Global Warming

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Wotan31, Jul 13, 2009.

  1. Wotan31 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    #1
    old skool style. 55M years ago to be more precise.

    Just goes to show that those who pretend to understand Earth's climate, sure have a lot more learning to do.
     
  2. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #2
    To whom are you referring here?
     
  3. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #3
    You're going to get shredded here if that's all you're bringing to the table.
     
  4. Unspoken Demise macrumors 68040

    Unspoken Demise

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2009
    Location:
    >9,000
    #4
    Everyone always has a lot of learning to do. Forever.
     
  5. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #5
    Undoubtedly everyone who believes in anthropomorphic climate change (but nobody who doesn't).
    Troll is as troll does.
     
  6. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #6
    Nothing says intellectual competence like old skool.
     
  7. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Is it even worth trying to rip this apart :p.
     
  8. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #8
    Don't be such a cynic :p. I'm sure Wotan31 will be along shortly to clear things up with his immutable grasp of facts and logic.
     
  9. Shivetya macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    #9
    Won't stop them in their Holy war... facts don't get in their way. When the facts started piling up against they simply changed their catch phrase and then set the milestones so far out no one would live to see them.
     
  10. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #10
    Who is "they"? What "facts"?
     
  11. GfPQqmcRKUvP macrumors 68040

    GfPQqmcRKUvP

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2005
    Location:
    Terminus
    #11
    You understand that posts like this don't help at all, right? How about posting some counter-facts? I'm not a huge believer in man-made climate change either, but it's not like I'm going to rush into battle with a few half-formed sentences and misplaced zealotry.
     
  12. Peterkro macrumors 68020

    Peterkro

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2004
    Location:
    Communard de Londres
  13. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #13
    So nature can raise the temperature between 5 and 9 degrees in just a few thousand years, can it?

    Humans can do that in 300, and poison the air and seas whilst we do it. Nature is so Pwned :D
     
  14. spaceboots06 macrumors 6502a

    spaceboots06

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Location:
    The Rotten Apple
    #14
    Mmm. I think the less you know the better. To a certain extent at least.
     
  15. killerrobot macrumors 68020

    killerrobot

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #15
    I thought that was the working title of Ice Age 3 :eek:
     
  16. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #16
    It's refreshing to have someone here that practices what they preach.
     
  17. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #17
    I've had fun watching the emotions and politics of the hassles over Globular Worming. First, the "Warmies" were riding tall in the saddle, after having given up on their prior worries about a new Ice Age. Now, a large number of atmospheric scientists are hollering, "Whoa up!" as the data shows skewed temperature measurements and better data. It seems that the world has been running a tad cooler, these last eight or ten years.

    The greater number of ocean temperature measurements now available (thanks, NOAA) indicate that the water is cooler than it was projected to be by the various computer models--and there are many scientists now griping at the problems with the models themselves. It seems that re-running the programs with updated input data doesn't show the warming that was predicted.

    Damfino. I don't really have a clue as to which group is factually correct. I do know that I don't trust politicians to "save" the planet. And "trust" is not the appropriate word to use as I watch the present regime work to extend governmental power over all of us.

    'Rat
     
  18. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #18
    This never happened.

    This is a misunderstanding. There's a long term trend to the climate as well as shorter term fluctuations. I presume what you are referring to here is effects such as El Nino and La nina which change the climate in the short term. This is a well understood effect and there certainly wouldn't be any atmospheric scientists hollering "whoa up" at such data.

    Link to scientific publications to back this up please.

    This is why you trust the science. You seem to be getting the politics mixed up with the science.
     
  19. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #19
    No, I'm not the one mixing the politics with the science. What I'm saying is that there are too many conflicting statements within the "world of science" and I'm therefore agnostic.

    I've no links. I ran across an article a few months back about NOAA's placement of an expanded number of ocean buoys with temperature-measuring systems for deepwater as well as near-surface. The initial data did not correspond to expectations.

    And the politicos have chosen which side they believe. Okay, fine. But their proposed solutions have more to do with extension of power than of reducing CO2 emissions. All ya gotta do is run the numbers on electricity, transportation fuel and jobs. One unanswered question is that of efficacy: What good does it do the world itself if we cut back to economic hardship levels of CO2 output while the rest of the world surpasses us in CO2 output? Again: Look up the data, run the numbers.

