On December 13 2011 08:10 InDaHouse wrote: A simple question for OP. How could we (mankind) make so huge impact on climate in very short time?
by burning carbon that has been accumulated over many millions of years and been stored in fossil fuels. the earth#s carbon cycle is in a fragile equilibrium, by releasing energy in an incredible fast manner, we do impact climate in an unprecedented speed. hope that helps!
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ? like really?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
Na i dont think there is proof we get more catastrophes with raising average temperature. Hurrikanes and tornados get their strenght through the temperature gradient, which would not be affected by raising the mean temperature, or am i mistaken? :x
dabbeljuh - I was informed that climate change does not mean "global warming" in the sense that everyone gets warmer. I was under the impression that climate change means the global temperature average increases, but that this average is taken where the equatorial areas become significantly warmer, while other parts (I would guess the poles?) actually drop in temperature at certain parts of the year.
In essence, climate change as it is progressing, will cause more of a extremes of climates - not a nice balmy warming of the earth. How accurate is this?
On December 13 2011 08:11 bonse wrote: Climate "changes" happened all the time throughout the earth's existence. More exactly, climate was never static, being constantly influenced by a myriad of factors like sun's activity, biomass and so on. There were ice ages and hot ages alternating all the time. To believe that humanity has more influence on the atmosphere than the sun, the oceans, the forests... that's quite a lot of arrogance. Let's face it guys, we are pretty much insignificant.
You tell me, what percentage of CO2 released daily in atmosphere comes from natural causes?
the carbon cycle has been in equilibrium for millenia. now we emit a lot of co2. if you do the math and add all sources and all sinks of co2 you will see that at the moment we are in a plus that leads to the increase in concentration. this increase matches athropogenic co2 exactly. relative simple math compared to other effects in this discussion
tl;dr about twice as many people die in the US from being cold than from being too hot (1976-2006), and many of the cold deaths are attributed to getting sick because they were cold, for whatever reason.
@Fruscainte:
"could prove to have dastardly consequences"
Doesnt this sound like this:
I do not see any denialist taking up this challenge as it is mostly lack of knowledge that promotes it and it is therefore never backed up by any scientific facts.
- radiatoren
Please don't foxnews us with your "could have terrible terrible consequences omg!"
If we are going to have this conversation, each post needs to be based on fact and observation, or hypothesis based on observation, and some sources REALLY help your position. Thanks.
Why do I need sources to say that water levels rising exponentially when over 2 billion people live near the coasts would have dire consequences? Do enlighten me.
Because your whole position is based on emotional position.
I fail to see how the displacement of 2 billion people being (usually) bad is an emotional position or a plea to fear.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Nonetheless, you're kind of missing my entire point of my original post, but nonetheless, keep arguing semantics.
Semantics? "the displacement of 2 billion people" what the fuck? are you actually from foxnews?
Repeatedly going "LOL FOX NEWS" doesn't make for a legitimate point.
It's even more hilarious considering how liberal I am, but nonetheless.
just a personal remark: I will not answer to Fox News level of information or queries °
This is why you are failing at the task you set out to accomplish. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with what is in the video because I haven't watched it. But if you can't even look at a segment from Fox News, or any source for that matter, and discern what is meaningful or not, or explain what is true and false about what was presented, how can you be trusted to provide an accurate scientific picture of the state of Climate science research. A scientific analysis would not care if the information supporting or opposed to climate science was from Fox News, BBC, MSNBC, or wherever. If you can't even watch a Fox News clip, your bias is too great for me to fully trust your analysis.
On December 13 2011 08:16 Nizaris wrote: Ya a law on co2 wouldn't stop global warming that's a given but at least that's a start. we aren't gonna do anything about it if we can't even take the first step.
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
AFAIK you're just one more person sent from foxnews to deliver your opinionTM that is completely without proof/sources. I provided a source for my deaths position, and also the correlation between carbon content and plant growth is plain when viewed from the photosynthetic process:
tl;dr about twice as many people die in the US from being cold than from being too hot (1976-2006), and many of the cold deaths are attributed to getting sick because they were cold, for whatever reason.
