EPTNASA: Strange and sudden massive melt in Greenland - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Roachu
Sweden692 Posts
| ||
|
Arghmyliver
United States1077 Posts
On July 26 2012 11:25 dvorakftw wrote: The fact is there are claims of blah blah blah but there are problems with the data, problems with the models, failed prediction after failed prediction, and stupid claims of weird things going on, like this suddenly disappeared ice, that actually aren't so weird. But hey if it gives politicians an excuse to increase their power over the little evil common people who are ruining everything, who cares, right? I'll just say it again - the fact is - there is an abnormal upward trend in global temperature that has been occurring over the past 100-1000 years and your argument is "Blah, blah, blah keep your stupid facts?" Good job buddy. I don't give a rat's piss about the politics of the matter. I do give a great deal of rat's piss if the fucking Earth gets destroyed. Because that's where I (and, unfortunately, assholes who don't give a shit) live. I don't care if you're suicidal, but I sure as hell am not. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:40 dvorakftw wrote: They can't tell me for sure if it's going to rain three days from now. And yet YOU can make predictions that go against the majority of climatologists based on your extensive experience on the Internet? Maybe they should toss you a couple PhDs. Anyway, they know why rain happens and they have a fairly effective way of knowing the short term weather using that knowledge. Unlike you, they probably don't rely on a single graph comparing 2 variables and call it a day. Oh also the source of that graph comes from a website that looks like this: ![[image loading]](http://i45.tinypic.com/14rvv8.jpg) Good ole Geocities looks! Some of the website's sources are simply not credible, some are estimates from 1994 - most sources are old as well. And more importantly, when there are conflicting sources, how do you know those are reliable and the others aren't? Because let's be clear here - a majority of sources essentially state the opposite of this. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada705 Posts
On July 26 2012 08:21 dvorakftw wrote: Wow, I drew you a picture and you still don't get it! Well, I didn't actually draw the picture but still. Pop quiz: What is the avg Earth temperature today and what was it 100 million years ago and 200 million years ago? + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/30a849l.gif) Gee, it's almost like the emergence of cyanobacteria, then plant life, and then animal life had some kind of effect. The temperature data means nothing as it is uncontrolled. Not sure why you're so proud of this graph, it doesn't have anything to do with the effect we're having on global atmospheric [CO2]. | ||
|
IreScath
Canada521 Posts
| ||
|
CursOr
United States6335 Posts
| ||
|
dvorakftw
681 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.drroyspencer.com/library/pics/2000-years-of-global-temperature.jpg) | ||
|
kdgns
United States2427 Posts
On July 26 2012 15:01 dvorakftw wrote: Fine, you don't like that pic how about this one: I would like to see how the data was calculated, and it seems to be missing the latest decade which is getting close to 0.6 degrees anomaly. I don't think people will disagree that the earth certainly has warmed and cooled. I think what people are worried about is that in conjunction with this warming trend, our current environment is different from medieval times in the sense that we have much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is known to cause a greenhouse effect, essentially, the highs are going to be higher because of how we have changed the atmosphere. | ||
|
Ramanajan
2 Posts
| ||
|
Thorakh
Netherlands1788 Posts
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/ Still think global warming isn't real? Look, you can dispute whether global warming is man-made, but NOT whether it exists. | ||
|
Wampaibist
United States478 Posts
On July 26 2012 14:17 sevencck wrote: Gee, it's almost like the emergence of cyanobacteria, then plant life, and then animal life had some kind of effect. The temperature data means nothing as it is uncontrolled. Not sure why you're so proud of this graph, it doesn't have anything to do with the effect we're having on global atmospheric [CO2]. very well said. | ||
|
yourepicend
United States36 Posts
our existance is on earth is very short compared to the existance of earth. look at how much shit has happened on earth before we even lit a fire before you spew garbage. I agree we arent helping earth any and are probably making things worse but our impact is minimal at the moment, that could always change though. Dont try to guilt people into feeling bad because they take a 15 minute shower or something. | ||
|
oGoZenob
France1503 Posts
On July 27 2012 04:24 yourepicend wrote: basically the earth goes in cycles. there have been extremely warm periods and ice ages. our existance is on earth is very short compared to the existance of earth. look at how much shit has happened on earth before we even lit a fire before you spew garbage. I agree we arent helping earth any and are probably making things worse but our impact is minimal at the moment, that could always change though. Dont try to guilt people into feeling bad because they take a 15 minute shower or something. you surely have a lot of urefutable scientific data backing up your view, i can't wait to read all of them ! | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
Anyway, even if the EU and US suddenly came to an agreement and hugely reduced CO2 emissions, once again IF we are in fact causing the warming, the earth would continue to warm because of emissions coming from India/China etc. We would have to bear the cost of majorly shifting our own habits, but would likely also have to help developing countries with the cost of shifting their own energy to be more earth-friendly, simply based on the fact that they would probably not agree to do so on their own (really, they are just using the same methods we in the West did to get where we are) based on the lack of certainty regarding anthropogenic warming. So basically, if we are in fact causing global warming, I think we can expect it to continue for a very long time - well past all of our lifetimes, and much longer probably...because I really don't see all those stars aligning/everyone getting on the same page anytime soon. | ||
