Nooo! Global Cooling!

[cannon_fodder]

Nathan,

Here are my main problems:  
1) The models do not hold true.  The best computer models do not accurately account for changes in long term climate.

2) The warming has not been anywhere near linear since the start of the industrial revolution and the warming trend stopped in 1998.  Neither of which are explained by the "greenhouse effect."

3) Historically, climate has varied greatly from much warmer than it is today to much cooler.  Without human intervention.

4) Carbon testing shows no historical correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric C02.

5) No test or study has been conducted that is observable and repeatable that helps convince me of the theory as a fact.

I have no emotional, political, or religious investment in the issue.  I just remain unconvinced by the data involved and see it becoming matter somehow above scientific scrutiny.  If you doubt it you're an unscientific religious zealot following the beck of Rush Limbaugh and have a good chance of losing funding or your job.

Certainly with such discrepancies and data gaps the matter should not be considered closed.

What's more - no one has suggested the meaning of the data - "so what?"  Is there anything we can do to stop it or reverse it?  What net effects will there be (new ice age because of messed up ocean currents?)?  What areas will bennefit (Canada, eh?)?  

Man made or not, what can we do to stop the Earth from warming?  Or cooling?  If Global Warming is an established fact, shouldn't we be concentrating on these issues?  Even ceasing the release of fossil C02 won't roll back the dial if the theory holds.

I'm open to convincing (as mentioned, I'm not invested), but as of yet nothing has sold me on it.

[TheArtist]

You cant possibly be serious. I dont know where you are getting your information but every thing you listed there was utterly wrong or couched in a way to set up a straw man and be misleading. I am not going to try and convince you, its not worth the effort because what you have said obviously points to the fact that you indeed arent serious and just want to believe nonsense. Either that or you are utterly clueless on how to read and understand science and or tell the difference between "trash science" and good science. I am not going to be drawn into wasting my time, playing your stupid game, and going round and round in circles debating all the garbage one can dredge up out there.  Real information is out there on the web for anyone to find if they want it. You clearly do not.

[Breadburner]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

I figured it would flip back sooner or latter to something else. However, This stuff could be true since it happened in the past and the sun runs on cycles. "The Little Ice Age" back in the 1700's was pretty darn serous. Crops failed all over the globe and summers were short & cool and winters were long and bitter cold. As I see it global warming would be a good thing if it was real. Longer growing seasons and less heating oil needed. I see no problemos with a warmer planet. A colder planet is something to worry about- That can be bad. Rush L read a article about this on his radio show Friday.[8D]

Tell that to the New Yorkers, Floridians, and Louisianans who will be underwater. Not to mention the Bangladeshi, British, Dutch, and many other countries that will have the same fate.

Global warming is already causing much lower summer river flows in the west, leading to water shortages, thanks to there being less of a snowpack and its melting faster earlier in the year.

The massive dislocations caused by populations being forced to move around and the rapid change of the location of the world's arable land is not going to be pretty, regardless of what Rush would like you to believe.

You global warming deniers would be funny if the stakes weren't so high. There's a reason nearly every scientist without an agenda paid for by an organization with a vested interest in denying global warming agrees that it is and will continue to happen. The disagreement is on the degree of catastrophe. Will half of Bangladesh disappear under the sea, or will the whole thing be drowned? Will Orlando still be above water in 100 years, or will the problem be confined merely to Miami?

Three degrees or five degrees doesn't sound like a lot, and it isn't, if you're talking about the changes in the tropics or even most of the middle latitudes, aside perhaps from more and stronger weather systems, which is an effect that there really is disagreement about.

Unlike Al Gore, I don't really care about the polar bears not having any Arctic sheet ice to walk on or our submarines not having any to hide under. Melting the water ice only serves to increase the heat absorbed at the poles, which isn't a lot regardless of the change in albedo. The problem is the melting of ice on land, which is accelerating rapidly.

