Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[magibeg]

Something I never quite understood in these "debates", on one hand you have multi-national scientific collaborations, mountains of peer reviewed work and incredible data gathering and implementation. On the other hand you have random meteorologists and bloggers making claims against. I will never understand the need for people to try and make it seem like the information weighting on this topic is anywhere fair or balanced.

There is huge fame for those who can effectively dispute things in science. It's a wonder why it always ends up in peoples blogs and opinion sections of the newspapers.

 

[Haytch]

They had to ban my favourite Hairspray because of CFC's, but it was okay back then to perform 18 Nuclear tests in the sea and on the ground.

There is a Youtube video clip showing all the nuclear tests performed since day 1 and I think you will find it unbelievable if you have not already seen it.

Oh, and they got rid of the McDonalds packaging from back in the day because it was not biodegradable, that has to amount to something~

 

[SK-1]

It's big news.

lol...took a second.

 

[SK-1]

Something I never quite understood in these "debates", on one hand you have multi-national scientific collaborations, mountains of peer reviewed work and incredible data gathering and implementation. On the other hand you have random meteorologists and bloggers making claims against. I will never understand the need for people to try and make it seem like the information weighting on this topic is anywhere fair or balanced.

There is huge fame for those who can effectively dispute things in science. It's a wonder why it always ends up in peoples blogs and opinion sections of the newspapers.

Oh its the re-occurring lie graph. Where did this statistic originate Mag?

 

[SK-1]

There is huge fame for those who can effectively dispute things in science. It's a wonder why it always ends up in peoples blogs and opinion sections of the newspapers.

Cough...ummm http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.abstract

 

[magibeg]

Cough...ummm http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/06/05/science.aaa5632.abstract

I'm assuming you didn't actually read that did you?

"Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than reported by the IPCC, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature."


If you would like to discuss the science of it like the good old days on general nonsense i'm afraid I just don't have the time anymore. As time goes on the evidence for global warming is only getting stronger, the models become more refined, sea level rises, CO2 levels increase, and who knows how long it will be until the remaining doubt is dispersed, perhaps never.

 

[magibeg]

They had to ban my favourite Hairspray because of CFC's, but it was okay back then to perform 18 Nuclear tests in the sea and on the ground.

There is a Youtube video clip showing all the nuclear tests performed since day 1 and I think you will find it unbelievable if you have not already seen it.

Oh, and they got rid of the McDonalds packaging from back in the day because it was not biodegradable, that has to amount to something~

That is a false equivalency argument. I recommend this video however in case you are wondering what the world would have been like if they didn't ban CFC's.

 

[SK-1]

Here we present an updated global surface temperature analysis

Updated to suit a fucking transparent agenda!You don't use ten different yardsticks and measuring devices and protocols and then just "calibrate" them to suit an ideological agenda. Jesus Christ... I won't resort to name calling XD... but you cant be serious... And WTF is a general nonsense? You have time to post here so Im assuming you can at least source one little thing for me. You know, your little trademark "consensus" internet meme... There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

 

[magibeg]

Updated to suit a fucking transparent agenda!You don't use ten different yardsticks and measuring devices and protocols and then just "calibrate" them to suit an ideological agenda. Jesus Christ... I won't resort to name calling XD... but you cant be serious...

At the risk of getting into another endless argument, scientists generally are on a bit of the more conservative side of things. The updated changes are an attempt to correct the cooling bias that has been present in the surface temperature record.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2010.pdf

If I post peer reviewed articles on the literature would you ever adjust your opinion anyway?

And WTF is a general nonsense? You have time to post here so Im assuming you can at least source one little thing for me. You know, your little trademark "consensus" internet meme... There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.

I've posted many things on scientific consensus in the past.

The one you're referring to i believe is this one: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html

Or heck, can even just go over to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It's actually quite hard to find opposition in the scientific world. Best i can do is this:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[12] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

 

[R-T-B]

Updated to suit a fucking transparent agenda!

You do realize new data is always coming in and leaving these models static would be quite idiotic?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Sorry if I don't have much faith in multi-national projects. They almost ALWAYS have corrupt money involved and failed ideas that only benefit investors. F-35 anyone?

