New Global Warming Facts

[PLAYER57832]

... By "religion", I'm referencing your zeal with regard to global warming. And the portion in bold above, funny, I agree with this, especially as it pertains to your zeal with regard to the subject.

...

Except its not "my zeal", its the scientific community.

and you have never refuted it at all.

[PLAYER57832]

August 1st and it's already the second hottest summer of record in Texas and likely to become the first before it's over, since this is the start of the Lone Star State's hot month.

This is true, but with respect this is not necessarily proof of global warming. It had to be encompassed in a whole pattern, which does exist. However, that pattern includes some areas getting harsher winters, not just warmer summers. This is what is deceptive about a lot of mass media reports.

[DiM]

Remember that time when the scientific consensus was sure the earth was cooling? Oh yeah, me neither, because it never happened.

remember when you were wrong? i do. it just happened.

median temperatures on earth were dropping from ~1940 to ~1970 and the scientists agreed on this.

Sure, but there was no consensus that this was a permanent trend. Indeed, many papers were beginning to express concern over warming, but you're too willing to be spoon-fed nonsense to even know how to verify that.

who said anything about permanent trend? back in that time the scientific community agreed that the earth had been going through a cooling period between 40-70's. you said this never happened and yet it did. the fact that you can't admit you were wrong proves you're a sore loser incapable of sustaining an intelligent discussion.

Remember that time the media was completely wrong about science? Yeah. That happens all the time.

true. that happens all the time. just like the media manufactured the ice age from the 70. just like it is exaggerating now with the global warming, just as it will always try and panic the population.

What sort of fuckwit nonsense is this? The media is so overwhelmed by "teach the controversy" crap these days that you have to actually go to scientific journals themselves to see what actual science says on any given issue. To say the media is exaggerating global warming is an aneurism of logical thought. Wink away, and let the real scientists figure this stuff out.

please show me the "real scientists" that 100% testify the earth is warming and that this will continue for an X amount of time we'll all fry and boil. all we know know is that the earth is warming and has been warming for the past few decades. just like we knew the earth was cooling in he 40-70's. NOBODY can say for how long this will continue and what the exact effects will be.

[PLAYER57832]

please show me the "real scientists" that 100% testify the earth is warming and that this will continue for an X amount of time we'll all fry and boil. all we know know is that the earth is warming and has been warming for the past few decades. just like we knew the earth was cooling in he 40-70's. NOBODY can say for how long this will continue and what the exact effects will be.

You are taking some half truths out of context, which probably means you are listening to common media reports instead of the original research papers or scientific reports.

The Earth does cool and warm. Up until pretty recently, we did not even have the math capable of doing more than just grossly estimating weather. Since then, though, we have the whole field of Chaos math, a set of satalites that gives pictures of pretty much the entire earth and computers that those in the 70's only dreamed about. In short, what was not known back in the 70's is now pretty close to established fact. BUT, understand that, in science, "pretty close" is mroe sure than most "sure predictions" used in other contexts.. FAR more sure in many cases.

There IS a consensus that the Earth is warming. There Is a consensus that this will cause humans harm, though the exact dates, the exact level of harm, etc.. those are under debate. But, its more a debate of "will this fire take 30 acres or 100", NOT "does fire burn." There is also debate over the exact causes, however, it is essentially proven that what are called greenhouse gases (including CO2, Methane, etc.) are contributing to the warming of the Earth. There is some debate, again over exactly how much each contributes, exactly what measures are best to limit it, how much needs to be limited, etc.. however, note, again we are talking details, not the overall conclusions. Scientists almost never come out with firm pronouncements. This fustrates linear thinkers, business people who demand "real facts" (never mind that most science is actually FAR more predictable than economics), but it is because scientists are, by their nature, precise. If something is 99% sure, most people will simply say "its sure" or "true". Scientists mostly won't.. even if its 99.999% likely to be true.

If you really follow the data (and I urge you to do that if you question this), you find that global warming IS real, is happening and is something we, as humans need to worry about if our children will have any sort of a future.