And just FWIW, there is significant disagreement as to the cause of the little ice age, since it was mainly a European and northern North America phenomonon. Some scientists are of the opinion that it was caused by excess fresh water inflows into the Atlantic causing a severe reduction in the volume of the Gulf Stream. If they're right, we're in for that in the next 50 to 100 years, thanks to the accelerating melt from Greenland.

I sure hope they're wrong.

Do you have a brother named alt.....

[cannon_fodder]

Artist:

In spite of my statements that I am open to be convinced - all you have done is told me I'm not serious, refuse to look at evidence, and/or am just an idiot.  That only serves to buttress by belief that Global Warming is beyond review.  Anyone who says otherwise is not worthy of discussion.

What was false?  Educate me.  To the best of my knowledge all of those things are true.  Many are not even open for debate.  My sources include Science Daily, The Journal of Nature, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  I'm not citing "trash science" I'm citing the same data sources that advocates cite when it suits them.  I'm not extrapolating or coaching the data (though I admit I have no read the underlying research nor fully understand the techniques involved with the evaluation of ice core samples nor climate data going back 450,000 years).

1) A new study comparing the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data finds that the models do an unsatisfactory job of mimicking climate change in key portions of the atmosphere. - Science Daily

2) Tulsa weather trend by decade shows a non-linear increase, similar patterns hold for the entire globe but this makes it easy to see:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/science/tulsa_trends.html

3) 450,000 Years of Climate Change has seen the average as low as 10 below the current 50 year average and as high as +4.
Data:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_co2.html
Easier to Read Charts (using said data):
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm

4) Vostok Ice Core samples show no statistically significant correlation between C02 levels and temperature.
Journal of Nature

5) Please provide a link to an observable and repeatable experiment that helps convince me.  As I state, I know of none.

Artist, I'm not a zealot and I'm not acting like one.  I am calmly looking at data that raises significant doubts in my mind.  I have heard no explanation for the wild fluctuations in temperature over the last 450,000 years that explain why this one is man made.  I have not heard an apologetic scientist say they fixed their models.  I have heard to reasonable explanation justifying the lack of correlation with previous levels of CO2 and corresponding temperatures.  

Why are these not legitimate concerns?  I'm not complaining that they don't have it all figured out so it's wrong, nor that my god says otherwise (a la Creationists) - I merely saying there is a volume of reliable data that seems to contradict the theory.  It needs to be modified or further researched to explain this data instead of concentrating on shouting loud enough that scientific skepticism goes away.

The scientific method dictates the advancer of a theory prove and justify it's truthfulness.  In this instance it is not being tolerated.  Even here instead of responding in a meaningful manner I am shouted down as an idiot using "junk science."  My sources are sound and my mind is open.

[TheArtist]

Alright, lets see how certain you are. I will bet you 1,000 dollars I can find refutes and information counter to everything you have set fourth. I have seen every argument you are saying or similar ones a dozen times over. And I have seen followup information and refutes for each and every one many times over as well. But I dont want to go trapsing around the net to do so when you could do it yourself. Why you asking me to do the work? If you dont think its out there, well, make it worth my time to do it for you.

[cannon_fodder]

Artist, my entire point is to encourage people to post evidence refuting those items.  I'm not pulling things from Ihateglobalwarming.com or making things up with "trash science."  I cited recent studies and data from reputable scientific organizations that have made me skeptical.

If I bet you $1,000 I would then be invested in my position,  which is entirely contrary to what I have been saying.

So I'd welcome a better study that shows climate models are sufficient, someone who argues with the Journal of Nature about ice core samples, or some other organization that disputes the climate data of the NOAA.  I don't have $1,000 of money or any pride on the line here.  I have not even argued that I am right, merely that I remain unconvinced. So I have no reason to turn a blind eye to someones arguments.