The problem with F-35 is the bar keeps moving. USA invites another country into the project and they make new demands that Lockheed has to meet or give up the contract. It is called development hell in programming. Now imagine what development hell is like when there's dozens of computers, weapon systems, and if the damn thing doesn't work 100% right, could kill a lot of people.

Luckily, Lockheed is charging forward with the project and it sounds like everyone involved will still get their aircraft.

 

[kerlin219]

Haha never mind global warming we have bigger problems if this is truehttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-s-magnetic-field-flip-could-happen-sooner-than-expected/

 

[Caring1]

Haha never mind global warming

Global warming is so 1970's, don't you know it's called climate change now?
Has been for quite a while.

 

[kerlin219]

Global warming is so 1970's, don't you know it's called climate change now?
Has been for quite a while.

Haha yeah I know but the vote was for global warming crisis scandal , anyway I am waiting for the aliens or asteroids or nuclear war whatever happens first.

 

[Caring1]

We can speculate as to which country will be the new equatorial holiday destinations while waiting for Yellowstone to blow and the Earth to flip.

 

[kerlin219]

We can speculate as to which country will be the new equatorial holiday destinations while waiting for Yellowstone to blow and the Earth to flip.

Haha awesome

 

[Haytch]

Ok, I do believe that climate change can be a real problem in the near/late future. We are the human race have the potential to really destroy the planet!
I would also like to point out that we have had ice-ages in the past as well as 1 documented great flood.
Having said all that, I would lastly like to point out that targeting the 'little people' to help prevent any possible future global climate change that could destroy us is plausible but the real major players are always the 'big people'.
I like to think that 1 nuclear test would be close to a billion people using CFC's for a life-time. Yes, I am just making my figures up and I have no grounds for proof, but I am not the rich person flying to work in my private jet everyday, so what would I know. . .
I have noticed climate change over the years. It use to be warmer in winter and cooler in summer, pretty much all over the world. I have also seen data indicating that this is just a natural part of Earth's evolution and an ongoing cycle.
Personally, I have no idea. Let's just blame Nutella for cutting down all the Palm tree's.

 

[dorsetknob]

If we are playing the Blame Game
then Lets blame US English for Global Warming.

After all planet earth was just chugging along nicely untill good old Britania decided that EMPIRE and the Needs of......... Demanded better guns ships Trains roads bridges ect to help her hold sway over the competing rest of Europe.
FOR THE EMPIRE we Industrialised on a scale never seen before
We gave the world the Industral revolution.
Others had to do the same to try and compete

SO ITS OUR FAULT are you happy now you can blame some one

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Nuclear detonations have a short term warming effect where greenhouse gasses have a long term effect amplifying the atmospheric entrapment of solar radiation. In other words, setting off a nuclear bomb causes massive heating for a fraction of a second; water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane causes heating over large swaths of the Earth for years.

If we are playing the Blame Game
then Lets blame US English for Global Warming.

After all planet earth was just chugging along nicely untill good old Britania decided that EMPIRE and the Needs of......... Demanded better guns ships Trains roads bridges ect to help her hold sway over the competing rest of Europe.
FOR THE EMPIRE we Industrialised on a scale never seen before
We gave the world the Industral revolution.
Others had to do the same to try and compete

SO ITS OUR FAULT are you happy now you can blame some one

I blame all the planets and animals that died in mass extinction events that caused these massive deposits of carbon and methane.

 

[erocker]

I blame windbags.

 

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

If we are playing the Blame Game
then Lets blame US English for Global Warming.

After all planet earth was just chugging along nicely untill good old Britania decided that EMPIRE and the Needs of......... Demanded better guns ships Trains roads bridges ect to help her hold sway over the competing rest of Europe.
FOR THE EMPIRE we Industrialised on a scale never seen before
We gave the world the Industral revolution.
Others had to do the same to try and compete

SO ITS OUR FAULT are you happy now you can blame some one

yes it is your fault and you stole all the Welsh coal and iron to do it . !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_the_Fair_Country

 

[dorsetknob]

yes it is your fault and you stole all the Welsh coal and iron to do it . !!!!

