Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Danoff]

Here we go again: I think the tables have turned, and that actually you do now.

No no no, my role is to pokes holes in your evidence.

Here's you: "Mankind is causing gloabl warming"
Here's me: "You can't claim to know that without proof."

That leaves you with the burden of proof.

 

[Swift]

I'm sorry Zardoz. But you're contending that we are the cause of global warning and part of your proof is the strongest hurricane in recorded history? How many thousands of other hurricanes came while man was burning fossil fuels but not able to track storms?

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm sorry Zardoz. But you're contending that we are the cause of global warning and part of your proof is the strongest hurricane in recorded history? How many thousands of other hurricanes came while man was burning fossil fuels but not able to track storms?

Besides, we all know that if it were really global warming it would be global wide hurricane blizzards.

 

[TurboSmoke]

Hi Daisy,

Bush declined the Kyoto treaty because it didnt comply with US' financial interests, it had nothing to do with the fact that little by little is better than nothing.

Which is precisely why Bush declined to sign the Kyoto treaty, .

 

[TurboSmoke]

bad science?
you are talking about politically motivated science? statisical manupulation..

right?

if so, whats the agenda behind 'bad science' when applied to claims of man-made global warming?

We've gone through the "credible evidence" in this thread and I've stated every time why I think that some data is "bad science" and some data is "good science".

.

 

[TurboSmoke]

btw Famine, i enjoyed the Genome project a few years back, just downloaded genome 2 and it plays like this..(see screenshot)

everything else plays fine..suggestions welcome...

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

'

Quikstat (if illegible change browser settings to chinese);

We Annually pump 12 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere, this could be construed as negligible but freeze that CO2 @ -80C and what you've got on your paws is a Disc One Mile Thick and Twelve Miles In Diameter, this is of course miniscule and our hands are clean blah-de-blah but try and sequester that down a mineshaft. (we shall return to this mythic mineshaft when there are less words for a post)

 

[Famine]

bad science?
you are talking about politically motivated science? statisical manupulation..

right?

A little - but an awful lot of sloppiness too. Science which confuses correlation with causation.

For example, last Monday, I wore a pair of socks. I wore the same set on the Saturday before that, but the previous Saturday I didn't. The two days I wore the same pair of socks, Sheffield Wednesday won - 1-0 at home to Norwich City and 2-0 at Brighton and Hove Albion - and the day I didn't, the lost - 2-0 at Crewe Alexandra.

The sock/win data is correlation, but it cannot possibly be causation - I didn't make Wednesday win by wearing a pair of socks. Similarly the presence of industrialised humans and the current trend of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and the global mean temperature is correlative only. It may be causative but the figures don't stack up well for a causative relationship and we don't understand enough about the atmosphere in any case.


This also shows what happens when you select the timespan of your dataset. Over the whole season there's been lots of occasions where Wednesday have won (okay, some, not lots) when I wasn't wearing the socks and one occasion when they didn't win (1-1 against Reading on Saturday) when I was. Extended over the lifetime of the club, there's thousands of occasions where they won and I wasn't wearing the socks. Now there's no sock/win correlation at all.

Similarly... if you extend the data to the lifetime of the planet, the variation of global mean temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide is no longer correlative to the presence of industrialised humans - and in fact they are no longer correlative to each other (last Ice Age, 4,000ppm atmospheric carbon dioxide - 12 times higher than now). Again though, since we don't understand enough about the atmosphere we cannot rule out a causative relationship between the rises in both and the presence of industrialised humans now.

Edit: Also see DLB's post. Big numbers make big headlines - but just because something is very, very big compared to you doesn't mean it's very, very big compared to everything. This kind of sloppy thinking still gets in the papers though.


The upshot of all of this, and the foundation of my position (and danoff's, I believe) is that we don't know enough to know what's going on. Taking a decision either way based on not knowing enough to know is foolish - it amounts to a best-guess, "gut" reaction, and of course it's always your own best-guess that's best for you.

if so, whats the agenda behind 'bad science' when applied to claims of man-made global warming?

Funding.

It's a popular field. People on both sides of the fence are looking for people to prove their point of view is the right one, and will pay for the manpower to do so. That's a very dangerous place for science to be - scientists should be looking for answers, not looking to prove (and ignoring disproof of) predestined answers.


And I dunno what's going on with the second Genome Project. Perhaps you're missing a Codec?


DLB - 1 mile thick and 12 miles across eh?

The atmosphere is 62 miles thick and 24,000 miles across - or 124,000 times that size. Get 124 litres of water and put 1ml of red food colouring into it. See if you can see any colour change - use a spectrophotometer if you want.

For reference, the atmosphere already contains 6,000 times that amount of carbon dioxide naturally.

 

[Duke]

There I go, cherry-picking stories again

I'm sure this is due to natural cycles:
[snip]
Attention Gulf Coast residents: Don't worry about a thing, this is also part of a natural cycle. When you compare the current buoy temperatures to the April average, and regain consciousness after passing out, remember that it's all just nature's way of telling you that you're about to get your sorry butt handed to you.