Also worth noting that this is your 6th post in this thread telling me how easy Global Warming is to prove, but have yet to post anything that might sway an opinion.  Do you understand why I feel most people are emotionally invested in the issue instead of scientifically?  You are continuously reinforcing my point that anyone who poses a skeptics view is cast off instead of refuted.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by nathanm

quote:Originally posted by sauerkraut

They were saying for past 10 years that NY would be under water from global warming. New York should already be underwater from the way the talk was going in 1990.It's not going to happen it's a hoax. it's a political agenda to fool the people. The globe was much warmer 1,000 years ago and nothing flooded.

Not everything happens in 10 years time. Some things take longer. Like melting the enormous icecap on Greenland, which is melting significantly faster than it has in the last 50 years, BTW.

I guess all that water is going to magically disappear?
[/quote]Now your talking both ways. First you say global warming is real and we must act fast & NOW before it's too late, then you say not everything happens in 10 years time, global warming can take decades. Well~ What is it? Do we have to act now & fast or does it take decades for global warming to affect something? Did you read the posted link on "global dimming" or what about the "Maunder Min." that some scientists believe we are heading into a period of cold because of low sunspot activity. As for me I don't believe in global warming I think it's a hoax and junk science. If it was so real and so serious why doesn't Al Gore change his lifestyle? Al Gore still flys around on his private jet burning 450 gallons of fuel per hour.[B)]

[dggriffi]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Nathan,

Here are my main problems:  
1) The models do not hold true.  The best computer models do not accurately account for changes in long term climate.

2) The warming has not been anywhere near linear since the start of the industrial revolution and the warming trend stopped in 1998.  Neither of which are explained by the "greenhouse effect."

3) Historically, climate has varied greatly from much warmer than it is today to much cooler.  Without human intervention.

4) Carbon testing shows no historical correlation between global temperatures and atmospheric C02.

5) No test or study has been conducted that is observable and repeatable that helps convince me of the theory as a fact.

i really hate to be drawn into these discussions because they are so polarizing but here i go again.

Not that i completely support the global warming concept,  but i do feel there is adequate evidence to continue researching its viability.

1)  i have heard this claim before and i think it is unsubstantiated.

2)the earths natural temparature and natural CO2 content fluxuat yearly.  The data i have seen does not indicate that warming had stopped in 1998 but that it had slowed.   Data also points to the fact that much progress has been made in the CFC arena and that the supposed ozone hole has shrunk.

3)  i don't think anyone in the GW(global warming) camp denies this.  I think thier contention is that human intervention is unnaturally influencing this natural curve in a harmful way.

4) i think there are several studies that show that a correlation MAY exist.

5)the GW people don't claim this.  


i feel compelled to mention that previous unsubstantiated claims by the scientific community in the past have no bearing on future studies unless done by the same researcher.  Unless of course you feel like science should be discarded completely.  Perhaps replaced by religion.   That would make the evolution argument easier.

[nathanm]

quote:Originally posted by Breadburner


Do you have a brother named alt.....

What?

quote:
First you say global warming is real and we must act fast & NOW before it's too late, then you say not everything happens in 10 years time, global warming can take decades.

If this is your best argument, there's little point in continuing the discussion. There is a lag between the input and the result, sort of like with cooking. You take the food out of the oven, but the interior temperature continues to increase for a while.

For all I know, it may already be too late to fix the problem without actively scrubbing CO2 among other things from the atmosphere, rather than just not producing so much. I hope it's not.

As far as Al Gore is concerned, why are you so obsessed with him? At least he pays to have trees and whatnot planted to offset the carbon he's pumping into the atmosphere. I find it funny how you make things about the messenger, rather than the message. It's a sign of unwillingness to evaluate the facts on their merits.

quote:
2) Tulsa weather trend by decade shows a non-linear increase, similar patterns hold for the entire globe but this makes it easy to see:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/tsa/science/tulsa_trends.html

There's a reason many people call it "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming." While the average temperature of the globe will rise, any individual location may see warming, cooling, or no change at all. The problem with this is that it changes rainfall patterns in a way that may be problematic to the continuation of farming in many parts of the world.

There was a study published a few years back that finally explained why northern Africa has seen so little rainfall over the last few decades. It turns out that increased particulate  matter over the eastern Atlantic is causing reduced solar heating of the ocean in that area, leading to less evaporation, leading to less rain downwind.

