Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Global warming out of this world?


  • Please log in to reply
107 replies to this topic

#41 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,885
  • Reputation: 386
HUDDLER

Posted 13 February 2013 - 01:09 PM

So, when volcanoes erupt, nothing should happen to the ozone layer... yet... it does.... pesky facts

#42 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:04 PM

So, when volcanoes erupt, nothing should happen to the ozone layer... yet... it does.... pesky facts


Yes, volcanic eruptions can lead to ozone destruction. But they still have little to do with the ozone hole that forms over Antarctica every September and is gone by December

#43 teeray

teeray

    THE SWAGNIFICENT

  • Joined: 10-January 11
  • posts: 16,899
  • Reputation: 8,793
SUPPORTER

Posted 13 February 2013 - 03:45 PM

I would suggest reading State of Fear by Michael Creighton. His 20 page bibliography from a decade ago does FAR MORE actual research than that picture book by Al Gore that is still touted as indisputable science.



Good book. I read it. It is a cut and paste version of science fiction where you take the stuff you like, throw out or ignore the stuff you don't like, and create a good but fiction story around it.

I wouldn't use that book as a reference on global warming education, but I would recommend it for a good science fiction read.

Here is some good non-fiction reading on the topic if you are interested


http://stephenschnei....edu/index.html
http://www.wundergro...ne_skeptics.asp
http://www.wundergro...offear.asp?MR=1
http://www.ipcc.ch/

#44 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,885
  • Reputation: 386
HUDDLER

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

Good book. I read it. It is a cut and paste version of science fiction where you take the stuff you like, throw out or ignore the stuff you don't like, and create a good but fiction story around it.

I wouldn't use that book as a reference on global warming education, but I would recommend it for a good science fiction read.

Here is some good non-fiction reading on the topic if you are interested


http://stephenschnei....edu/index.html
http://www.wundergro...ne_skeptics.asp
http://www.wundergro...offear.asp?MR=1
http://www.ipcc.ch/


Let's assume the East Angola incident never happened and that all Global Climate science was working for actual truth. How good of a job have they been doing? If we were to take the predictions of just a decade ago and look at how they panned out, how well did they do?

Is anyone actually still thinking in the face of this track record that the alarmists know as much as they claim?

#45 PhillyB

PhillyB

    sườn núi phía đông thứ ba của mặt trời

  • Joined: 29-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 22,928
  • Reputation: 18,360
  • Locationthird spur east of the sun
HUDDLER

Posted 13 February 2013 - 06:44 PM

this time last year i was on a cargo ship in the middle of the pacific ocean bound for new zealand writing a book. there were four other passengers on board - two ex navy vietnam vets, an elderly french man, and a scientist from the university of washington conducting research on the oxygen levels of the ocean at various latitudinal points, a data set gathered multiple times annually and added to a vast collection of data that is interpreted to track patterns of temperature warming.

i'm pretty sure that guy was paid off to fudge his data, as is every other university-employed scientist who would otherwise put a desire to find facts in place of some grand conspiracy.

#46 thatlookseasy

thatlookseasy

    Death to pennies

  • Joined: 16-August 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,950
  • Reputation: 607
HUDDLER

Posted 13 February 2013 - 07:32 PM

Let's assume the East Angola incident never happened and that all Global Climate science was working for actual truth. How good of a job have they been doing? If we were to take the predictions of just a decade ago and look at how they panned out, how well did they do?

Is anyone actually still thinking in the face of this track record that the alarmists know as much as they claim?


Its very difficult to model global temperature trends because there are so many factors involved and so much variation from year to year. I freely admit that current models predicting sea level rise and temperature fluctuations are speculative at best, and they are even less accurate making predictions at the local level.

For example, most models assumed an even sea level rise globally, yet new information shows it is rising faster on the northern east coast than the SE US. http://www.sciencene..._sea_level_rise

But imo its silly to dismiss overwhelming scientific evidence because a few people have overstated the immediate danger posed by global warming. Humans may only contribute a fraction of the global CO2 flux each year, but we have added a major source of CO2 without adding any significant sinks. The result has been a steady, accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution which isnt going to magically stop unless we do something about it

#47 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,885
  • Reputation: 386
HUDDLER

Posted 14 February 2013 - 08:12 AM

Its very difficult to model global temperature trends because there are so many factors involved and so much variation from year to year. I freely admit that current models predicting sea level rise and temperature fluctuations are speculative at best, and they are even less accurate making predictions at the local level.

For example, most models assumed an even sea level rise globally, yet new information shows it is rising faster on the northern east coast than the SE US. http://www.sciencene..._sea_level_rise

But imo its silly to dismiss overwhelming scientific evidence because a few people have overstated the immediate danger posed by global warming. Humans may only contribute a fraction of the global CO2 flux each year, but we have added a major source of CO2 without adding any significant sinks. The result has been a steady, accelerating rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations since the industrial revolution which isnt going to magically stop unless we do something about it


I agree that it is a daunting task to perform predictive analyses for global climate. There is no disputing the physics of how greenhouse gases work in a controlled environment. There is no reasonable disputing the warming trend of the planet. There can be no reasonable dispute over the urban effect of creating hot spots for local climate.

What can be reasonably asked is where do people actually fit on the scale how global climate is affected. It stands to reason that if the earth has undergone several cooling and warming cycles for its duration of existence (as our best scientific guesses can fathom), then the mechanisms for these cycles pre-dating humanity are well-established. Moreover, if we are emerging from an ice age, then it also stands to reason that the pattern indicates that the earth would be warming anyway. The evidence suggests that we are still before the mid-point of the upswing in temperature to its expected peak.

We cannot sweep the failures of our understanding aside to assume a new arrogance of understanding when it hasn't been properly tested. If anything, one should want to assure proof of understanding before waging a fool's fortunes. This becomes even worse when the fortunes we wage are not our own. Hence, I don't think that the questions that I ask are unreasonable.

I appreciate the civil discourse that we can have now. I come off as a pure dick to a lot of people on this board, but I give respect to those that deserve it.

#48 mav1234

mav1234

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 18-October 09
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,037
  • Reputation: 2,231
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 10:39 AM

Posted Image


See http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm and other links on that page for responses to this.

#49 twylyght

twylyght

    The picture of how I care

  • Joined: 04-December 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 2,885
  • Reputation: 386
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:19 PM

See http://www.skeptical...bal-warming.htm and other links on that page for responses to this.


If they used the sources they claim for their graph, then they fudged the data

#50 chris999

chris999

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 5,043
  • Reputation: 239
  • LocationFlorida
HUDDLER

Posted 17 February 2013 - 12:41 PM

Global warming is real, just like global cooling is real.

But the climate changes on its on. It's natural. The climate has changed back and forth for billions of years.

Taxing people for their 'carbon output' (the end-game of the 'global warming' establishment) is nothing but a fraud to tax people even more and to set up a global tax in preparation for the soon coming global government.


Why do people believe that we can control the climate? We are nothing compared to the power of nature. It will do what it will do, and there is nothing we can do to stop it.




I am all for keeping our environment, air and water clean for future generations, but a global carbon tax will not do that, it is just a scam to implement more taxes.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users