English Greed and capital investment
welsh labour ...................coal and steel workers
Scottish Engineers and the rest is history

 

[magibeg]

Ok, I do believe that climate change can be a real problem in the near/late future. We are the human race have the potential to really destroy the planet!
I would also like to point out that we have had ice-ages in the past as well as 1 documented great flood.

I don't know anything about a great flood, but I do know we have had lots and lots of ice ages. They track fairly closely with Milankovitch cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Having said all that, I would lastly like to point out that targeting the 'little people' to help prevent any possible future global climate change that could destroy us is plausible but the real major players are always the 'big people'.
I like to think that 1 nuclear test would be close to a billion people using CFC's for a life-time. Yes, I am just making my figures up and I have no grounds for proof, but I am not the rich person flying to work in my private jet everyday, so what would I know. . .

Little people aren't really being targeted at all. Imagine your CFC comparison for a moment. Lets say it is discovered that CFC's are bad, and a politician (or group) wants to make the world a better place so they straight out ban them. It is never fully explained why, people are just pissed that they can no longer use their favorite hairsprays. So the people don't elect the person in the next election, and the new person promptly brings back CFC's.

"Little people" are being targeted with information so they can make educated decisions. Because the developed world is essentially all democracies people have to want a change to happen for it to happen.

I have noticed climate change over the years. It use to be warmer in winter and cooler in summer, pretty much all over the world. I have also seen data indicating that this is just a natural part of Earth's evolution and an ongoing cycle.
Personally, I have no idea. Let's just blame Nutella for cutting down all the Palm tree's.

Climate change caused by man at this point is still basically unnoticeable on a local scale. Data implying it is just a natural cycle doesn't really exist in the scientific community, and is mostly claimed by bloggers.

I've probably already said too much and will probably be nit picked to death by people on here.

 

[kerlin219]

I don't know anything about a great flood, but I do know we have had lots and lots of ice ages. They track fairly closely with Milankovitch cycles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles



Little people aren't really being targeted at all. Imagine your CFC comparison for a moment. Lets say it is discovered that CFC's are bad, and a politician (or group) wants to make the world a better place so they straight out ban them. It is never fully explained why, people are just pissed that they can no longer use their favorite hairsprays. So the people don't elect the person in the next election, and the new person promptly brings back CFC's.

"Little people" are being targeted with information so they can make educated decisions. Because the developed world is essentially all democracies people have to want a change to happen for it to happen.



Climate change caused by man at this point is still basically unnoticeable on a local scale. Data implying it is just a natural cycle doesn't really exist in the scientific community, and is mostly claimed by bloggers.

I've probably already said too much and will probably be nit picked to death by people on here.

Yeah IL start for one you used wiki as a backup to your claim anybody can write whatever on wiki , second thing no such thing as true democracy it's the same as the commies looks good on paper but doesn't work BUT it's the best we have, same principal as commies though the people are viewed as sheeple or useful idiots I believe Karl Marx came up with that one.

 

[magibeg]

Yeah IL start for one you used wiki as a backup to your claim anybody can write whatever on wiki , second thing no such thing as true democracy it's the same as the commies looks good on paper but doesn't work BUT it's the best we have, same principal as commies though the people are viewed as sheeple or useful idiots I believe Karl Marx came up with that one.

The reason for Wikipedia is that it's something that everyone has access to it as opposed to many peer reviewed articles which tend to be blocked by pay walls. Even then scientific papers are vastly different than articles you read in the usual news (which are usually much much less reliable than wikipedia funny enough).

For example if you actually want to know about the milankovitch cycle with any sort of confidence you'd probably have to read several papers in the least. One that details what the cycles are, one that details the range of the cycles, one that details the seasonal forcing it creates, one that details the degree of the forcing, one that details the historical changes from it, and one that checks the confidence levels of the previous studies.

As for the democracy comment, I maintain that it is much easier to get certain things done when the people actually want that thing done.