It's only natural:

Can you say "hypercane"?

The thing is, Zardoz, you're behaving precisely like an Intelligent Design proponent, whom I doubt you hold in very high regard. You're posting a lot a big, complicated numbers, and then simply saying "global warming has to be man-made, and has to be causing all this, just because it's easier to believe". That's not a very scientific attitude.

There is very little proof that global warming is manmade. There's also even very little proof that it is having all the effects people are claiming for it. I'm not saying that it isn't happening, or that we are not to blame... I'm just saying that claiming both when they data is not conclusive is a bad idea.

If man-made global warming from CO2 emissions is "causing" extreme weather, what happened during the '80s, where hurricane/cyclone activity was trending down from the early '70s? Until Andrew hit in the early '90s, the US had quite a stretch of fairly mild hurricane seasons, after having been pounded by Agnes and others in the mid-'70s.

 

[Mark T]

Proof of global warming.

 

[Danoff]

The headline? Experts: Global Warming Behind 2005 Hurricanes

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/25/global.warming.hurricanes.reut/index.html

Peices of the article:

His conclusion will be debated throughout the week-long conference, as other researchers present opposing papers that say changing wind and temperature conditions in the tropics are due to natural events, not the accumulation of carbon dioxide emissions clouding the Earth.

While many of the conference's 500 scientists seem to agree that a warming trend in the tropics is causing more and stronger hurricanes than usual, not all agree that global warming is to blame.

Some, like William Gray, a veteran hurricane researcher at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, Colorado, attributed the warming to natural cycles.

Gray said he believes salinity buildups and movements with ocean currents cause warming and cooling cycles. He predicted the Caribbean water will continue to warm for another five to 10 years, then start cooling.

Adam Lea, a postdoctoral student at Britain's University College London in Dorking, Surrey, presented research based on British, German, Russian and Canadian studies that concludes half of the increased hurricane activity in the tropics could be attributed to global warming.

The headline doesn't say half. The headline doesn't say "could".


Edit: This just in, somebody was ON IT . CNN changed the main page headline to "global warming linked to 2005 hurricanes".

 

[Swift]

heh heh, nice find Dan.

 

[Kylehnat]

Proof of global warming.

CNN changed the main page headline to "global warming linked to 2005 hurricanes"

I can't even begin to imagine that CNN would post a sensationalistic headline on their website...

 

[Danoff]

I can't even begin to imagine that CNN would post a sensationalistic headline on their website...

Interesting that they felt the need to tone it down.

 

[FoolKiller]

The headline? Experts: Global Warming Behind 2005 Hurricanes

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/04/25/global.warming.hurricanes.reut/index.html

I don't know if you have noticed but Time Warner has been on this global warming kick lately that seems to be heading into Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" hitting theaters May 26th.

HBO has the documentary called "Too Hot Not To Handle" produced by Larry David's wife, Laurie David. I didn't watch it but a clip on teh news showed a guy talking about how when ALL the ice in Antarctica melts sea levels will rise 200+ feet.

What has killed me is that I have seen her on LA and New York TV stations as well as the nationals and only Fox News attempted to challenge her with statements from other scientists. Everyone else just aksed what she thought of the skeptics, setting her up for the same line every time, "We need to put the skeptics where they belong." When Mike Jerrick challenged her on Fox News she started shouting about how those guys don't know what they are talking about and get paid by oil companies. She never once actually addresed the opposing data from a book.

CNN this past weekend also had two "CNN Presents" specials on global warming and the oil crisis. The global warming one was called "We Were Warned," which immediately made me think of South Park and "We didn't listen. We didn't listen!!!"

Time magazine has also been doing articles recently on global warming. I haven't read those so I don't have any info on that, but I saw the covers.


I don't know if Time Warner has anything to do with Al Gore's documentary but they certainly seem to be leading up to something or trying to head up a huge campaign.


EDIT: I just checked and "An Inconvenient Truth" is conveniently being produced and directed by Davis Guggenheim, most recently known for directing and producing HBO's "Deadwood." So there are some convenient ties there.

EDIT2: I noticed that Al's Web site www.algore04.com has a link to the same global warming site (www.stopglobalwarming.org) that Laurie David has been mentioning, where people can go and join the "virtual march" against global warming.

There appears to be some tie-ins here.

And as a side note, I can't wait to see "An Inconvenient Truth," narrated by Al Gore. How much of the audience can stay awalke through that? Love him or hate him he isn't a very charismatic speaker unless he's angry.

 

[Swift]

I don't know if you have noticed but Time Warner has been on this global warming kick lately that seems to be heading into Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" hitting theaters May 26th.

Whatever drives rating numbers and of course, keeps the people scared of themselves.

 

[Danoff]

Whatever drives rating numbers and of course, keeps the people scared of themselves.