While it's hard to say exactly what the result of global warming will be (beyond melting the icecaps and many mountain glaciers, which is already happening at an accelerating rate), we can look to the past to see that climate change is always significantly disruptive. It therefore behooves us to avoid changing it excessively. Even if you don't care if Miami ends up underwater.

As for the lack of a need for immediate action, what else should we take from the increasing melt rate in
Greenland and Antarctica?

[cannon_fodder]

dg,

I substantiated all my claims with sources.  That includes the one about climate models.  All the sources I cited are published and peer reviewed periodicals or source material (government statistics).  I'd go into it more, but I really want to get out of the office sometime tonight... look over the study I cited.

[dggriffi]

i completely understand.   Frankly, arguing about Climate change is a bit like competing in teh special Olympics.  Even if you win,  your still retarded.


Ill see if i can take a closer look at your post later.

[sauerkraut]

The weather man cannot get the 3 day weather report right, what makes everyone so sure he has the 10, 15, 20 year weather report right? I look back at earth's history and found that at one time the poles were ice free, and the Gulf Stream was still there back when the planet was warmer than it is today. The bottom line is that global warmer believers will not look at anything that can prove them wrong, they will not change their mind. I studied the issue and believe it is a hoax too push a political agenda and start new taxes like a "Carbon tax". The earth took impacts from asteroids, comets, metors, and suffered volcano blasts, we have volcanos going off someplace in the world all the time and yet still it's little 'ol man & his SUV that will doom the planet. It's nonsense. The temp of the planet has been falling the past few years not increasing. Then they come out with a new term called "Climate Change" to cover cold snaps that don't fit the global warming theory. I don't buy it.[xx(]

[Conan71]

Here's the conclusion we came to at the bar Friday night:

Okay, assume global warming exists if you want to, assume it doesn't if you want to.  

No need to buy into costly hysteria and hype.

If everyone will just pay attention to their own corner of the globe and conserve what they rationally can, then all will be well.

The most important thing in this argument is to be open-minded enough to understand there is no absolute science to global warming or cooling.

[sauerkraut]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Here's the conclusion we came to at the bar Friday night:

Okay, assume global warming exists if you want to, assume it doesn't if you want to.  

No need to buy into costly hysteria and hype.

If everyone will just pay attention to their own corner of the globe and conserve what they rationally can, then all will be well.

The most important thing in this argument is to be open-minded enough to understand there is no absolute science to global warming or cooling.

There is no science to global warming but by pretending it's real when it's not causes alot of harm and can ruin a economy by forcing factories to close and move overseas... The thing is we can't conserve our way to being free of mid-east oil, we need it. Oil runs our economy and oil runs the world in the 20th & 21st century. We can't go back to the horse & buggy days. I wish we had global warming I think a warmer planet is better, longer growing seasons and more food, less heating oil needed. I don't see any benefits of a colder planet. Anyhow, We need to drill for more oil. There is no oil shortage in the world it's only a man-made shortage by putting all the oil fields off limets we can't drill Alaska, we can't drill in the Gulf or off the coast of California. We are really being held hostage my radical enviromental groups. As a result we are going to be paying $4.00 a gallon at the pump very soon, heating oil is thru the roof. Things will only get worse, high fuel costs will hurt the economy and jobs in the USA... Cuba is drilling a few miles off the FL coast, but we can't drill there. It's also strange that being "green" is so expensive, the new $5.00 light bulbs are not cheap- Conserving is great but we also need to drill for more oil.[]

[Conan71]

Here's what happens when an issue like global warming becomes politicized and a bunch of restrictions are proposed and eventually issued:

You get one side which is cynical and skeptical, you get the other side which is over the top and isn't thinking of the harm of more government regulation over something which is not absolute.

Give people proper information and let them make their own choices.  People will flaunt environmental regs simply because they are pissed off for the government getting deeper up their tail pipe.