[Neoteny]

Remember that time when the scientific consensus was sure the earth was cooling? Oh yeah, me neither, because it never happened.

remember when you were wrong? i do. it just happened.

median temperatures on earth were dropping from ~1940 to ~1970 and the scientists agreed on this.

Sure, but there was no consensus that this was a permanent trend. Indeed, many papers were beginning to express concern over warming, but you're too willing to be spoon-fed nonsense to even know how to verify that.

who said anything about permanent trend? back in that time the scientific community agreed that the earth had been going through a cooling period between 40-70's. you said this never happened and yet it did. the fact that you can't admit you were wrong proves you're a sore loser incapable of sustaining an intelligent discussion.

I'm not denying the colling trend. But, even then, scientists were predicting a continuation of a long-term warming trend despite the cooling trend. You're presenting the recognition of cooling as a sort of veil to sow seeds of doubt in the reliability of scientific consensus. Sad and disgusting. Scientists have not flip-flopped on the issue of global warming. Stop trying to imply that they have. The prediction of increased warming is is just as valid noow as it was during the forties to the seventies, if not more so.

Remember that time the media was completely wrong about science? Yeah. That happens all the time.

true. that happens all the time. just like the media manufactured the ice age from the 70. just like it is exaggerating now with the global warming, just as it will always try and panic the population.

What sort of fuckwit nonsense is this? The media is so overwhelmed by "teach the controversy" crap these days that you have to actually go to scientific journals themselves to see what actual science says on any given issue. To say the media is exaggerating global warming is an aneurism of logical thought. Wink away, and let the real scientists figure this stuff out.

please show me the "real scientists" that 100% testify the earth is warming and that this will continue for an X amount of time we'll all fry and boil. all we know know is that the earth is warming and has been warming for the past few decades. just like we knew the earth was cooling in he 40-70's. NOBODY can say for how long this will continue and what the exact effects will be.

They publish every week in journals like Science, and various climate journal. You can google those if you want to see real science. Your inability to accept any predictions indicates a closed-mindedness of epic proportions.

[PLAYER57832]

They publish every week in journals like Science, and various climate journal. You can google those if you want to see real science. Your inability to accept any predictions indicates a closed-mindedness of epic proportions.

More likely, it represents somewhat limited access to information -- whether by design or simply having too little time to pay attention to everything.

[jimboston]

Here are some simple facts.

1) NO ONE knows if "global warming" really happening or not... we have only a fraction of the data we need to understand this. Anyone who claims to KNOW is full of shit.

2) Even if the world is warming up... NO ONE knows if we (humans) are causing it... or if it is part of some larger cycle that we have very-little or no effect on.

Also, numbers 1 and 2 are blatantly false.

Prove this statement.

[jimboston]

Effects of Global Warming?

August 1st and it's already the second hottest summer of record in Texas and likely to become the first before it's over, since this is the start of the Lone Star State's hot month. The remnants of a tropical depression just blew through last weekend and brought no rain. In fact I haven't seen any rain since early May.

I'm guessing many mid-western states will also set record highs this summer.

A record that is only a few hundred years long at best.

How old is the planet?

[PLAYER57832]

Here are some simple facts.

1) NO ONE knows if "global warming" really happening or not... we have only a fraction of the data we need to understand this. Anyone who claims to KNOW is full of shit.

2) Even if the world is warming up... NO ONE knows if we (humans) are causing it... or if it is part of some larger cycle that we have very-little or no effect on.

Also, numbers 1 and 2 are blatantly false.

Prove this statement.

You can start here:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... lobal-warm
OR here:
http://planetsave.com/2009/04/23/scient ... l-warming/

even wikki can weigh in here:

This article is about scientific opinion on climate change. For public perception and controversy about the scientific consensus, see Public opinion on climate change and Global warming controversy. For opinions of individual dissenting scientists, see List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.
Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]
No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

and let's not forget this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific ... ch_Program

and yes, here is an article on dissenters. However, note that to meet the articles definition of "scientist", they only have to have one published article very loosely tied to natural resources. In short, the yard stick was stretched a GREAT deal.