That's the idea. Scared people tune in. There's a big incentive for news outlets to run these global warming scare stories because it brings in viewers. As we've learned from the basic rules of logic, however, incentive (such as bringing in viewers) does not invalidate their claims. On the otherhand, incentive (such as working for an oil company) also doesn't invalidate research.

 

[Kylehnat]

HBO has the documentary called "Too Hot Not To Handle" produced by Larry David's wife, Laurie David. I didn't watch it but a clip on teh news showed a guy talking about how when ALL the ice in Antarctica melts sea levels will rise 200+ feet.

That's funny, because others are saying 20 feet, and still others say only a couple of feet. I don't know how thick the ice layer on Antarctica is, but to raise 125,000,000 square miles of ocean by 200 feet seems pretty far-fetched.

What has killed me is that I have seen her on LA and New York TV stations... She never once actually addresed the opposing data from a book.

She doesn't need to address it, because it's all wrong. She is right. You need to learn how science works.

The global warming one was called "We Were Warned," which immediately made me think of South Park and "We didn't listen. We didn't listen!!!"

It's all going to happen two days before the day after tomorrow.

I don't know if Time Warner has anything to do with Al Gore's documentary but they certainly seem to be leading up to something or trying to head up a huge campaign.

I'd put a paper Lincoln on that 👍

 

[FoolKiller]

It's all going to happen two days before the day after tomorrow.

Wait, but that's today! Everyone run to the community center.

There it is!!!



In case anyone missed it I added edits. I found some convenient Al Gore movie and Time Warner connections.


Solid journalism my butt. All hopes CNN had of getting me to watch them have been flushed.

 

[Danoff]

I found some convenient Al Gore movie and Time Warner connections.

I find it somewhat implausible that Time Warner would trump up magazine covers, news articles, and TV shows all to help push Al Gore's book. I think it's a bit deeper than that. Fear sells.

But the global warming scare only sells for so long. Then people get sick of it. We'll start hearing about shark attacks, child abductions, the bird flu, etc. etc.. Then when people get sick of that they can come back to global warming and scare us all over again.

 

[Kylehnat]

I'm sure that this can be blamed on global warming in some way. Zardoz, I'll let you find a supporting article

24 hours ago, it was 76 degrees and sunny. Our high temperature today (in a miserable rain) was 41, 35 degrees below yesterday's high, and 20 degrees cooler than normal. Tomorrow, it is supposed to be up around 60 again. I've never seen such weird temperature fluctuations here, but I suspect it has something to do with a large chunk of ice breaking off in the Arctic Ocean, and floating down here, sending us a cooling northerly wind.

DAMN YOU AND YOUR SUV'S!!!

 

[FoolKiller]

But the global warming scare only sells for so long. Then people get sick of it. We'll start hearing about shark attacks, child abductions, the bird flu, etc. etc.. Then when people get sick of that they can come back to global warming and scare us all over again.

You forgot mad cow disease. Good thing I noticed, otherwise we would have all been caught off guard.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

'

Interesting, you have to look at layers if you're talking about warming.

Human activity cannot be isolated by automatic understanding.

We are not cells apart & we impinge on all the previous order of layers which had large system interplay. Which had demonstrable regulatory activity as approved by evolutionary concepts, understandings.



Furthur;

About Clouds, the saga continues...

 

[Famine]

The last two-thirds of that article are much more interesting.

By the way, could you have just posted the link without the excessive obfuscating espousing distal to the salient objective matter?

The link made sense, nothing else you posted did.

 

[Keef]

Yes, Famine, useless information abounds.

 

[Rogue Ssv]

I think that Global Warming is bad....
So we should stop it. But I recently saw on NOVA 'Global Dimming' about how carbon dioxide and car exhaust blocks it, which is also bad because its not high up but low like fog. But if we get rid of that well all die from global warming.... hmmm
I also think fuel cells suck, I come back later and explain why

 

[Famine]

Before you do, please, please read the whole thread first. This will help you contribute to the thread, rather than just posting in it (as above).

 

[Danoff]

I think that Global Warming is bad....
So we should stop it.

I see, and what evidence do you have that a) it's happening and b) we're causing it?

 

[Rogue Ssv]

erm..... none really.....
except.....
well lets see, there's a big hole in the ozone layer over the poles. Scientists have recorded that there has been higher temperatures this century then ever before, and CFCs (carbon composite thingys formerly used in aerosol sprays as propellants and in refridgerators to cool them) from 50 years ago are still tearing holes in the ozone. Hmm tho maybe we're not doing it anymore.
And I oppose fuel cells because we'll just waste as much if not more energhy converting water to hydrogen and manufacturing fuel cell parts,
HYBRIDS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!

@Famine--the WHOLE THREAD?!?!? THATS 29 PAGES!!!!!!!!!

 

[Famine]

@Famine--the WHOLE THREAD?!?!? THATS 29 PAGES!!!!!!!!!

Yes, but it'll educate you a little - to both sides of the coin - and stop you making posts like the one you just made.