A Major Scientist changed mind re Global Warming

Discussion in 'World Events' started by See Post, Mar 5, 2007.

Random Thread
  1. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DAR


    <<What has been said to you is that there are no both sides at this point>>

    Key phrase in your sentence "at this point." meaning at some other point there will be other findings.
     
  2. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By jonvn

    That is not what I meant. What I meant was that as time has gone on, more and more evidence has built to one conclusion.

    This is not to say that something won't come along. But if you want to go read both sides of the debate, you may find yourself lacking for a second side.
     
  3. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

    <The consensus is that we should be reducing our carbon output. How we do that is up for debate of course, but the consensus is that we need to reduce.>

    Ah. When you used the word "steps" I thought there might have been something a bit more specific agreed upon than I was aware of. My suggestion for reducing carbon output would be for everyone who was truly concerned about global warming to stop exhaling it.

    <Nice snarkiness, though.>

    Thanks. I do my best to keep the conversation lively.
     
  4. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

    <I find your claim that there are no credible papers that deviate from the concensus hard to swallow without questioning.>

    As well you should. There are many peer reviewed papers out there that question whether global warming is chiefly anthroprogenic in origin. One theory is that solar warming has caused global temperatures to increase, and this warming has caused atmospheric carbon dioxide to increase. I'm pretty sure DlandDug linked to a study earlier in this thread.

    It's interesting that the planet Mars has also gotten warmer over the last several decades.
     
  5. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

    "It's interesting that the planet Mars has also gotten warmer over the last several decades."

    Are you saying you're from Mars? That would "explain" everything!
     
  6. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

    <Are you saying you're from Mars?>

    Uh, no.
     
  7. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By JohnS1

    Okay - here's the point which no global warming believer has ever been able to answer for me.

    First you say that you can't dispute global warming on the basis of a few short-lived anomalies such as one cold winter storm or temperature record for a particular day because one day is meaningless when compared with a century's worth of data, right? (I agree completely, incidentally)

    But, given this general principle - that you can't use weather data for a short period of time to predict a longer lasting event such as global warming - why is it that you don't accept that a century's worth of data is also meaningless when compared to a known record of periodic warming and cooling for hundreds of thousands of years?

    You simply can't use data which shows global warming occurring over a century or so as a way to make any meaningful statement about the next several hundred years, let alone a thousand years. The principle is no different than using a one-week storm to predict trends for the next five years.
     
  8. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder

    "But, given this general principle - that you can't use weather data for a short period of time to predict a longer lasting event such as global warming - why is it that you don't accept that a century's worth of data is also meaningless when compared to a known record of periodic warming and cooling for hundreds of thousands of years?"

    For that hundreds of thousands of years, had there been another industrial revolution we don't know about? Had there been cars belching emissions into the atmosphere? Factories pumping waste into the oceans and pollutants into the sky? Was there electricity? Etc? etc? The point being, man's behavior and how he treated the earth has changed significantly in the two periods you mention, and the change has had a dramatic effect on the world around us.
     
  9. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By JohnS1

    "For that hundreds of thousands of years, had there been another industrial revolution we don't know about?"

    No - and that is exactly the point. The earth warmed ANYWAY, without an industrial revolution. Then cooled dramatically, then warmed again, over and over. I believe that it's the cycles of the sun which have the predominant effect on the earth's air and water temperatures. And while people may have a slight effect on the earth's CO2 levels, there ware those who believe that global warming causes CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around.
     
  10. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DAR

    Don't worry I'm not going to mention the weather here yesterday(which was horrible)but I do have some questions to raise.

    -How do we know that if we didn't have the Industrial Revolution that the atomsphere of the earth wouldn't have changed?

    -Would any of you be willing to give up the conviences that the Industrial Revoultion brought us over the last two hundred years?

    -How do we know that a hundred years from now the earth won't be in a cooling period, or that temperatures will normalize to what they usually are?
     
  11. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By mrichmondj

    << I believe that it's the cycles of the sun which have the predominant effect on the earth's air and water temperatures. And while people may have a slight effect on the earth's CO2 levels, there ware those who believe that global warming causes CO2 levels to rise, not the other way around. >>

    The sun's cycles are not a "predominant" effect on earth's temperature fluctuations.