@Fruscainte:
"could prove to have dastardly consequences"
Doesnt this sound like this:
I do not see any denialist taking up this challenge as it is mostly lack of knowledge that promotes it and it is therefore never backed up by any scientific facts.
- radiatoren
Please don't foxnews us with your "could have terrible terrible consequences omg!"
If we are going to have this conversation, each post needs to be based on fact and observation, or hypothesis based on observation, and some sources REALLY help your position. Thanks.
Why do I need sources to say that water levels rising exponentially when over 2 billion people live near the coasts would have dire consequences? Do enlighten me.
Because your whole position is based on emotional position.
I fail to see how the displacement of 2 billion people being (usually) bad is an emotional position or a plea to fear.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Nonetheless, you're kind of missing my entire point of my original post, but nonetheless, keep arguing semantics.
Semantics? "the displacement of 2 billion people" what the fuck? are you actually from foxnews?
Repeatedly going "LOL FOX NEWS" doesn't make for a legitimate point.
It's even more hilarious considering how liberal I am, but nonetheless.
You're just saying 2 billion people will be displaced and have provided zero fact based accounting for what you have said. Of course 2 billion people being displaced would be bad, he's saying back up what you have said with data. You're just saying "LOL YOU DON'T THINK 2 BILLION PEOPLE BEING DISPLACED IS BAD?" You're both being fucking childish
tl;dr about twice as many people die in the US from being cold than from being too hot (1976-2006), and many of the cold deaths are attributed to getting sick because they were cold, for whatever reason.
@Fruscainte:
"could prove to have dastardly consequences"
Doesnt this sound like this:
I do not see any denialist taking up this challenge as it is mostly lack of knowledge that promotes it and it is therefore never backed up by any scientific facts.
- radiatoren
Please don't foxnews us with your "could have terrible terrible consequences omg!"
If we are going to have this conversation, each post needs to be based on fact and observation, or hypothesis based on observation, and some sources REALLY help your position. Thanks.
Why do I need sources to say that water levels rising exponentially when over 2 billion people live near the coasts would have dire consequences? Do enlighten me.
Because your whole position is based on emotional position.
I fail to see how the displacement of 2 billion people being (usually) bad is an emotional position or a plea to fear.
Seems pretty straight forward to me.
Nonetheless, you're kind of missing my entire point of my original post, but nonetheless, keep arguing semantics.
Semantics? "the displacement of 2 billion people" what the fuck? are you actually from foxnews?
Repeatedly going "LOL FOX NEWS" doesn't make for a legitimate point.
It's even more hilarious considering how liberal I am, but nonetheless.
You're just saying 2 billion people will be displaced and have provided zero fact based accounting for what you have said. Of course 2 billion people being displaced would be bad, he's saying back up what you have said with data. You're just saying "LOL YOU DON'T THINK 2 BILLION PEOPLE BEING DISPLACED IS BAD?" You're both being fucking childish
I think you're being a little hyperbolic there.
Which I don't recommend when two lines after your incredible hyperbole, you make criticism for not being concise enough or using enough data and being completely immature. Borderline hypocritical, if I do say so myself.
On December 13 2011 08:22 JinDesu wrote: dabbeljuh - I was informed that climate change does not mean "global warming" in the sense that everyone gets warmer. I was under the impression that climate change means the global temperature average increases, but that this average is taken where the equatorial areas become significantly warmer, while other parts (I would guess the poles?) actually drop in temperature at certain parts of the year.
In essence, climate change as it is progressing, will cause more of a extremes of climates - not a nice balmy warming of the earth. How accurate is this?
hi jindesu.
it is true that global warming is not uniform. it is also simple to understand: earth is varying differently in different regions. If we know put the literal hammer on top of the atmosphere (co2), the system will answer stronger in regions of stronger variability than in others. additionaly, some regions as the poles have regional feedbacks, i.e. if it gets to warm summer (not winter!) ice will melt in the arctic ocean, making it even warmer there.
therefore the strongest signal of global warming will be polar amplification, for a global temperature rise of 2-3 degrees we will likely have a polar warming of 6-10 degrees. the warming is also inhomogenous due to topography and circulation changes (its really climate change, not only just warming). these effects are harder to predict and still not completely understood. climate change might for example lead to warmer winters in europe in general but more extremely cold winters, as an example of nonlinear effects. these specific things are part of the scientific discourse right now.