Also, many of these have since been refuted.

[PLAYER57832]

Effects of Global Warming?

August 1st and it's already the second hottest summer of record in Texas and likely to become the first before it's over, since this is the start of the Lone Star State's hot month. The remnants of a tropical depression just blew through last weekend and brought no rain. In fact I haven't seen any rain since early May.

I'm guessing many mid-western states will also set record highs this summer.

A record that is only a few hundred years long at best.

How old is the planet?

Not true. A combination of written documents, anthropological data (ranging from tree ring data to spore samples to crop residues, etc, etc... I am naming only a few, note), geological data (evidence from eruptions, coral growth, fossil species composition, etc, etc.

We have a record of past data. What we don't necessarily have, yet is a firm way to link microchanges to climate. We can track general broad changes.

Think of a river (and this analogy is definitely not spurious.. I will explain why in a minute). Can you predict where a river will go? I cannot predict exactly which stone will move where, or even the exact size of a pool you will find after a major storm event or the exact date of the next big flood. However, any decent stream hydrologist can tell you generally the size of matter streams will move at various stages, where you will find new pools after a storm, and the approximate likelihood of a major flood.

AND, the analogy is very apt because both streams and weather operate as chaotic systems mathematically. (here is a google link, just in case you are unfamiliar with this math: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory )

[Neoteny]

Here are some simple facts.

1) NO ONE knows if "global warming" really happening or not... we have only a fraction of the data we need to understand this. Anyone who claims to KNOW is full of shit.

2) Even if the world is warming up... NO ONE knows if we (humans) are causing it... or if it is part of some larger cycle that we have very-little or no effect on.

Also, numbers 1 and 2 are blatantly false.

Prove this statement.

No. I am 95% certain you will just be wasting my time. I'm not going to spend a half hour explaining and citing a topic you can research for yourself in ten minutes, especially when I'm doing it for someone who apparently has no qualms about making up "facts." If you want my perspective on climate change, then search that phrase within my posts. If you want something to which you can respond with more delusions, you may proceed to do so by responding to this post.

If you do see something above a fifth-grade science level about which you want to discuss, I'll be happy to oblige.

[DiM]

[...]

and yet again you prove to be wrong in almost every aspect of your argumentation. what's this? 2nd time? 3rd?
1. you said there was no consensus about cooling. i proved there was. then you started to talk about permanent trends, you started saying that the technology wasn't that great in that period and so on. did i say anything about a permanent trend? no. did i say the results were perfect? no. the only thing in question was the general scientific consensus and you were wrong about that. period. anything you try to add makes you a whiner and a sore loser.
2. i never said global warming isn't happening. i never said scientists that claim the earth is warming are wrong. the current warming is just as obvious as the cooling from half a century ago. all i said was that nobody can state to a 100% scientific certainty what exactly will happen and when it will happen. all we have right now is educated guesses that might change very much in the next 10-20 years as the research uncovers new facts and data.
the fact that you can't accept this proves you're the one with "a closed-mindedness of epic proportions".

i once have been told to never wrestle with a pig: you both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.
i think i'll take that advice and let you enjoy the mud all by yourself.

cheers.

[JPcelticfc]

[...]

and yet again you prove to be wrong in almost every aspect of your argumentation. what's this? 2nd time? 3rd?
1. you said there was no consensus about cooling. i proved there was. then you started to talk about permanent trends, you started saying that the technology wasn't that great in that period and so on. did i say anything about a permanent trend? no. did i say the results were perfect? no. the only thing in question was the general scientific consensus and you were wrong about that. period. anything you try to add makes you a whiner and a sore loser.
2. i never said global warming isn't happening. i never said scientists that claim the earth is warming are wrong. the current warming is just as obvious as the cooling from half a century ago. all i said was that nobody can state to a 100% scientific certainty what exactly will happen and when it will happen. all we have right now is educated guesses that might change very much in the next 10-20 years as the research uncovers new facts and data.
the fact that you can't accept this proves you're the one with "a closed-mindedness of epic proportions".

i once have been told to never wrestle with a pig: you both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.
i think i'll take that advice and let you enjoy the mud all by yourself.

cheers.

