaker-sun-will-not-delay-global-wa NY Times: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/ Where is your data showing that all these reliable sources, with their data to back it up, are wrong? | ||
Chvol
United States200 Posts
| ||
Troxle
United States486 Posts
OP, if this is a field you are doing research in, no matter what "evidence" we bring forth to convince you, you'll just deny saying your findings contradict that. But due note, as the Northern Hemisphere gets warmer the Southern Hemisphere is getting colder (vice versa of the Ice Age if you look back historically). And I think the Southern Hemisphere will be experiencing a second (or maybe there has been more than the first that we know nothing about) Ice Age in probably a couple thousand years. Am I a scientist? No. What kind of voice do I have on the subject? Basic high school science classes that blindly teach the answer to a cyclical Global Climate Change the Earth goes through. Even University physics has shown the Earth changes its tilt on its axis causing these climate changes. This is a really debatable topic and really isn't important anymore, very few people actually support the idea of Global Warming anymore it seems. Edit: If you want sources let me know. It'll be later tonight, currently in classes and got a brief period in which to check in on Team Liquid. But there is tons of evidence supporting my "beliefs/theories" if you just make a google search. Loads of reputable sources will appear. | ||
3DGlaDOS
Germany607 Posts
If we watch rising tides it doesn't mean that we will all drown. Remember that meteorology isn't an exact science (which meteorologist claim themselves). We are ready to invest so much money into "saving the climate", but we still take an umbrella with us even if weather forecast tells us that the sun will shine. Investing money into this is a huge mistake in my opinion, it has better use. Even if the worst climate change prediction is true it doesn't make sense to pay that much into "renewable energy sources" like the inefficient solar power. At least invest into research of renewable energy sources since the more serious problem is that we can't be dependend on fossile fuels forever. We have this topic in school (in 3 different classes), it makes me sick that people teach us this without being able to answer questions since they only know what the populist media tell us :/ Yes I'm not a scientist but I made my opinion based on many kinds of (pro/contra climate change) media coverage. | ||
Geiko
France1936 Posts
On January 31 2012 04:49 Acrofales wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 21:49 ACatInTheHat wrote: On January 30 2012 21:00 Acrofales wrote: On January 30 2012 20:44 ACatInTheHat wrote: If you still believe in global warming or climate change or whatever you call it nowadays, you possess more blind faith than the most devoted religious zealot. You can begin explaining why we should believe in it when there exists *NO* valid data of global warming since 1997. You can also explain how there even can be a global temperature when it's impossible to clump temperatues together and average them, if you want to produce something meaningful. There exists over 200 different methods to average temperatures, and depending on what result you want to show, you can choose the "right" method for that. Nice data you have to back your point up! As to the poster above you: CO2 should not be a top priority, I agree. There are plenty of things to balance. However, that is kinda beside the point. If you say man-made global warming is a real thing, but it's not an important problem compared to X, Y and Z, then we're in a completely different discussion. I'm saying there could possibly have been a global warming at one time, which now is over, but both of those claims are uncertain. I'm also saying there is not any man-made global warming, and if anyone believe there is it's akin to believing in god, ghosts or astrology. It's obviously stupid to worry about, I think everyone with an iq above ~120 can agree with that. edit: What data do you want to back up what? I haven't made any claims that needs to be backed up, like I don't need data to say that ghosts don't exist. Those who say they do need it. Between the ad hominems and the trolling, you have made a claim that the world is not warming up, whereas science disagrees with you: NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/ Nature: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1292.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201112 Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weaker-sun-will-not-delay-global-wa NY Times: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/ Where is your data showing that all these reliable sources, with their data to back it up, are wrong? Those sources just point to a global warming over the past couple of years. It think the poster you quoted is making the argument that : -this data could be biased by choice of averaging techniques -even if there is global warming, no one can prove it is due to the activity of man | ||
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
On January 31 2012 05:12 Geiko wrote: Show nested quote + On January 31 2012 04:49 Acrofales wrote: On January 30 2012 21:49 ACatInTheHat wrote: On January 30 2012 21:00 Acrofales wrote: On January 30 2012 20:44 ACatInTheHat wrote: If you still believe in global warming or climate change or whatever you call it nowadays, you possess more blind faith than the most devoted religious zealot. You can begin explaining why we should believe in it when there exists *NO* valid data of global warming since 1997. You can also explain how there even can be a global temperature when it's impossible to clump temperatues together and average them, if you want to produce something meaningful. There exists over 200 different methods to average temperatures, and depending on what result you want to show, you can choose the "right" method for that. Nice data you have to back your point up! As to the poster above you: CO2 should not be a top priority, I agree. There are plenty of things to balance. However, that is kinda beside the point. If you say man-made global warming is a real thing, but it's not an important problem compared to X, Y and Z, then we're in a completely different discussion. I'm saying there could possibly have been a global warming at one time, which now is over, but both of those claims are uncertain. I'm also saying there is not any man-made global warming, and if anyone believe there is it's akin to believing in god, ghosts or astrology. It's obviously stupid to worry about, I think everyone with an iq above ~120 can agree with that. edit: What data do you want to back up what? I haven't made any claims that needs to be backed up, like I don't need data to say that ghosts don't exist. Those who say they do need it. Between the ad hominems and the trolling, you have made a claim that the world is not warming up, whereas science disagrees with you: NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/ Nature: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1292.