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
I didn't name it climate change, some big wig scientist/politician did.
On December 13 2011 08:16 Nizaris wrote: Ya a law on co2 wouldn't stop global warming that's a given but at least that's a start. we aren't gonna do anything about it if we can't even take the first step.
On December 13 2011 08:10 Abraxas514 wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:10 Nizaris wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
AFAIK you're just one more person sent from foxnews to deliver your opinionTM that is completely without proof/sources. I provided a source for my deaths position, and also the correlation between carbon content and plant growth is plain when viewed from the photosynthetic process:
it takes 6 CO2 to produce sugar. If you've ever done chemistry in your life you would realize more CO2 would increase the rate of this reaction.
Uh, as perhaps a small point, my chem/bio not being my strongest suit (I'm an EE), but adding more CO2 without taking into consideration the other factors (light and water) does not inherently increase the rate of reaction.
just a personal remark: I will not answer to Fox News level of information or queries °
This is why you are failing at the task you set out to accomplish. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with what is in the video because I haven't watched it. But if you can't even look at a segment from Fox News, or any source for that matter, and discern what is meaningful or not, or explain what is true and false about what was presented, how can you be trusted to provide an accurate scientific picture of the state of Climate science research. A scientific analysis would not care if the information supporting or opposed to climate science was from Fox News, BBC, MSNBC, or wherever. If you can't even watch a Fox News clip, your bias is too great for me to fully trust your analysis.
just a last (!) remark on that topic:
I have seen the clip. I will answer to any question that you formulate based on it. I will just not comment randomly inserted fox news clips because - from my experience - people who start a discussion with the points of other people, do not have a serious interest in the answers in the first place. so please, if you care for an answer, that is as objective as I can manage to deliver (certainly not 100%), then please formulate a point or question yourself.
edit: and if you do not trust me, thats fine. just take my points into consideration and form your opinion based on as many independent (!) data sources as possible.
On December 13 2011 08:11 bonse wrote: Climate "changes" happened all the time throughout the earth's existence. More exactly, climate was never static, being constantly influenced by a myriad of factors like sun's activity, biomass and so on. There were ice ages and hot ages alternating all the time. To believe that humanity has more influence on the atmosphere than the sun, the oceans, the forests... that's quite a lot of arrogance. Let's face it guys, we are pretty much insignificant.
You tell me, what percentage of CO2 released daily in atmosphere comes from natural causes?
the carbon cycle has been in equilibrium for millenia. now we emit a lot of co2. if you do the math and add all sources and all sinks of co2 you will see that at the moment we are in a plus that leads to the increase in concentration. this increase matches athropogenic co2 exactly. relative simple math compared to other effects in this discussion
I haven't done too much research in the field myself so forgive my ignorance. I think it would help if you outlined the major contributors to global temperature average. I have heard a lot about water vapor dwarfing CO2 as a mitigating factor in global average temperature. My question is why is CO2 touted as the major catalyst in climate change science? Is it because it's the thing we have the most control over? Or is it measurably the thing that has changed the most (so scientists assume it's the major catalyst?). Are there other factors that haven't been researched as much as CO2 that could possibly play into the global average temperature or is CO2 definitely it?
On December 13 2011 08:16 Nizaris wrote: Ya a law on co2 wouldn't stop global warming that's a given but at least that's a start. we aren't gonna do anything about it if we can't even take the first step.
On December 13 2011 08:10 Abraxas514 wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:10 Nizaris wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
AFAIK you're just one more person sent from foxnews to deliver your opinionTM that is completely without proof/sources. I provided a source for my deaths position, and also the correlation between carbon content and plant growth is plain when viewed from the photosynthetic process:
it takes 6 CO2 to produce sugar. If you've ever done chemistry in your life you would realize more CO2 would increase the rate of this reaction.
