Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Panthers_Lover

Global warming out of this world?

Recommended Posts

thatlookseasy    607

I would say ocean acidification is the more immediate consequence of rising CO2 emissions, but the oceans are fuged anyway imo.

The problem with CO2 emissions is that they will continue to rise significantly in the near future whether we make changes to our energy production or not. In the next 50-100 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will reach double the pre-industrial concentration, and its gonna take a long time to cycle through the atmosphere/ ocean. So if, on the crazy chance that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are actually responsible for the warming we've seen over the last 100 years, the effects will be far more pronounced over the next 100 years

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


twylyght    1,555

I would say ocean acidification is the more immediate consequence of rising CO2 emissions, but the oceans are fuged anyway imo.

The problem with CO2 emissions is that they will continue to rise significantly in the near future whether we make changes to our energy production or not. In the next 50-100 years, CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will reach double the pre-industrial concentration, and its gonna take a long time to cycle through the atmosphere/ ocean. So if, on the crazy chance that rising greenhouse gas concentrations are actually responsible for the warming we've seen over the last 100 years, the effects will be far more pronounced over the next 100 years

That is assuming a number of things to be true. It may well turn out that GHGs impose direct and indirect effects on global mean temperature in ways that we have yet to parse out. I would think it more prudent to first get a firm grasp on our global ecosystem to the point that we can trust a theoretical model to make consistent and accurate predictions before subjecting the world to policies that may or may not be based in truth.

There are still a number of scientists that are not driven by government grants and political ideology that can approach the subject with decorum and ethics. I would behoove us all to take a step back and ask the tough questions that pose some challenges to our preconceived notions that the science is a slam dunk. It is why I brought up the history of failed disciplines/theories. We have a far longer track record of being wrong than we are being right. As we are clever monkies, we are good at finding out what works well for us without fully understanding the why of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twylyght    1,555

1nCIRAFgSZ0y9Me.jpg

Take a moment. Give yourself a break. Let the adults talk for a bit without your pestering. Get some ice cream or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delhommey    2,880

That is assuming a number of things to be true. It may well turn out that GHGs impose direct and indirect effects on global mean temperature in ways that we have yet to parse out. I would think it more prudent to first get a firm grasp on our global ecosystem to the point that we can trust a theoretical model to make consistent and accurate predictions before subjecting the world to policies that may or may not be based in truth.

There are still a number of scientists that are not driven by government grants and political ideology that can approach the subject with decorum and ethics. I would behoove us all to take a step back and ask the tough questions that pose some challenges to our preconceived notions that the science is a slam dunk. It is why I brought up the history of failed disciplines/theories. We have a far longer track record of being wrong than we are being right. As we are clever monkies, we are good at finding out what works well for us without fully understanding the why of it.

Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twylyght    1,555

Because 98% of scientist endorsed phrenology.

Look, we get it. You don't want to believe so you won't, but please stop pulling out every page from Logical Fallacies for Dummies and throwing it up on this message board.

So easy to refute that you have yet to provide a shred of any contribution to the conversation

What's sad is that you think you are clever/smart. What's sadder is that other people think you are as well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




mav1234    3,140

Uhh, you think government grants bias scientists? Do you understand the grant process? Do you understand that most grants that are funded are actually attempting to critically examine current hypotheses, or propose new ones for observed phenomena? How exactly do you propose people *fund research* if you think that government grants make one devoid of decorum and ethics?

I'm curious who these scientists are that are approaching this subject with "decorum and ethics" that think that the jury is still out on if there is any influence of human activity on climate change... because they are in the minority, considering they have no data to support their positions, just speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
twylyght    1,555

There is compelling testimony that Roger Randall Dougan Revelle thought that the political climate at the time was not conducive to reasonable policy based on sound science.

If you think it wrong to question one's motives based on political objectives and funding, then you are as removed from the real world as the opposite end of the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatlookseasy    607

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Delhommey    2,880

i like how it's that big gubmint grant money that's skewing the results as if the trillion dollar oil industry isn't heavily invested in bad science in the hopes of somehow refuting global warming

Decorum ain't cheap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×