• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
14 August 1912 , Rodney and Otamatea Times

413BAFDC00000578-4584444-The_four_sentence_article_pictured_was_sandwiched_between_an_art-m-12_1496924749982.jpg
I'll see your newspaper and rise you mine: http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/02/the-1970s-global-cooling-alarmism.html
 
I told myself I was going to let this go, but I'd just like to ask one last question... If a person comes in here and says "It snowed this winter in my town, and it hasn't done so in decades. Global warming is a lie" then the response will be "You don't understand climate science. Climate change can actually cause it to get colder in some places due to the extreme complexity of climate and weather patterns, you're just ignorant."

But the above two statements, which are just as unscientific, get a pass. Wonder why that is.

I'd also like to mention that both statements would also be true if the earth were on a natural warming cycle (it is) and there were no man-made warming.


The thing is, I think they are blowing it out of proportion, but at the same time none of us have an exact idea of what higher CO2 in the atmosphere will do, there are so many factors in play that it's a waiting game. But when areas experience massive changes to their biome that has existed for thousands of years, and it's only started happening in the last 100......

The reason we would like the CO2 rise to stop is so we can get a good grip on how things are now, how they interact, what changes will come and be able to predict it instead of react to it.
 
When you have had the two hottest years on record back to back, you do have to wonder why that is, surely? I would expect if it was a natural process, most likely you would have 2015 as the hottest year on record and then 2016 as a cooler year, but lo and behold we have 2016 as an even hotter year.

That doesn't even make any sense. The natural warming and cooling cycles are multiple thousands of years long, with smaller trends up and down in between. Nothing about the natural process would require subsequent years to alternate between hotter and cooler...


I don't know if it was in this thread or the one on GN, but long long ago, I mentioned the global cooling scares. If I recall correctly, both Ford and Magibeg denied any such claims ever existed.
 
Ice ages do not show up like clockwork. I find it incredibly dumb to draw a conclusion based of an event that happens at very large time scales and with little sample data , statistically speaking. Even at lesser time scales the climate is very difficult to predict. I am sure pollution applied an offset to these events but the error intervals we are dealing with are so huge it may not even matter. Approaching this matter with ultimatums such as "pollution will kill as all in 50 years" or "nope it has no effect , it's just a conspiracy" is just plain stupid and it shows how little most people actually know and understand.

CO2 and other gases being dumped in the atmosphere are very real and permanent thing however , the most important word here is permanent. And it sure as hell has an effect that is measurable. It dose not dictate climate change as a leading term as of yet in the grand scheme of things but it dose have a negative effect to us even right now.
 
Last edited:
Ice ages do not show up like clockwork. I find it incredibly dumb to draw a conclusion based of an event that happens at very large time scales and with little sample data , statistically speaking. Even at lesser time scales the climate is very difficult to predict. I am sure pollution applied an offset to these events but the error intervals we are dealing with are so huge it may not even matter. Approaching this matter with ultimatums such as "pollution will kill as all in 50 years" or "nope it has no effect , it's just a conspiracy" is just plain stupid and it shows how little most people actually know and understand.

CO2 and other gases being dumped in the atmosphere are very real and permanent thing however , the most important word here is permanent. And it sure as hell has an effect that is measurable. It dose not dictate climate change as a leading term as of yet in the grand scheme of things but it dose have a negative effect to us even right now.
Well, if the keyword is "permanent", then we're safe. Plants recycle CO2 for us :D

(Joking, of course, because plants do not infinite capacity to do so. Yet CO2 is part of nature's cycle, releasing it is not permanent by any definition.)
 
Well, if the keyword is "permanent", then we're safe. Plants recycle CO2 for us :D

(Joking, of course, because plants do not infinite capacity to do so. Yet CO2 is part of nature's cycle, releasing it is not permanent by any definition.)

Not the CO2 we release , that's not natural thats why I said is permanent , plants absorb CO2 within certain limits like you said. At the same time forests are being cut down like mad , so pretty much all man-made emissions are continuously accumulating. And I don't see that changing anytime soon.
 
Would it be wort having a list of names on the first page indicating what side (or not) everyone is on? Or would that be a complicated and needless thing to do?

I'm interested in the idea so that we can see if anyone sways from one side to another as a result of this 58 page debate.
Maybe a google doc would do well and link it up on the original page?
 
That doesn't even make any sense. The natural warming and cooling cycles are multiple thousands of years long, with smaller trends up and down in between. Nothing about the natural process would require subsequent years to alternate between hotter and cooler...

When it comes to global temperature averages the jumps actually aren't very large year to year without an unexpected catalyst, however localized temperatures can have significant changes in those same time frames.... even entire continents. The graph in the article below shows a very consistent trend when looking at global averages.

http://www.popsci.com/climate-change-infographic-our-warming-planet


I don't know if it was in this thread or the one on GN, but long long ago, I mentioned the global cooling scares. If I recall correctly, both Ford and Magibeg denied any such claims ever existed.

That's because it was a media scare not a scientific one. During that time frame there was many more scientific articles talking about global warming than global cooling.

Go to page 8 to check:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Perhaps funnier still is that of the few peer reviewed articles talking about global warming, much of the discussion was that it was man made cooling due to the release of sulfur into the atmosphere from coal plants.

Also I take it you didn't like my olive branch?
 
I'm sorry, but that steep temperature rise right at the bottom is inconvenient so I'll just ignore it. ;) Phew! I'm so glad that doing this keeps the world from warming!!!
That seems perfectly reasonable, I don't know why anyone is worrying at all, we should finish burning all the fossil fuel reserves on the planet and completely deforest it all as well, who do these future generations think they are, believing that it should stay in the ground and that trees belong somewhere outside of movies and other electronic media
 
"...paved paradise, put up a parking lot..."
 
