Science and Global Warming

[Caligirl]

I am failing to understand the evidence that humans are the reason the planet is warming... Evidentally these scientists can't understand it either...

Scientists abandon global warming 'lie'

If there is evidence/proof, why do so many scientists disagree?

Scientists disagree about a lot of things ... science is less about answers and more about questioning and experimentation.

Science talks a lot about consensus, a word that isn't used much in religion or other dogmatic areas. Consensus implicitly means that common ground has been found from among a variety of data. In other words you don't talk about consensus when there is universal agreement, you talk about it when opposing viewpoints find commonalities that they agree on.

You and I probably have consensus that this country is worth fighting for, but we probably disagree on a hell of a lot of the details of that. You can say we have consensus (we do) or you can say we disagree (we do.)

The consensus in science is that warming has an anthropogenic factor. This does not mean that everyone agrees, especially on the details, far from it. But the consensus is there.

Policy makers and the media are the ones that polarize the issue, imo. The science is generally good.

 

[Caligirl]

These right wingnuts won't be convinced until the polar ice cap completely melts.

Which shouldn't be too long now.

That would not be any sort of proof of anything other than the ice cap melting.

It certainly would not prove that warming is man made.

 

[Chris]

That would not be any sort of proof of anything other than the ice cap melting.

It certainly would not prove that warming is man made.

The ice cap has been there for millions of years.

CO2 is at the highest level ever recorded and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The Stanford Solar Center scientists say that the sun can only account for 25% of the warming we are seeing, but some people will never be convinced.

"As in the days of Noah, there was drinking and feasting, and marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered the Ark..."

 

[alan1]

I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on the internet.
Lets just open our minds for a few moments and think about this planet.
For one, the earth does not have a "perfect" spin, it actually kind of wobbles Chandler wobble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on its axis a little bit. Now, think about this, increased ice at the poles would aggravate and increase the 'wobble' of the earth. An increased weight of more ice at the poles could potentially affect the earth enough to to throw it off it's axis. (It's been theorized that this may have happened in the past). Now, when you look at it that way, does it look so bad that some of the ice is melting?

 

[alan1]

Scientists disagree about a lot of things ... science is less about answers and more about questioning and experimentation.

Science talks a lot about consensus, a word that isn't used much in religion or other dogmatic areas. Consensus implicitly means that common ground has been found from among a variety of data. In other words you don't talk about consensus when there is universal agreement, you talk about it when opposing viewpoints find commonalities that they agree on.

You and I probably have consensus that this country is worth fighting for, but we probably disagree on a hell of a lot of the details of that. You can say we have consensus (we do) or you can say we disagree (we do.)

The consensus in science is that warming has an anthropogenic factor. This does not mean that everyone agrees, especially on the details, far from it. But the consensus is there.

Policy makers and the media are the ones that polarize the issue, imo. The science is generally good.

I'd say the media has a consensus to blame man for it, and politicians have a consensus to tax us over it.

 

[Chris]

I'm not a scientist and I don't play one on the internet.
Lets just open our minds for a few moments and think about this planet.
For one, the earth does not have a "perfect" spin, it actually kind of wobbles Chandler wobble - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia on its axis a little bit. Now, think about this, increased ice at the poles would aggravate and increase the 'wobble' of the earth. An increased weight of more ice at the poles could potentially affect the earth enough to to throw it off it's axis. (It's been theorized that this may have happened in the past). Now, when you look at it that way, does it look so bad that some of the ice is melting?

Or the opposite could happen.

Weight shifting off the poles by melting ice could throw the earth off its axis.

 

[SwingVoter]

The North Polar Ice Cap is melting.

Glad to hear something is. I'm in Minneapolis now and the big news is that it might actually get out of the teens this week.

 

[KittenKoder]

Thing is ... Global Warming was a completely fabricated political card made up by Gore and his idiotic followers based one one event that was a small portion of what is really going on. The global weather patterns are becoming chaotic, more so than they have during recorded (not not ALL) history. However, the orbit of the planet itself is more likely to be blamed for this not human involvement (look up the axial tilt and look into the shifting of it). It most likely is just part of a pattern that will increase more and more until life is again recycled.

However what REALLY pisses me off is that when they put focus on this made up crap they take all the focus from the one thing we can all agree on: The air quality sucks now because of pollution. Why not just clean up the pollution so we can breath better, so food tastes good again, and so we can drink the water again? No, instead environuts are screaming about "Global Warming" and the opponents rightfully scream back "we don't care because we probably can't do anything about it."

 

[Caligirl]

The ice cap has been there for millions of years.

CO2 is at the highest level ever recorded and the Antarctic ice core record goes back 600,000 years.

The Stanford Solar Center scientists say that the sun can only account for 25% of the warming we are seeing, but some people will never be convinced.