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201112 Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weaker-sun-will-not-delay-global-wa NY Times: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/ Where is your data showing that all these reliable sources, with their data to back it up, are wrong? Those sources just point to a global warming over the past couple of years. It think the poster you quoted is making the argument that : -this data could be biased by choice of averaging techniques -even if there is global warming, no one can prove it is due to the activity of man In my experience almost no source on global warming can actually be trusted, since I've seen so many proven false after it was thought for a long time to be true, also alot of people seem to have stakes in there being global warming to begin with which is ofcourse a bad thing if you want unbiased research. | ||
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On January 31 2012 05:46 solidbebe wrote: Show nested quote + On January 31 2012 05:12 Geiko wrote: On January 31 2012 04:49 Acrofales wrote: On January 30 2012 21:49 ACatInTheHat wrote: On January 30 2012 21:00 Acrofales wrote: On January 30 2012 20:44 ACatInTheHat wrote: If you still believe in global warming or climate change or whatever you call it nowadays, you possess more blind faith than the most devoted religious zealot. You can begin explaining why we should believe in it when there exists *NO* valid data of global warming since 1997. You can also explain how there even can be a global temperature when it's impossible to clump temperatues together and average them, if you want to produce something meaningful. There exists over 200 different methods to average temperatures, and depending on what result you want to show, you can choose the "right" method for that. Nice data you have to back your point up! As to the poster above you: CO2 should not be a top priority, I agree. There are plenty of things to balance. However, that is kinda beside the point. If you say man-made global warming is a real thing, but it's not an important problem compared to X, Y and Z, then we're in a completely different discussion. I'm saying there could possibly have been a global warming at one time, which now is over, but both of those claims are uncertain. I'm also saying there is not any man-made global warming, and if anyone believe there is it's akin to believing in god, ghosts or astrology. It's obviously stupid to worry about, I think everyone with an iq above ~120 can agree with that. edit: What data do you want to back up what? I haven't made any claims that needs to be backed up, like I don't need data to say that ghosts don't exist. Those who say they do need it. Between the ad hominems and the trolling, you have made a claim that the world is not warming up, whereas science disagrees with you: NASA: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/ Nature: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v1/n9/full/nclimate1292.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201112 Scientific American: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=weaker-sun-will-not-delay-global-wa NY Times: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/23/the-hockey-stick-lives/ Where is your data showing that all these reliable sources, with their data to back it up, are wrong? Those sources just point to a global warming over the past couple of years. It think the poster you quoted is making the argument that : -this data could be biased by choice of averaging techniques -even if there is global warming, no one can prove it is due to the activity of man In my experience almost no source on global warming can actually be trusted, since I've seen so many proven false after it was thought for a long time to be true, also alot of people seem to have stakes in there being global warming to begin with which is ofcourse a bad thing if you want unbiased research. What scientific publications have been proven false? There was that whole Climategate thing a couple years ago, but that ended up being bullshit. | ||
forgottendreams
United States1771 Posts
On January 31 2012 05:08 Troxle wrote: The arguments supportin' Global Warming are the same arguments used for Global Cooling back in the 1960s. Global "temperature change" (because they can't decide what is going on) is a cyclical pattern the Earth experiences based on how it rotates on its axis. This is middle school science. The top supporters of Global Warming are those who benefit the most from it, but also do nothing to support it, Al Gore being one of the biggest examples of this. Hasn't it also been proven that daily cows produce more carbon dioxide and methane then humans do annually? The only "impact" we could be having would be a result of vegans and vegetarians because it would mean we aren't eating enough beef. + Show Spoiler + OP, if this is a field you are doing research in, no matter what "evidence" we bring forth to convince you, you'll just deny saying your findings contradict that. But due note, as the Northern Hemisphere gets warmer the Southern Hemisphere is getting colder (vice versa of the Ice Age if you look back historically). And I think the Southern Hemisphere will be experiencing a second (or maybe there has been more than the first that we know nothing about) Ice Age in probably a couple thousand years. Am I a scientist? No. What kind of voice do I have on the subject? Basic high school science classes that blindly teach the answer to a cyclical Global Climate Change the Earth goes through. Even University physics has shown the Earth changes its tilt on its axis causing these climate changes. This is a really debatable topic and really isn't important anymore, very few people actually support the idea of Global Warming anymore it seems. Edit: If you want sources let me know. It'll be later tonight, currently