|
Stoli
Canada173 Posts
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm even in the US. Politicians already 'control' these industries. Global warming regulation isn't an inherent expansion of government (in some cases it can be obviously) but it is an inherent increase to the allowed On July 26 2012 17:36 Ramanajan wrote: Hahaha I was banned for having a different opinion. This site is just like any other, I guess. Enjoy debating amongst yourselves, with people that think exactly like you do. Courtesy of Evilteletubby. I don't know what you were banned for, but climate "denial" is in my experience, entirely the result of ignorance. It's the inability to research for yourself, and evaluate sources. For example: On July 26 2012 15:01 dvorakftw wrote: Fine, you don't like that pic how about this one: This website is my favourite source by far, I'm yet to see a denial argument it doesn't counter: http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm Still, you didn't need that website, a VERY simple google search would have answered your question without demanding someone do the research for you simply by referencing some arbitrary website: https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&safe=off&sclient=psy-ab&q=Medieval climate change&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=a72b5deb115828db&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1280&bih=636 "medieval climate change" could not be a much more intuitive search. Literally the first three results directly address your "argument:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html http://www.sciencemag.org/content/302/5644/404.short Note, the last result is a reputable journal. Stick to reputable science instead of sourcing internet blogs. There is nothing to debate: this is not debate, this is education. | ||
|
Stoli
Canada173 Posts
 forgot to edit.On July 27 2012 05:19 GwSC wrote: Yeah, the fact is the earth has warmed and cooled without any influence from humans in the past. The problem is it is currently impossible for us to tell with any kind of certainty if the current trend is being caused by our actions. Since it is not currently possible to prove the link, it is very difficult to convince anyone to take immediate action given the costs involved. As it is, IF we are in fact causing warming, the warming would continue for a long time even if we were to make a drastic change RIGHT NOW. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/03/0317_050317_warming.html check that for a basic summary. Anyway, even if the EU and US suddenly came to an agreement and hugely reduced CO2 emissions, once again IF we are in fact causing the warming, the earth would continue to warm because of emissions coming from India/China etc. We would have to bear the cost of majorly shifting our own habits, but would likely also have to help developing countries with the cost of shifting their own energy to be more earth-friendly, simply based on the fact that they would probably not agree to do so on their own (really, they are just using the same methods we in the West did to get where we are) based on the lack of certainty regarding anthropogenic warming. So basically, if we are in fact causing global warming, I think we can expect it to continue for a very long time - well past all of our lifetimes, and much longer probably...because I really don't see all those stars aligning/everyone getting on the same page anytime soon. China is still developing, much of it's economy is still agricultural. In all fairness, the "burden" of it for them is millions of people remaining in poverty. For us, it's a few less McDonalds, maybe a more expensive iPhone. Those peoples development will mean more iPhones, more scientists, and more assistance to those affected by environmental disasters because more people have the resources to do so. No one is pretending we can "fix" this problem, but anything that lessens it's impact will lessen the implications. Extreme environmental events cost money and lives; making them less extreme makes them less costly to handle. China will get on board, it just has to make sure that the majority of it's population isn't peasant farmers before it does. There are no peasant farmers in the US. | ||
|
-MoOsE-
United States236 Posts
On July 25 2012 09:32 Queequag101 wrote: Global warming doesn't exist the sun has times when it creates large solar waves and the earth gets warmer and times when it gets colder. pretty much, my dad used to be a meteorologist and did weather forecasting for the air force and he always gets mad when people start talking about global warming. He looks at the solar activities and explains how it affects the ice caps and the temp of earth. Most people just don't understand and don't want to understand how it works. | ||
|
Stoli
Canada173 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:10 -MoOsE- wrote: pretty much, my dad used to be a meteorologist and did weather forecasting for the air force and he always gets mad when people start talking about global warming. He looks at the solar activities and explains how it affects the ice caps and the temp of earth. Most people just don't understand and don't want to understand how it works. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marvin-meadors/why-do-meteorologists-dis_b_1289630.html Your father is ignorant, Moose. Do you really think an entire field of hard science would go without substantial criticism (in the EU/Canada/Asia) if there was evidence to contradict it? It's peer reviewed, and it would be a major coup to "disprove" it by citing a different cause. Meteorologists are not climate scientists. They deal with 3-7 day forecasts, not trends throughout history. | ||
|
GwSC
United States1997 Posts
On July 27 2012 06:07 Stoli wrote: edit: sorry for double post forgot to edit.China is still developing, much of it's economy is still agricultural. In all fairness, the "burden" of it for them is millions of people remaining in poverty. For us, it's a few less McDonalds, maybe a more expensive iPhone. I didn't mean to imply otherwise, that was why I said it probably would take international assistance to help them get on the right track if we want things to happen quickly. We can't fairly expect them to not use the same methods we did to achieve better living standards while at the same time bearing all the cost of reform. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
| ||
| ||
