How about that..... Topic

I was mostly talking to greeny, not you...

That said, I have talked to some of the people here in Berkeley as well as at Stanford and the University of Washington (state, not St. Louis) and seen 2 or 3 talks from experts in the field, people spending their lives studying global warming, and even these guys aren't willing to go so far as to say that they're 100% certain that there is meaningful human influence on the climate, only that it's very likely.  Most would say something along the lines that they're quite sure, but can't defend a definitive statement about it.  Certainly the degree of human influence is nearly impossible to determine but could be fairly small, or rather large.  But the people, mostly greeny but a few posts from other people, talking about one year, or one season, or one day and using it as evidence of global warming basically sound like idiots.  We've only been keeping weather data for ~150 years, at some point it's going to be the hottest day or the hottest summer in 150 years, and that's not nearly a long enough time frame for it to mean anything.  The mid 1900s through late 1910s were warmer than anything until the '90s, and certainly there was a lot more industry and burning of fossil fuels in the '60s, '70s, and '80s than those warmer times.  Several times more, if not an order of magnitude or better.  These are the people who went to see An Inconvenient Truth and came out thinking the end was near and Al Gore is a genius.  Everyone I know with a legitimate science background and without a massive pre-existing bias came out of that movie thinking Al Gore was a moron.  It was horribly exaggerated and misrepresented findings left and right.  The reality is that the one major paper in Science expounding the magnitude of global climate change shows little data.  Typically papers in Science or Nature, since they must be short, cite another paper by the same author on the same work which shows all the data, the work, and really explains how the results were determined.  The climate change paper has no such analogue.  Ironically, the desire of the big journal to have the cutting edge and shock value type articles allowed it in, but all the more subject-specific journals found the actual research too shoddy to publish.  This is the #1 piece of "scientific evidence" typically cited by the more-educated proponents of climate change.  The reality is that the scientific community isn't really ready to make any major statements on the subject.  All the same, it would be wise to take steps, because, as you said earlier, coming back from a real problem is very difficult.  Cutting back on CO2 emissions may be expensive in the short term, but the reality is it's going to be essential as fossil fuels run out anyway.  Why not accelerate the process, preserve some oil, and not take the risk?

Wow, that was one hell of a paragraph...
1/22/2013 11:13 PM
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 11:13:00 PM (view original):
I was mostly talking to greeny, not you...

That said, I have talked to some of the people here in Berkeley as well as at Stanford and the University of Washington (state, not St. Louis) and seen 2 or 3 talks from experts in the field, people spending their lives studying global warming, and even these guys aren't willing to go so far as to say that they're 100% certain that there is meaningful human influence on the climate, only that it's very likely.  Most would say something along the lines that they're quite sure, but can't defend a definitive statement about it.  Certainly the degree of human influence is nearly impossible to determine but could be fairly small, or rather large.  But the people, mostly greeny but a few posts from other people, talking about one year, or one season, or one day and using it as evidence of global warming basically sound like idiots.  We've only been keeping weather data for ~150 years, at some point it's going to be the hottest day or the hottest summer in 150 years, and that's not nearly a long enough time frame for it to mean anything.  The mid 1900s through late 1910s were warmer than anything until the '90s, and certainly there was a lot more industry and burning of fossil fuels in the '60s, '70s, and '80s than those warmer times.  Several times more, if not an order of magnitude or better.  These are the people who went to see An Inconvenient Truth and came out thinking the end was near and Al Gore is a genius.  Everyone I know with a legitimate science background and without a massive pre-existing bias came out of that movie thinking Al Gore was a moron.  It was horribly exaggerated and misrepresented findings left and right.  The reality is that the one major paper in Science expounding the magnitude of global climate change shows little data.  Typically papers in Science or Nature, since they must be short, cite another paper by the same author on the same work which shows all the data, the work, and really explains how the results were determined.  The climate change paper has no such analogue.  Ironically, the desire of the big journal to have the cutting edge and shock value type articles allowed it in, but all the more subject-specific journals found the actual research too shoddy to publish.  This is the #1 piece of "scientific evidence" typically cited by the more-educated proponents of climate change.  The reality is that the scientific community isn't really ready to make any major statements on the subject.  All the same, it would be wise to take steps, because, as you said earlier, coming back from a real problem is very difficult.  Cutting back on CO2 emissions may be expensive in the short term, but the reality is it's going to be essential as fossil fuels run out anyway.  Why not accelerate the process, preserve some oil, and not take the risk?