in classes and got a brief period in which to check in on Team Liquid. But there is tons of evidence supporting my "beliefs/theories" if you just make a google search. Loads of reputable sources will appear While the OP is more appropriate to answer the other "evidence" you have the global cooling episode is not in any way similar to the global warming in terms of scientific consensus. There are similarities on how pop press took up the issue, but the difference being one of the global trends was without a majority backing from the scientific community, the other backed by near unanimity. When even the CATO institute (a notoriously conservative think tank) refutes this claim you should pause and think... text below - + Show Spoiler + Many studies from the nineteenth century on suggested that industrial and other contributions to increasing carbon dioxide might lead to global warming. Problems with such predictions were also long noted, and the general failure of such predictions to explain the observed record caused the field of climatology as a whole to regard the suggested mechanisms as suspect. Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell--both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well--"explaining'' the problem and promoting international regulation. There was also a book by the prominent science writer Lowell Ponte (The Cooling) that derided the skeptics and noted the importance of acting in the absence of firm, scientific foundation. There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions. But the scientific community never took the issue to heart, governments ignored it, and with rising global temperatures in the late 1970s the issue more or less died. In the meantime, model calculations--especially at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton--continued to predict substantial warming due to increasing carbon dioxide. Those predictions were considered interesting, but largely academic, exercises--even by the scientists involved. | ||
Zyrnak
United States179 Posts
Climate science isn't exactly an old science like Chemistry or Physics. It's not been around that long and is a much less developed. The Earth is an incredibly complex system, with way more factors playing into things than anyone has accounted for. That doesn't mean that the scientists aren't trying or being honest, or that they are just trying to get funding. If I remember correctly, some of the "omg, the Earth isn't heating in this time frame" was caused by several small volcanoes in Asia releasing aerosols. Climate models for the time hadn't predicted that and couldn't explain it because they hadn't realized how much the aerosols affected the system. After more studies were done, the models were adjusted to account for the new factor and became more accurate. In addition, for those that are talking about the cycles caused by the Earth's rotation: it's been studied and doesn't explain the last few hundred years. (Pulls out notes) There are three major cycles of the Earth's rotation:Obliquity (the angle of tilt on one axis) that has a periodicity of 41,000 years, Eccentricity with a periodicity of 400,000 years, and Precession with a periodicity of 23,000 years. If you think that these factors have not been looked at, then you clearly haven't gone and done your research yourself. More information dredged from my notes: Some of the major influencers on climate: -Ocean Interations: Oceans transmit a lot of heat from the equator to the poles, ocean currents have a lot to do with the temperature of the planet -Atmospheric Composition Change: you all have heard about this one. -Variations of Solar Output: Sun doesn't always emit constant amounts of energy -Milankovitch Cycles: The earth tilt cycles I talked about above. Considering past data and ONLY Milankovitch cycles, you would expect a slight global cooling trend that has been going on for 6,000 years -Elevation and Distribution of Continents: How many of you knew that Antarctica wasn't frozen until it separated from South America? Effects global convection cells. -Biological and Physical feedback mechanisms: There are a ton of these, and it's very hard to account for all of them even though people try. For example: Temperatures rise->Permafrost in the north melts->Formerly frozen biological matter there begins to decay and release chemicals into the atmosphere->More temperature rise. There are a ton of these systems and some of them are positive feedback loops and some of them are negative feedback loops. It is unknown which weigh out which, that is still being studied. As for no records of climate before the late 1800's -> false. We don't have hard data, but there are a lot of ways to get an idea of the past through ice cores from glaciers and Antarctica, stalactites from all over the world, etc. There is a lot of valid data that can be gained from the chemicals encased within those samples and by studying the the recent past with our hard data and looking at those samples, we can extrapolate it further back into the past. Another point: The Earth is huge. It doesn't change very fast. Just because you don't see a heating trend over the last 5 or 10 years doesn't mean anything. Look at the data and go back 20 years, 50 years, 100 years since the Industrial Revolution. You will see a bigger picture. Just because it gets significantly colder every night doesn't mean that the Earth will freeze. I remember hearing something about only being able to make a general statement about climate trends over a time period of at least 17 years. Thus saying that nothing has happened for five or ten years means...nothing. This post was a bit rambling, but hopefully someone found it useful. I think that it is a bad idea to dismiss a field of science that is very young that is studying something that happens extremely slowly. I also feel like it is a bad idea to panic or accept anything blindly as fact. I also feel that climate science is one of the most controversial topics in science because it has people arguing against it for religious reasons and economic reasons (If you don't think that widespread belief of the effect of atmospheric composition change would harm the profits of oil companies you are out of your mind.) I would encourage anyone that cares at all about the subject to do some of your own research and come to your own conclusion, but please do not argue for or against a subject without at least devoting several hours at minimum investigating both sides of the issue. | ||
Eppa!
