This was an eye opener
- Thread starter goldenfamaliy
- Start date
- Status
saltwatercityma
New member
Yea I love science fiction!!
goldenfamaliy
New member
Well some think that global warming is science fiction.
macclellan
New member
Why would you cite the information on a business or a globalization website about a scientific issue?
I hope you didn't mean to spell "family" with your username.
I hope you didn't mean to spell "family" with your username.
ctenophors rule
New member
i have not seen much to support this theroy well.
it might happen, but i doubt it.
global wartming, however. REAL!!!
it might happen, but i doubt it.
global wartming, however. REAL!!!
goldenfamaliy
New member
That is the way that I wanted to spell it, but hey thanks. As for not seeing much support for it, it seems that if you are against global warming (they are calling it climate change now) you get ridiculed as an idiot (macclellan I hope you didn't meant to spell "family" with your username). So everybody just keep the blinders on and lets go back to normal.
Just for the record, I do think that there are problems going on, but not all are caused by us with the whole global warming or climate change.
have a good one all
Just for the record, I do think that there are problems going on, but not all are caused by us with the whole global warming or climate change.
have a good one all
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
There isn't a single climatologist out there that doesn't recognize the contributions of the sun on Earth's temperature. Of course it has an effect, of course the temp is going to fluctuate with solar variation, but that's not the entire story. CO2 also effects temp, and it has been increased dramatically. It's not a difficult concept to grasp, but many people think that climate change has a single cause, but it's multifaceted with an aspect that is our fault (CO2).
Anyway, it's great that you're reading about the problem, but don't stop with those two articles. Most people on both sides of the issue don't care enough to educate themselves, so don't quit or be discouraged by rabid believers (again, on either side).
Anyway, it's great that you're reading about the problem, but don't stop with those two articles. Most people on both sides of the issue don't care enough to educate themselves, so don't quit or be discouraged by rabid believers (again, on either side).
Anyone remember in the 80's when the scientists said we were all going to freeze from Global Cooling? Why can't any of this be a cyclical change in the world. Instead of the vegetarians eating all the plants that breathe C02, eat a few steaks and help out with this 'Global Warming', and what can we do about the ocean releasing all of that Methane down there? Save the earth and eat some cows. Plants have feelings too =P
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
^^ There are some flaws in your thinking.
stugray
Premium Member
Everyone who is worried about global warming needs to remember that Antarctica used to be a RAINFOREST!
The earth is at one of it's coldest points in the last few 10s-100s of millions of years.
So warming trend......... DUH
We might be slightly helping it but come on!
We HUMANS have been gathering climate data for how long?!? maybe 200 years........
That is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things.
It's a little like waking up in the morning and seeing ONE drop of rain hit the window and yelling "Build an ARK, the flood is coming".
We dont have enough data to prove one way or the other if this is natural or caused by man's activities.
Stu
The earth is at one of it's coldest points in the last few 10s-100s of millions of years.
So warming trend......... DUH
We might be slightly helping it but come on!
We HUMANS have been gathering climate data for how long?!? maybe 200 years........
That is NOTHING in the grand scheme of things.
It's a little like waking up in the morning and seeing ONE drop of rain hit the window and yelling "Build an ARK, the flood is coming".
We dont have enough data to prove one way or the other if this is natural or caused by man's activities.
Stu
greenbean36191
Premium Member
We have enough data to show that the physics behind global warming work how we expect them to. The theory predates the ability to observe the trend by about 100 years. The observational record is confirmation of anthropogenic warming, not the basis of the theory.
ctenophors rule
New member
i hate the term climate change!
did you know that the term was coined by a spin doctor?
and their is a serious flaw.
we are ALWAYS exeriencing climate CHANGE. now we are experiencing a global, or world wide, WARMING trand. there are stats from reputable, viable, sources that show that AAC02 levels are a major factor in the increase of the earths temperature.
in the dictionary the term natural, has to do with, pertaining to the norm associated with nature. what we have done would not be considered with in the realms of the "norm"
we are an outlier to normal earth changes, just as major volcanoes , and meteors were outliers as well. those are not natural. they are, (as are we) an occurance of nature, but not natural.
stu- we dont have enough data? i think the data is pretty clear!
no major volcanoes in the past 200 years, and if their were any, they were not occuring yearly, with an exponential growth rate of intensity.
so obviously the rise Ac02 was caused by us, humans. and the experaments done on corals, and othe calcifying organisms in the sea, show deaths that will wind up costing the world trillions of dollars, and cause malnurishment to spread across the globe like an infectious disease(probably 8) )
and, i just had an epiphony! got to go, by!
did you know that the term was coined by a spin doctor?
and their is a serious flaw.
we are ALWAYS exeriencing climate CHANGE. now we are experiencing a global, or world wide, WARMING trand. there are stats from reputable, viable, sources that show that AAC02 levels are a major factor in the increase of the earths temperature.
in the dictionary the term natural, has to do with, pertaining to the norm associated with nature. what we have done would not be considered with in the realms of the "norm"
we are an outlier to normal earth changes, just as major volcanoes , and meteors were outliers as well. those are not natural. they are, (as are we) an occurance of nature, but not natural.
stu- we dont have enough data? i think the data is pretty clear!
no major volcanoes in the past 200 years, and if their were any, they were not occuring yearly, with an exponential growth rate of intensity.
so obviously the rise Ac02 was caused by us, humans. and the experaments done on corals, and othe calcifying organisms in the sea, show deaths that will wind up costing the world trillions of dollars, and cause malnurishment to spread across the globe like an infectious disease(probably 8) )
and, i just had an epiphony! got to go, by!
stugray
Premium Member
"stu- we dont have enough data? i think the data is pretty clear!"