Would you prefer to do nothing and and hope its not happening? or prepare to deal with the potential problems of global warming and limit them. Surely those who don't believe in global warming can still see that doing nothing carries the greater risk.

[DiM]

Would you prefer to do nothing and and hope its not happening? or prepare to deal with the potential problems of global warming and limit them. Surely those who don't believe in global warming can still see that doing nothing carries the greater risk.

read again what i wrote. i DO believe that global warming is happening and i do believe that doing something can be good. all i said is that there's no point in believing all the apocalyptic hysteria. we're not going to be cooked by the sun, the earth won't become a desert, we won't be skinny dipping at the north pole drinking margaritas out of coconuts and the oceans won't take over 90% of the earth's surface making the surfing industry the largest in the world.
by all means, recycle, use a bike for short distances and a car with a good mpg for longer ones. try to conserve the water and don't waste food. even without the global warming warning we should all be doing these things. the researchers should find alternative energy sources, develop them improve them and then give them to mass production but not because we fear we'll die in a sea of fire but simply because that's the path to evolution.

[Neoteny]

[...]

and yet again you prove to be wrong in almost every aspect of your argumentation. what's this? 2nd time? 3rd?
1. you said there was no consensus about cooling. i proved there was. then you started to talk about permanent trends, you started saying that the technology wasn't that great in that period and so on. did i say anything about a permanent trend? no. did i say the results were perfect? no. the only thing in question was the general scientific consensus and you were wrong about that. period. anything you try to add makes you a whiner and a sore loser.

I didn't say anything about technology... man, you can't even figure out who you're talking to, much less what they're talking about. I did not deny a cooling trend. I meant there was no consensus that global cooling was going to be a major issue, as opposed to the media nonsense on the issue. My main point is that using the cooling trend against scientists (or worse, blame them for the hype) as if they do not know the causes or repurcussions is dishonest.

2. i never said global warming isn't happening. i never said scientists that claim the earth is warming are wrong. the current warming is just as obvious as the cooling from half a century ago. all i said was that nobody can state to a 100% scientific certainty what exactly will happen and when it will happen. all we have right now is educated guesses that might change very much in the next 10-20 years as the research uncovers new facts and data.
the fact that you can't accept this proves you're the one with "a closed-mindedness of epic proportions".

i once have been told to never wrestle with a pig: you both get all dirty, and the pig likes it.
i think i'll take that advice and let you enjoy the mud all by yourself.

cheers.

Wow. You're trivializing the science in one breathe, and then pretending the mud is on my face with the next. Good luck with that hypocrisy.

[Neoteny]

Would you prefer to do nothing and and hope its not happening? or prepare to deal with the potential problems of global warming and limit them. Surely those who don't believe in global warming can still see that doing nothing carries the greater risk.

read again what i wrote. i DO believe that global warming is happening and i do believe that doing something can be good. all i said is that there's no point in believing all the apocalyptic hysteria. we're not going to be cooked by the sun, the earth won't become a desert, we won't be skinny dipping at the north pole drinking margaritas out of coconuts and the oceans won't take over 90% of the earth's surface making the surfing industry the largest in the world.
by all means, recycle, use a bike for short distances and a car with a good mpg for longer ones. try to conserve the water and don't waste food. even without the global warming warning we should all be doing these things. the researchers should find alternative energy sources, develop them improve them and then give them to mass production but not because we fear we'll die in a sea of fire but simply because that's the path to evolution.

Wow. Your iggnorance is stupifying.