Sweden4641 Posts
We don't know very much about Global warming we are learning a lot but currently we are poking a monster with a stick. | ||
slytown
Korea (South)1411 Posts
On January 31 2012 05:57 forgottendreams wrote: + Show Spoiler + On January 31 2012 05:08 Troxle wrote: The arguments supportin' Global Warming are the same arguments used for Global Cooling back in the 1960s. Global "temperature change" (because they can't decide what is going on) is a cyclical pattern the Earth experiences based on how it rotates on its axis. This is middle school science. The top supporters of Global Warming are those who benefit the most from it, but also do nothing to support it, Al Gore being one of the biggest examples of this. Hasn't it also been proven that daily cows produce more carbon dioxide and methane then humans do annually? The only "impact" we could be having would be a result of vegans and vegetarians because it would mean we aren't eating enough beef. + Show Spoiler + OP, if this is a field you are doing research in, no matter what "evidence" we bring forth to convince you, you'll just deny saying your findings contradict that. But due note, as the Northern Hemisphere gets warmer the Southern Hemisphere is getting colder (vice versa of the Ice Age if you look back historically). And I think the Southern Hemisphere will be experiencing a second (or maybe there has been more than the first that we know nothing about) Ice Age in probably a couple thousand years. Am I a scientist? No. What kind of voice do I have on the subject? Basic high school science classes that blindly teach the answer to a cyclical Global Climate Change the Earth goes through. Even University physics has shown the Earth changes its tilt on its axis causing these climate changes. This is a really debatable topic and really isn't important anymore, very few people actually support the idea of Global Warming anymore it seems. Edit: If you want sources let me know. It'll be later tonight, currently in classes and got a brief period in which to check in on Team Liquid. But there is tons of evidence supporting my "beliefs/theories" if you just make a google search. Loads of reputable sources will appear While the OP is more appropriate to answer the other "evidence" you have the global cooling episode is not in any way similar to the global warming in terms of scientific consensus. There are similarities on how pop press took up the issue, but the difference being one of the global trends was without a majority backing from the scientific community, the other backed by near unanimity. When even the CATO institute (a notoriously conservative think tank) refutes this claim you should pause and think... text below - + Show Spoiler + Many studies from the nineteenth century on suggested that industrial and other contributions to increasing carbon dioxide might lead to global warming. Problems with such predictions were also long noted, and the general failure of such predictions to explain the observed record caused the field of climatology as a whole to regard the suggested mechanisms as suspect. Indeed, the global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s. All that was more or less normal scientific debate, although the cooling hysteria had certain striking analogues to the present warming hysteria including books such as The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider and Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell--both authors are prominent in support of the present concerns as well--"explaining'' the problem and promoting international regulation. There was also a book by the prominent science writer Lowell Ponte (The Cooling) that derided the skeptics and noted the importance of acting in the absence of firm, scientific foundation. There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions. But the scientific community never took the issue to heart, governments ignored it, and with rising global temperatures in the late 1970s the issue more or less died. In the meantime, model calculations--especially at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton--continued to predict substantial warming due to increasing carbon dioxide. Those predictions were considered interesting, but largely academic, exercises--even by the scientists involved. Don't bring politics into it. Just because u claim CATO is conservative doesnt give them credibility because the global warming movement is considered liberal. However, you can talk about politics in the context of research funding. It's true that climate science is a relatively young science and before AGW became popular it was small-time and unfunded. Organizations and research departments, however, have embraced the AGW movement because crises means funding. Its an unfortunate turn of events for a young science that needs to build credibility. | ||