Wow, that was one hell of a paragraph...
Really?  Im talking about 1 season and 1 day?  I seem to be hearing from several deniers in this very topic that its 0 degrees in Michigan, and that in Ohio they are having a single day snow record.  But I am talking about 1 day stuff here?  Come on debater, live up to your name.  How about the truth man.

The climate is one massive ever changing complex thing.  Im sure it will take some time before we can say with 100% accuracy precisely what we are doing to it.  I for one dont believe we should be waiting for 100% certainty, it sounds like (from what you say yourself) that these guys are quite sure that we are having an effect on the climate.  I mean, it stands to reason when we are burning millions and millions of years of stored carbon each and every year.  How is the climate going to absorb that much and not warm?  Ofcourse its going to warm, and it will continue to until we make some massive changes.

That last bit you said there about preserving some oil is absolutely what I am for too.  Why do we need to be going all hog wild on the stuff?  Lets spread it out so that we can buy ourselves time until we find the perfect replacement.

1/22/2013 11:34 PM
Weather is cyclical man...damn those dinosaurs and wooly mammoths for their hot, heavy breath that caused the ice age...

And again, people/Americans didn't give a **** about the environment in 50s, 60s, and 70s, and arguably a lot more time before that, why didn't global warming begin then, why didn't it take affect sooner?  The average temp goes up a degree when we have green this, and clean air that, and everyone wants to have a "world is ending" **** fit...gtfo.

1/22/2013 11:50 PM
The people arguing against global warming sound just as dumb when they cite specific weather events.  But if it is so obvious that if we are burning carbon that things will warm, why don't you explain to me how that works?  In even just a moderate level of detail.  If you're so knowledgeable that you can call it obvious, explain to me how it works.  K?  No googling.
1/23/2013 12:25 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/22/2013 11:13:00 PM (view original):
I was mostly talking to greeny, not you...

That said, I have talked to some of the people here in Berkeley as well as at Stanford and the University of Washington (state, not St. Louis) and seen 2 or 3 talks from experts in the field, people spending their lives studying global warming, and even these guys aren't willing to go so far as to say that they're 100% certain that there is meaningful human influence on the climate, only that it's very likely.  Most would say something along the lines that they're quite sure, but can't defend a definitive statement about it.  Certainly the degree of human influence is nearly impossible to determine but could be fairly small, or rather large.  But the people, mostly greeny but a few posts from other people, talking about one year, or one season, or one day and using it as evidence of global warming basically sound like idiots.  We've only been keeping weather data for ~150 years, at some point it's going to be the hottest day or the hottest summer in 150 years, and that's not nearly a long enough time frame for it to mean anything.  The mid 1900s through late 1910s were warmer than anything until the '90s, and certainly there was a lot more industry and burning of fossil fuels in the '60s, '70s, and '80s than those warmer times.  Several times more, if not an order of magnitude or better.  These are the people who went to see An Inconvenient Truth and came out thinking the end was near and Al Gore is a genius.  Everyone I know with a legitimate science background and without a massive pre-existing bias came out of that movie thinking Al Gore was a moron.  It was horribly exaggerated and misrepresented findings left and right.  The reality is that the one major paper in Science expounding the magnitude of global climate change shows little data.  Typically papers in Science or Nature, since they must be short, cite another paper by the same author on the same work which shows all the data, the work, and really explains how the results were determined.  The climate change paper has no such analogue.  Ironically, the desire of the big journal to have the cutting edge and shock value type articles allowed it in, but all the more subject-specific journals found the actual research too shoddy to publish.  This is the #1 piece of "scientific evidence" typically cited by the more-educated proponents of climate change.  The reality is that the scientific community isn't really ready to make any major statements on the subject.  All the same, it would be wise to take steps, because, as you said earlier, coming back from a real problem is very difficult.  Cutting back on CO2 emissions may be expensive in the short term, but the reality is it's going to be essential as fossil fuels run out anyway.  Why not accelerate the process, preserve some oil, and not take the risk?