We countered his hard data with a webcomic! That'll show him!
 
We countered his hard data with a webcomic! That'll show him!
Oh heaven forbid, there's actually data to go with an image....

Sources
The image attributes climate data sources as "Shakun et al. (2012), Marcott et al. (2013), Annan and Hargreaves (2013), HadCRUT4, IPCC":


education.gif



really would hate to think that someone discounts facts because they're provided with pretty pictures. but then, I've seen worse in this thread alone...
 
So, @Papahyooie, I see you online, and saw you on earlier in another thread... I've provided data for my webcomic. Anything to add? Or would you just like to concede that maybe there's something to this "warming" thing?
 
So many years later and I'm still waiting on solutions to "global warming" from "political leaders" that doesn't involve money as the "solution". I trust science. I do not trust "scientists" paid by governments to show favorable results on the side of money redistribution to the governments for the cause.
 
"Limits of this data:
Short warming or cooling spikes might be smoothed out. But only if they're small or brief enough".

Except for the latest one, of course, which "proves global warming is caused by human actions". We can't smooth that spike out...or we'd have no proof of our point. Not only that. But if you look at it carefully, it clearly shows that the current temperature isn't significantly higher than it has been in the past at certain pre-industrial periods. What? Higher by maybe .2°C(if that's even to be believed). It's a gross representation of the facts at best. It's not actual data. It's a comic. Or basically a joke.

Try again.
 
So, @Papahyooie, I see you online, and saw you on earlier in another thread... I've provided data for my webcomic. Anything to add? Or would you just like to concede that maybe there's something to this "warming" thing?

| |
v That down there... v

"Limits of this data:
Short warming or cooling spikes might be smoothed out. But only if they're small or brief enough".

Except for the latest one, of course, which "proves global warming is caused by human actions". We can't smooth that spike out...or we'd have no proof of our point. Not only that. But if you look at it carefully, it clearly shows that the current temperature isn't significantly higher than it has been in the past at certain pre-industrial periods. What? Higher by maybe .2°C(if that's even to be believed). It's a gross representation of the facts at best. It's not actual data. It's a comic. Or basically a joke.

Try again.

Basically, even if I provide HARD data, raw data points that have not been run through any sort of smoothing or computer model, you'll still pick the one that has been manipulated to fit a narrative.
So there's really nothing I can do, is there? You've already made up your mind, and proven that you will ignore data that doesn't fit what you want to hear.
Believe me, I'm not scared of your vastly superior intellect and unassailable scientific conclusions...
There's just not really any point in me participating in the conversation any longer, is there? :toast:
 
| |

There's just not really any point in me participating in the conversation any longer, is there? :toast:

That pretty much sums up this entire thread. There's noone here that will change their mind because of "fake data" from the other side.
 
So many years later and I'm still waiting on solutions to "global warming" from "political leaders" that doesn't involve money as the "solution". I trust science. I do not trust "scientists" paid by governments to show favorable results on the side of money redistribution to the governments for the cause.
As much as I hate to admit it, CAFE worked. Light duty, full size pickups a decade ago would never dream of hitting 20 mpg (unless diesel). Today, most of them are 20+ highway. Most new cars are 30+ mpg. Baby diesels are starting to show up as options in pickups and turbocharged, smaller displacement engines are becoming the norm. That said, this progress is also driven by customers because of the $4/gallon scare ~2009. People know it's going to happen again, it's just a matter of when.

EPA putting incandescent bulb manufacturers out of business created a drive for CFL and LED lights which has reduced residential lighting power consumption.

Energy Star program has lead to the development of more power efficient furnaces, air conditioners, refrigerators, microwaves, TVs, and other appliances. 80plus (private, not government) has done the same for electronic power supplies.


On the power generation side of things, the wind subsidy programs have lead to power companies investing heavily in wind turbine installations around here. I think my power company has actually added all of their new capacity in the last decade in the form of wind. That said, the low cost of natural gas has mostly driven to the transition to a cleaner grid.


Even though USA keeps growing. Energy demand has remained steady or fallen. Sadly, it's not enough in terms of global surface temperatures but it's still baby steps towards a more eco-friendly economy.

I still think Freeman Dyson's path is the best the USA is going to manage (and did, as described above).
 
So many years later and I'm still waiting on solutions to "global warming" from "political leaders" that doesn't involve money as the "solution". I trust science. I do not trust "scientists" paid by governments to show favorable results on the side of money redistribution to the governments for the cause.
This is exactly what made me skeptical about global warming / climate change when I started this thread a couple of years ago. However, there's now clearly enough evidence that climate change isn't a myth which I've experienced myself and all those reports of extreme record this or that as well as the melting ice caps and more that has convinced me. Trump is truly a deluded moron for denying this, removing all the climate change stuff from the White House website and pulling out of the Paris agreement. :nutkick:
 
This is exactly what made me skeptical about global warming / climate change when I started this thread a couple of years ago. However, there's now clearly enough evidence that climate change isn't a myth which I've experienced myself and all those reports of extreme record this or that as well as the melting ice caps and more that has convinced me. Trump is truly a deluded moron for denying this, removing all the climate change stuff from the White House website and pulling out of the Paris agreement. :nutkick:
I think you're looking at the wrong problem. The question was never if the climate changes. The climate is always changing. The questions are whether the changes we're seeing now are caused by us and whether a warmer planet is actually a worse planet.
 
I know I'm contributing for sure, just enter my mining room. lol
 
I think you're looking at the wrong problem. The question was never if the climate changes. The climate is always changing. The questions are whether the changes we're seeing now are caused by us and whether a warmer planet is actually a worse planet.
Yes, my point is that it's man-made, obviously. It's happening far too fast for it to be a natural cycle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top