    'Rat
     
  20. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #20
    I disagree. Both your posts now are arguing from a political point of view and have very little grounding in science whatsoever. Despite you making scientific claims.

    There really isn't. The "conflicting statements" come when the science is presented in the media/by politicians to obsfucate for their own agenda. There's nothing more to it. I'd suggest that the ill-informed due to the literature you read is more apt than agnostic.

    This doesn't come as a surprise.

    Any chance you could come across it again or do we just take your word for it? Google is right there for you to back up your claims. To make your search simple your claim is that "expanded NOAA ocean buoys returned data that disproved the current models on climate change".

    This has nothing to do with the science of climate change. You are bordering on politics again.
     
  21. Scarlet Fever macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #21
    So during this warm up, CO2 levels accounted for between 1 - 3.5 C increase in temperature over a few thousand years.

    In this day and age, man-made emissions are accountable for around 0.8 C increase in temperature over the past 100 years.

    Just to extrapolate that (yes, I know the Earth is not a linear system), at current warming and emission levels, that would mean in 1000 years, we would have caused 8 C in temperature increase just in CO2 emissions.
     
  22. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #22
    The problem with the global warming deniers is that they don't even read these news articles properly. Nor do they have anything but a rudimentary understanding of science. They jump on a single article they perceive as contrary to the tens to hundreds of thousands of other scientific articles as proof that global warming is a sham. Of course this isn't the case as science needs to be verified by independent researchers and alternative mechanisms. Most of the time (such as in the OP article and Desertrat's claims) the data presented isn't contrary to the scientific consensus at all. It's usually a misunderstanding (sometimes purposeful) or just new data that is absorbed into the current models and theories to make them stronger without hooplah. Which is as science is meant to be. A dynamic system of understanding.
     
  23. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #23
    .Andy, I'll stipulate that man-made CO2 is strongly contributive to the warming of the earth's atmosphere:

    When legislative bodies get involved in passing laws pertaining to the output of CO2, how is that NOT political?

    For that matter, when scientists argue among themselves, would you try to make me believe there's no politicking going on? That various groups don't form alliances to try to refute others' works? That they can't draw entirely different conclusions from the same data?

    One reason I'm quite often sceptical stems in part from an event from 1965. I was then working at the Texas Water Commission. The agency deals with the permitting process for dams and reservoirs. At a hearing in front of the commissioners about a permit for a dam, there were proponents and opponents to the project. Each side had hired well-respected civil engineering firms. One side said the dam would harm downstream users. The other side said there would be no effect. In response to a question concerning the data used by the firms, a commissioner was told that they used the same streamflow and flood/drouth records. "How can this be?" he asked. "Well, sir, we interpret the data differently."
     
  24. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #24
    Your claims in your first post weren't political. I took issue with you making scientific claims and not supporting them.

    They most certainly can argue politically. But at the end of the day it's the data that counts. Not the politics.

    This isn't how science works. We generally don't get together to form alliances to refute other people's work. We look for interesting applications where we can discover new information or provide data that adds to the knowledge pool. The driver is understanding the world, which sometimes involves disproving other's data interpretation with further data.

    Infrequently one can. But when one draws different conclusions one inevitably ends up making new, and testable scientific hypotheses which they can test to prove their conclusions.

    Again you're mixing up politics in the equation. Your observation is why you must always take an individual research paper with a grain of salt until it is verified by independent workers with independent data. It's also why scientific journals require that you state where all your funding comes from and disclose any conflict of interests in your paper. To not do so gets your paper withdrawn.
     
  25. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #25
    "Again you're mixing up politics in the equation. Your observation is why you must always take an individual research paper with a grain of salt until it is verified by independent workers with independent data. It's also why scientific journals require that you state where all your funding comes from and disclose any conflict of interests in your paper. To not do so gets your paper withdrawn."

    On that we agree.

    Look: I run across articles in reputable news media which cite some PhD or another who's said to be in atmospheric sciences or some related field. University of somewhere or another. I'm not gonna save every link or or worry for months about who said what about which. But over time I see claims and counter-claims by what seem to be equally reputable sources.

    I give more credence to data recorded by NOAA than I do to the claims one way or the other by any one scientist employed by NOAA. Same for a lot of other entities involved in this GW business.

    Shift emphasis: To meet the CO2 emissions levels of the Kyoto accords, is that science or politics?
     

Share This Page