NO - we dont have enough data.
Humans have been watching the earth (and recording the results) for how long?....MAYBE we have 200 years of data ( and MOST of that is hearsay & observation ).
We truly have less than 50 years of CALIBRATED DATA.
Assuming the earth took 4.5 billion years to come to it's present state..... that means we have less than 0.0000001 ( & lots more zeros ) of all the data in our records.
For us to come to a technological state ( satellites) then declare a state of ecological emergency based on the, less than 20 years of, data is absurd.
Stu
NO - we dont have enough data.
Humans have been watching the earth (and recording the results) for how long?....MAYBE we have 200 years of data ( and MOST of that is hearsay & observation ).
We truly have less than 50 years of CALIBRATED DATA.
Assuming the earth took 4.5 billion years to come to it's present state..... that means we have less than 0.0000001 ( & lots more zeros ) of all the data in our records.
For us to come to a technological state ( satellites) then declare a state of ecological emergency based on the, less than 20 years of, data is absurd.
Stu
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
And yet the "medieval warming period" is the nail in GW's coffin, I'm sure.
You do realize data can be obtained through proxy, or preserved samples, that persist for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years, right? Of course you do.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Well, if the concern was a matter of trend-spotting in the temperature record then your point might be valid. However, the concern over AGW is based on physics. and predates the current trend. Simply put, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 is increasing, and that almost all of that increase is from human activities. All of these things can be measured.
As a result, the more CO2 the more warming, UNLESS there is a cooling forcing that's strong enough to overwhelm the warming from CO2. The ability to reproduce the historical and proxy temperature records from our current understanding of the forcings strongly suggests that we aren't missing any such game changers even though our knowledge isn't perfect.
As a result, the more CO2 the more warming, UNLESS there is a cooling forcing that's strong enough to overwhelm the warming from CO2. The ability to reproduce the historical and proxy temperature records from our current understanding of the forcings strongly suggests that we aren't missing any such game changers even though our knowledge isn't perfect.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Huh? There's no spin about it. It's been in regular use by climate scientists since at least the 60s. It is not a euphemism for global warming (which is a more recent term)- it's simply a more broad, yet accurate description of predicted changes. Increased CO2 isn't just expected to increase average global temperature, but also change precipitation patterns, seasonal variation, jet stream flow, storm location and intensity, wind patterns, etc. Global warming is just a term to describe one of many changes in climate change.
The idea that it's some recent attempt to equivocate about predictions is silly. You might notice that the IPCC (est. 1988) stands for Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change- yet they've consistently warned against global warming (as well as other threats from climate change, such as drought and floods).
Have a look at the scientific literature from the 1980s and see how many scientists were telling us we were in for a period of global cooling vs. the number telling us we were in for warming. Heck, try it for the 1970s or 1960s even.
therealfatman
In Memoriam
Hey, I agree with greenbean36191 100%.
ctenophors rule
New member
i mean the suggested use of climate change as aposed to global warming, was suggested by a spin doctor.
and what you said about glabal warming is exactly what i am saying. we will always be going through climate change, so why not call the change in climate what it realy is, global warming.
and what you said about glabal warming is exactly what i am saying. we will always be going through climate change, so why not call the change in climate what it realy is, global warming.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
The term climate change is more accurate because there is more going on that just warming. Greenbean explained it already.
I remember the "climate change" spin. It's not a new term, but it was resurrected under the Bush admin, and first popularized by Cheney I think. The funny thing is that the term is now decried by GW deniers as it is deemed too vague and broad.
ctenophors rule
New member
it is more accurate, yes, but it is also less accurate.
it describes more, but at the same time it describes less.
climate change can mean 1,000's of different things. why generalize? global warming describes what is happening, over all, world wide.
yes its getting colder in a few places, but every where else, it is getting warmer. if you compiled all the temperatures, worldwide, you would get a warming trend.
the current change in climate, temperature wise, is warming.
i may be missing something, but it just seems like more of everyone trying to be politicaly correct.
(i realy need to make sure i am conveying my thoats better)
it describes more, but at the same time it describes less.
climate change can mean 1,000's of different things. why generalize? global warming describes what is happening, over all, world wide.
yes its getting colder in a few places, but every where else, it is getting warmer. if you compiled all the temperatures, worldwide, you would get a warming trend.
the current change in climate, temperature wise, is warming.
i may be missing something, but it just seems like more of everyone trying to be politicaly correct.
(i realy need to make sure i am conveying my thoats better)
- Status
Similar threads