Wow, that was one hell of a paragraph...
dahs,

Good post.

Thank goodness it was orders of magnitude better than most paragraphs one can find in the pit!....And I don't disagree with you. I was trying to make the same point....individual examples of a day, week, month, year don't illustrate anything. It's the pattern over time that is significant. 


1/23/2013 4:34 AM
Posted by dahsdebater on 1/23/2013 12:25:00 AM (view original):
The people arguing against global warming sound just as dumb when they cite specific weather events.  But if it is so obvious that if we are burning carbon that things will warm, why don't you explain to me how that works?  In even just a moderate level of detail.  If you're so knowledgeable that you can call it obvious, explain to me how it works.  K?  No googling.
Ive NEVER cited specific weather events.  Ive referred to trends of worsening weather events happening over decades.  I think you got my posts mixed up with the denier crowd, which seems weird considering my message is the opposite of theirs.

Ok, here is a beginners course on why carbon, methane, particulates, water vapour and many other man made or man influenced chemicals or events shape the climate.  In this context they are referred to collectively as greenhouse gases.  These greenhouse gases allow the suns powerful rays to shine through nearly as well as if there were much less of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  Meanwhile, like an actual greenhouse the gases trap much of the heat inside by deflecting the infrared radiation back and all around.  So, ipso-facto when you increase greenhouse gases you increase the greenhouse effect therefore increasing the temperature of the globe in general.  Its all pretty basic obvious stuff, and I cant believe I have to explain that to someone as seemingly intelligent as yourself.  Ofcourse most of these deniers here dont seem to grasp this concept, so I think this is mostly for them.

If you can refute this please cite me some research that wasnt directly or indirectly funded by any gas company or multi-national corporation that would clearly profit from discrediting the greenhouse gas effect and or climate change.

1/23/2013 9:46 AM
Posted by seamar_116 on 1/22/2013 5:16:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/20/2013 10:45:00 PM (view original):
There is an official definition of climate?

No warming for over a decade.

Developing world is spewing carbon like crazy. Nothing the developed world does will matter as a result. If carbon is actually causing global warming, you had better invest in AC companies.

Oh, and how much of the atmosphere is made up of carbon? And, these guys have no ******* understanding of the variables at play in the atmosphere. That's why the models are a joke.
Yes JClark, there is an official definition of climate. From the NASA/NOAA website:

<<What Climate Means
In short, climate is the description of the long-term pattern of weather in a particular area.

Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region. >>

Our atmosphere used to be loaded with carbon. And over millions of years it was captured and "stored." The atmosphere changed, life evolved with the new atmosphere profile. And now, with the usage of fossil fuels, we are releasing that carbon back into the atmosphere at rates exponential to when it was captured. Life cannot evolve fast enough to keep up. You are probably not aware that at one point in Earth's history there was an "Oxygen Holocaust", when the levels of oxygen in the atmosphere wiped out much life.

The point is, if we screw things up, and they reach a tipping point, there is not going to be a quick turning back. Once we screw it up, it is likely to stay screwed up with serious consequences for a long time. But go ahead and be an ostrich. You can create a video and leave it for your future generations to watch while you explain that this was a hoax, that humans were not responsible, yadda, yadda, yadda. You will sound oh, so smart.

Yes, so sciency.  So very sciency.

Table 1: Average composition of the
atmosphere up to an altitude of 25 km.
Gas Name Chemical Formula Percent Volume
Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
*Carbon dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
*Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
*Nitrous oxide N2O 0.00003%
*Ozone O3 0.000004%
* variable gases


1/23/2013 10:11 AM
Here you go fellas.  Enjoy:

us4.campaign-archive1.com/



1/23/2013 10:13 AM
Posted by jclarkbaker on 1/23/2013 10:13:00 AM (view original):
Here you go fellas.  Enjoy:

us4.campaign-archive1.com/



Very good Baker, you gave us a link that on the surface looks to be a well written and unbiased appraisal of the situation.  But one paragraph stands out to me:

Arctic sea ice extent today is, for all practical purposes, back to normal! That return to normal only means one thing. The “dramatic melt” of August 2012 had to have been reversed completely by an equally dramatic refreeze this winter. Unfortunately we’re not going to find any news stories about that in the media, are we? --P Gosslin, No Tricks Zone, 16 January 2013
 
I highlighted the sentence that speaks loudly to me.  If this indeed were an unbiased assessment, why would the author use such a quote?  If that isnt proof that this whole article is written by a person that has a motive then I dont know what could be.  It is way too easy to use data from any reputable source to make it look like your "story" is right.  On either side of the arguement.  As has been mentioned and is obviously true climate change modeling is very complicated, so it would be very easy to make data look one way or the other simply by not including certain data points.

I dont trust papers that show an obvious bias one way or the other.  Papers that show no bias one way or the other are the ones that I listen to.

Lastly I see what is happening in the world in my experience, and from newspaper stories talking about weather.  In my experience and everybody else that I talk to say that there was a lot more snow when they were younger.  That winters were longer, and summers not nearly as hot or for as long.  Even just a decade ago you didnt hear about all the severe weather that you hear about today.  Obviously these observations arent scientific, and I dont pretend to believe that my observations will change anybody elses mind.  But if you think back to when you were younger I am confident that you know that its the same where you live (assuming you live in most parts of N America).

1/23/2013 11:42 AM
Hey dipshit, he links to every article.
1/23/2013 1:03 PM
hey dipshit, I took a look at that link claiming that the ice up north is back to normal, I dont think so, it looks like it currently stands at about the same level is has been for the past 2 or 3 years, no where near what it was in the 80s 90s or 2000s.  If normal is the average that it has been in the past 3 years then you have yet another strange definition of normal.  At this time it looks to be exactly the same as 2012 which as you can see with that graph that 2012 was a record.  Nice link there dipshit.  It proves exactly nothing apart from the fact that the author is trying to spin crap in a way that you like and that I dont like.  Biased as is virtually everything else that you and Swamp-gas ever link too.
Give me a fracking break, you people are ostriches with your heads buried in the ground.

1/23/2013 1:16 PM
The winter of 2009-2010 had about as much snow as my parents could ever remember in the mid-Atlantic.  Still a totally anecdotal and meaningless argument.  We're about as far off the normal line now as during the Little Ice Age a few hundred years ago.  The main thing that tends to indicate a human influence is the steepness of the climb, not the absolute temperature changes...
1/23/2013 2:57 PM
Posted by pttsbrghkid on 1/23/2013 2:31:00 PM (view original):
www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/obamas-climate-challenge-20130117
Sorry, but I stopped reading when the author referred to climate policy as "the most crucial issue of our time" and "the biggest challenge humanity has ever faced" in the same paragraph.  That's such bullshit the author clearly has no intention of providing any objectively useful insights.
1/23/2013 3:00 PM
Posted by greeny9 on 1/23/2013 1:16:00 PM (view original):
hey dipshit, I took a look at that link claiming that the ice up north is back to normal, I dont think so, it looks like it currently stands at about the same level is has been for the past 2 or 3 years, no where near what it was in the 80s 90s or 2000s.  If normal is the average that it has been in the past 3 years then you have yet another strange definition of normal.  At this time it looks to be exactly the same as 2012 which as you can see with that graph that 2012 was a record.  Nice link there dipshit.  It proves exactly nothing apart from the fact that the author is trying to spin crap in a way that you like and that I dont like.  Biased as is virtually everything else that you and Swamp-gas ever link too.
Give me a fracking break, you people are ostriches with your heads buried in the ground.

Christ, you are a ******* wack job.  Your handle is perfect.

Here is an article that you will believe, hook line and sinker:

www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/12/09/bakken-oil-boom-and-climate-change-threaten-the-future-of-pasta.html

And why will you believe?  Because you love the "scaremongering":

www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate/2013/01/lomborg_global_warming_does_not_mean_the_end_of_pasta.html
1/23/2013 3:14 PM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7...28 Next ▸
How about that..... Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.