Uh, as perhaps a small point, my chem/bio not being my strongest suit (I'm an EE), but adding more CO2 without taking into consideration the other factors (light and water) does not inherently increase the rate of reaction.
I haven't done too much research in the field myself so forgive my ignorance. I think it would help if you outlined the major contributors to global temperature average. I have heard a lot about water vapor dwarfing CO2 as a mitigating factor in global average temperature. My question is why is CO2 touted as the major catalyst in climate change science? Is it because it's the thing we have the most control over? Or is it measurably the thing that has changed the most (so scientists assume it's the major catalyst?). Are there other factors that haven't been researched as much as CO2 that could possibly play into the global average temperature or is CO2 definitely it?
very cool question, were deep in the science now.
water vapor is a very strong greenhouse gas, much stronger in overall effect than co2 because there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere then co2. co2 is much more efficient in the sense of warming / concentration, though.
but the main argument is again the equilibrium: lets go for a thought experiment:
imagine earth at a certain equilibriumg with a given water vapor and co2 concentration. increase co2 a little bit, it gets a little bit warmer. warmer means more water vapor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clausius%E2%80%93Clapeyron_relation , real physics, yeah °), means a strengthening of the original co2 signal to a new equilibrium.
it is supposed that for a medium emission social scenario we would have perhaps 1 degrees of warming ONLY due to co2 increase. water vapor would add another 1 degree on that just in reaction (we can control water vapor ONLY via temperature). the rest of the uncertainty comes from the reaction of clouds.
On December 13 2011 08:16 Nizaris wrote: Ya a law on co2 wouldn't stop global warming that's a given but at least that's a start. we aren't gonna do anything about it if we can't even take the first step.
On December 13 2011 08:10 Abraxas514 wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:10 Nizaris wrote:
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
AFAIK you're just one more person sent from foxnews to deliver your opinionTM that is completely without proof/sources. I provided a source for my deaths position, and also the correlation between carbon content and plant growth is plain when viewed from the photosynthetic process:
it takes 6 CO2 to produce sugar. If you've ever done chemistry in your life you would realize more CO2 would increase the rate of this reaction.
oh here comes the FOX NEWS card. did you come up with that one all by yourself?
You posted nothing relevant. saying that more ppl dies from cold then heat waves isn't even relevant. I'll say it again, global warming doesn't mean warmer winters.
just a personal remark: I will not answer to Fox News level of information or queries °
This is why you are failing at the task you set out to accomplish. I am not stating that I agree or disagree with what is in the video because I haven't watched it. But if you can't even look at a segment from Fox News, or any source for that matter, and discern what is meaningful or not, or explain what is true and false about what was presented, how can you be trusted to provide an accurate scientific picture of the state of Climate science research. A scientific analysis would not care if the information supporting or opposed to climate science was from Fox News, BBC, MSNBC, or wherever. If you can't even watch a Fox News clip, your bias is too great for me to fully trust your analysis.
A little common sense would answer your question. If you knew anything about Monkton or Fox you know how willing they are to spin or outright lie for the sake of agenda. Hell, in one video, Beck casually cited (without reference) that the earth was now in a cooling trend which is entirely untrue (NASA temps). There are hours of video on YouTube debunking Monkton as utterly and shamelessly fraudulent.
Scientists shouldn't have to defend their position ad nausea against unsubstantiated non-scientific attacks. Biologists shouldn't have give the time of day to I.D. apologists nor physicists to the Catholic Church.
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing?
Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it.
Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things.
they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ? like really?
afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer.
Na i dont think there is proof we get more catastrophes with raising average temperature. Hurrikanes and tornados get their strenght through the temperature gradient, which would not be affected by raising the mean temperature, or am i mistaken? :x
true. there is no conclusive proof for more catastrophes. the temperature gradient will potentially even decrease. hurricanes and tornadoes get their strength in the final picture from potential energy gradients (very closely related to temperatures). a warmer earth carries more potential energy per se, but the weaker gradient (polar amplification of warming signal) might lead to a state similar to today for the overall picture, with PERHAPS slightly more strong storms. science is not finished in this area.
EPT