![]()
TanGeng
Sanya12364 Posts
On January 30 2012 22:07 Euronyme wrote: Show nested quote + On January 30 2012 20:43 TanGeng wrote: If it were that simple, and isn't even a good argument against oil combustion. Where do we get oil? Out of rock formations buried millions of years ago, which happens to be inside the "closed ecosystem." Cleaning up pollutants is a matter of priorities. It's not common sense to identify carbon dioxide as the first priority. It isn't common sense to force people live miserably when cutting back on energy use to reduce carbon dioxide (it's not making the world a nicer place to live). And don't conflate reduction of oil consumption with reduction of pollution. Most common forms of bio-fuel burn more dirty than oil. Just because some people like the clarity of black and white doesn't mean that the issue is really that dumb. We get it from bound coal and oil in the ground hundreds of meters below us, and bring it up into the atmosphere.... What the hell are you talking about making people live miserably? Compare the living standards in US and Scandinavia, and then compare pollution per capita. Bio gas fuel burns more dirty than oil? Yeah, whatever you say... Comparing living standards and pollution in US and Scandinavia? Based on what meaningful numbers? Misery in the name of environmental friendliness doesn't happen to people of developing nations. If it actually made life worse, developing nations wouldn't be able to do it. Yet, denizens of developed nations are very much willing to "inconvenience" the rest of the world in this manner. In the best case, it makes their own lives better, example: exportation of pollution, exportation of pollutive industries. In instances of pure idiocy, it's out of egotism like the categorical banning of DDT in the fight against malaria. In this case, it is the attempt to curtail fossil fuel usage in the developing world. If it's such a black and white issue, how about giving yourself some credibility. Don't use ANY electricity or fossil fuels to heat the home during winter. Then cut your dependence on fossil fuels in third. Refuse to export your pollution and don't import any goods without accounting for its pollution and fossil fuel consumption. Then convince your neighbors and their neighbors to do the same until your entire country is doing it. It'll put you in the shoes of the the developing world, will signal that you are actually serious, and demonstrate that it's plausible. Lead by example. The three criteria needed for success: 1. Life isn't miserable. 2. Cuts fossil fuel consumption. 3. Does not export pollution and fossil fuel consumption to any foreign nations. As for the rest of the post: Fossil fuels are still part of the ecosystem. It was buried years ago and is now being reintroduced. Albeit, it's surfacing unnaturally unlike say methane bubbling up from certain expanses of tundra or glaciers dumping a payload of organic sludge into the ocean. But carbon that was active in the system before is back in it, again. Biofuels burn more dirty than oil especially when looking at the margins. Waste vegetable oil fuels is the most economical and usually mixed with fossil fuels. Go for it. Most forms of ethanol production are so heat intensive that they require a huge percentage of oil to cook, ferment, and produce. Factor in the entire production chain and land usage and it burns worse. And the most common form of biofuel is biomass in the form of burning wood. Deforestation, soot pollution, and smoke inhalation, just daddy. | ||
| ||
![]() StarCraft 2 RotterdaM StarCraft: Brood War![]() FunKaTv ![]() ![]() PiGStarcraft360 IndyStarCraft ![]() SteadfastSC ![]() UpATreeSC ![]() BRAT_OK ![]() ![]() Nina ![]() Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games summit1g9402 Grubby8083 FrodaN1931 shahzam647 elazer495 Pyrionflax296 ToD134 Trikslyr75 ZombieGrub38 Organizations
StarCraft 2 • Berry_CruncH144 StarCraft: Brood War• musti20045 ![]() • intothetv ![]() • IndyKCrew ![]() • sooper7s • Migwel ![]() • AfreecaTV YouTube • Laughngamez YouTube • LaughNgamezSOOP • Kozan Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games |
PiGosaur Monday
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
SOOP
SKillous vs Spirit
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
PiG Sty Festival
The PondCast
Replay Cast
PiG Sty Festival
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] Korean StarCraft League
PiG Sty Festival
SC Evo Complete
[BSL 2025] Weekly
PiG Sty Festival
Sparkling Tuna Cup
|
|