[DiM]

I did not deny a cooling trend.

hmm. let's see what you said in a previous post:

Remember that time when the scientific consensus was sure the earth was cooling? Oh yeah, me neither, because it never happened.

and you have the guts to talk about hypocrisy.

oink oink

[Neoteny]

I do, hypocrite.

A cooling trend during an overall warming trend does not a hypocrite make. If you want to take hyperbole out of context, I would absolutely not be surprised.

[natty dread]

Dim, would you care to address this quote?

On Global Cooling Predictions
It is a myth that there was any sort of consensus in the 1970s that global cooling was in effect. In fact, a survey of the literature found 7 scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 that predicted global cooling. In that same period, there were 44 papers that predicted global warming and 20 that were neutral.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html
The full study is available here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

[DiM]

Dim, would you care to address this quote?

On Global Cooling Predictions
It is a myth that there was any sort of consensus in the 1970s that global cooling was in effect. In fact, a survey of the literature found 7 scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 that predicted global cooling. In that same period, there were 44 papers that predicted global warming and 20 that were neutral.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/10/global-cooling-was-a-myth.html
The full study is available here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

yeah sure. that quote is perfectly true. there was no general consensus of an ice age because that was a total bullshit. but the earth was indeed going through a cooling period.

[natty dread]

that quote is perfectly true. there was no general consensus of an ice age because that was a total bullshit

Ok, so how is this quote wrong then?

Remember that time when the scientific consensus was sure the earth was cooling? Oh yeah, me neither, because it never happened.

Because you seemed to contest that quote.

I'm just wondering, is all...

[JPcelticfc]

Not sure if this fits in the same timeframe, but I remember some scientists believed that the earth was getting cooler due to the satelillites recordings. This was because with each orbit the satelillite moved away from the earth much like the moon does giving the illusion of a cooling earth. Perhaps that would explain though my gut instinct tells me that was the early 90's. Perhaps some1 would care to elaborate further. Though its proof that issues such as this have been ironed out and today's data is much more reliable.

[DiM]

that quote is perfectly true. there was no general consensus of an ice age because that was a total bullshit

Ok, so how is this quote wrong then?

Remember that time when the scientific consensus was sure the earth was cooling? Oh yeah, me neither, because it never happened.

Because you seemed to contest that quote.

I'm just wondering, is all...

look at the graph i've shown. the earth was indeed cooling. that's all i said. from that simple cooling alarmists developed the ice age story.
neoteny said the earth wasn't cooling. i merely said that it was. i did not contest the current global warming nor did i claim the 70's ice age was valid. i simply said the earth was cooling which is a simple and proven fact.

[PLAYER57832]

Not sure if this fits in the same timeframe, but I remember some scientists believed that the earth was getting cooler due to the satelillites recordings. This was because with each orbit the satelillite moved away from the earth much like the moon does giving the illusion of a cooling earth. Perhaps that would explain though my gut instinct tells me that was the early 90's. Perhaps some1 would care to elaborate further. Though its proof that issues such as this have been ironed out and today's data is much more reliable.

I think it also had to do with reversing the jet stream, which has been predicted. That would potentially cause a mini-Ice age in Europe, even while the overall temperature is going up.

[JPcelticfc]

Not sure if this fits in the same timeframe, but I remember some scientists believed that the earth was getting cooler due to the satelillites recordings. This was because with each orbit the satelillite moved away from the earth much like the moon does giving the illusion of a cooling earth. Perhaps that would explain though my gut instinct tells me that was the early 90's. Perhaps some1 would care to elaborate further. Though its proof that issues such as this have been ironed out and today's data is much more reliable.

I think it also had to do with reversing the jet stream, which has been predicted. That would potentially cause a mini-Ice age in Europe, even while the overall temperature is going up.

Nope I was stating the reason in the past that people believed there was a cooling. I know about the jet stream potentially shutting down because of the extra fresh water. Its what makes Ireland mild!! I dont really fancy enduring Moscow temperatures during the winter lol