    Our atmosphere, topography, and ocean currents dominate the variables that impact temperature adjustments.

    Additionally, human contributions to CO2 levels is something that scientists can actually measure. The effect of humans on CO2 levels is not "slight." It is significant. We are increasing CO2 levels by human activity everyday in ways that exceed natural CO2 production by orders of magnitude. It's not a small contribution.

    The idea that CO2 levels are influenced by temperature is also a half-truth. The earth's atmosphere is a giant equilibrium reaction where both sides of the equation impact the other. There is truth to the philosophy that CO2 levels are impacted by temperature -- however, CO2 levels are so far off the chart of anything recorded in prior history that they no longer correlate with any past earth temperatures for the past half million years. The CO2 side of the equilibrium is out of balance and nature will adjust itself so that temperatures rise on the other side of the equation to make up the difference.
     
  12. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By JohnS1

    Well, let's compare notes in 50 years and we'll see what happens.
     
  13. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By mrichmondj

    Why, when we can compare our notes from 100 years ago and see what has already happened?

    Of course, I guess people are inclined to sit around and do nothing. We'll just continue to become a country full of overweight, overmedicated, undereducated boobs that is slowly declining into an irrelevant society that can't accomplish anything of great significance other than the destruction of our own habitat and ourselves.
     
  14. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Goofyernmost

    >>>Additionally, human contributions to CO2 levels is something that scientists can actually measure. The effect of humans on CO2 levels is not "slight." It is significant. We are increasing CO2 levels by human activity everyday in ways that exceed natural CO2 production by orders of magnitude. It's not a small contribution.<<<

    Then I think that we should outlaw jogging or any other activity that might cause heavy breathing. :)
     
  15. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DAR

    Oh I'm sure that's coming.
     
  16. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DAR

    <<Of course, I guess people are inclined to sit around and do nothing.>>

    Since you're one of the few that seem to know everything, how much time do we have left? Ten? Twenty? One-thousand years? Should I just leave my car where it is and start walking from now on? Should I start living a "green" life?

    <<We'll just continue to become a country full of overweight, overmedicated, undereducated boobs that is slowly declining into an irrelevant society that can't accomplish anything of great significance other than the destruction of our own habitat and ourselves>>

    I'll agree those people are out there but there are others that are the complete opposite, you just have to look for them.
     
  17. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By jonvn

    "But, given this general principle - that you can't use weather data for a short period of time to predict a longer lasting event such as global warming - why is it that you don't accept that a century's worth of data is also meaningless when compared to a known record of periodic warming and cooling for hundreds of thousands of years? "

    Because through ice core drilling, we have data that goes back 650,000 years.

    It's not just data that goes back 100 years. It's three quarters of a million years. Human beings, as we appear now, didn't even exist then.
     
  18. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By jonvn

    "Since you're one of the few that seem to know everything, how much time do we have left?"

    Time left for what? The earth is already warming, and we are already starting to see effects.

    "there are others that are the complete opposite, you just have to look for them."

    Yes, as has been repeatedly said, there is simply consensus, with a vast majority, and all noted organizations concurring in this. That does not mean that EVERYONE is going to feel that way, however, even the Bush run EPA says global warming is happening.

    So, unless you want to go to one off and find some guy here or there who disagrees or you simply KNOW otherwise, you have to come to the conclusion, that the people who are experts in the field, and the organizations they belong to, are correct in the matter.
     
  19. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

    <Human beings, as we appear now, didn't even exist then.>

    And yet the earth warmed and cooled, and the levels of greenhouse gasses rose and fell. Yes, human activity is probably contributing to global warming. But there is definitely no consensus among scientists as to how much, and what we can reasonably do about it.
     
  20. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By jonvn

    "And yet the earth warmed and cooled"

    Not like now. This has been charted and measured. And it is NOTHING like what we see is going on today.

    It is basically ridiculous for people here to assert that they know better than the various climate organizations around the world have had to say on the subject. Somehow, the people who post on this Disney board know's better than the people who have been studying for a few decades now.
     

Share This Page