"As in the days of Noah, there was drinking and feasting, and marrying and giving in marriage until the day that Noah entered the Ark..."

And this proves that the melt is man made how?

 

[Caligirl]

However what REALLY pisses me off is that when they put focus on this made up crap they take all the focus from the one thing we can all agree on: The air quality sucks now because of pollution. Why not just clean up the pollution so we can breath better, so food tastes good again, and so we can drink the water again? No, instead environuts are screaming about "Global Warming" and the opponents rightfully scream back "we don't care because we probably can't do anything about it."

I don't think there is much movement behind the 'air is dirty' movement, especially since the air is cleaner (at least here) than in the 70s, by a lot.

 

[cunclusion]

No the problem is the last 8 years the government only listened to the scientist who had their interests. Now lets say this if the Bush government had a plan and the money to implement it and it not affect thier energy stocks they already have it would be different.

 

[Old Rocks]

Thing is ... Global Warming was a completely fabricated political card made up by Gore and his idiotic followers based one one event that was a small portion of what is really going on. The global weather patterns are becoming chaotic, more so than they have during recorded (not not ALL) history. However, the orbit of the planet itself is more likely to be blamed for this not human involvement (look up the axial tilt and look into the shifting of it). It most likely is just part of a pattern that will increase more and more until life is again recycled.

However what REALLY pisses me off is that when they put focus on this made up crap they take all the focus from the one thing we can all agree on: The air quality sucks now because of pollution. Why not just clean up the pollution so we can breath better, so food tastes good again, and so we can drink the water again? No, instead environuts are screaming about "Global Warming" and the opponents rightfully scream back "we don't care because we probably can't do anything about it."

Kitten, what one event are you speaking of? And how then did Al Gore get all the scientific societies in the world, all the National Academies of Science, and all the world's major universities to go along with what he made up? How did he get Svante Arnnhenius to write the seminal paper on the influence of CO2 as a greenhouse gas in 1896? Kitten, not only are you wrong, you are displaying a profound ignorance of what is happening today in the world concerning global warming, and the effects of the CO2 that we have added to the atmosphere.

Today, virtually all the glaciers on every continent on Earth are losing ice. The ice caps above sea level are both losing ice, to the tune of two trillion tons thus far. The North Polar Cap has melted at a rate far faster than even the most pessimistic model predicted. We observed the beginning of clathrate outgassing in the Arctic ocean this year, from Norway to Asian Siberia, for the first time this fall. The ocean is becoming more acidic, in some areas enough so to interfere with the life cycles of the single celled organsims that are at the base of the food chain. There are many more results from the anthropogenic CO2 that can be pointed out. They are all available in sources such as Science, Journal of Geophysics, and other peer reviewed sceintific journals that deal with climate and what it affects.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't think there is much movement behind the 'air is dirty' movement, especially since the air is cleaner (at least here) than in the 70s, by a lot.

LOL. Caligirl, do you relealize that clean air is one of the reasons that after the seventies the global warming seemed to go into overdrive? Here is where you can get information on that effect;

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2004/dai_complete_20041026.pdf

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally Posted by KMAN

31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - SourceWatch


The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

The OISM is located on a farm about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction, Oregon (population 1,126). ....

It's awesome when internet forum armchair "scientists" chime in about global warming.

They've always got some list off a rightwing blog that claims that tens of thousands of "scientists" have debunked global warming. I've looked at those lists, and the overwhelming, vast majority are people who have bachelors degrees in "botany", economics, public policy, and other pseudo science degrees. The few that have a PhD in the relevant scientific disciplines like physics, atmospheric science, or chemistry, have virtually nothing published in actual reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. None of them are actually doing their own original field, or laboratory scientific research.

Bush supporters will never address why it is that ever single government on the planet, every single national science academy on the planet, and every single scientific body with expertise in climate science has concluded that it is almost certain that humans are affecting climate. Which makes global warming one of the most tested and accepted scientific theories of the past century. Its game over. Only bush supporters are still trying to deny it, and cite some dude with a bacholors degree to support their position

 

[Caligirl]

LOL. Caligirl, do you relealize that clean air is one of the reasons that after the seventies the global warming seemed to go into overdrive? Here is where you can get information on that effect;

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2004/dai_complete_20041026.pdf

One of the suspected reasons, yes.

other reasons have to do with decadal oscillations (PDO eg) and sunspot activity, if I am not mistaken.

 

[Caligirl]

It's awesome when internet forum armchair "scientists" chime in about global warming.

They've always got some list off a rightwing blog that claims that tens of thousands of "scientists" have debunked global warming. I've looked at those lists, and the overwhelming, vast majority are people who have bachelors degrees in "botany", economics, public policy, and other pseudo science degrees. The few that have a PhD in the relevant scientific disciplines like physics, atmospheric science, or chemistry, have virtually nothing published in actual reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. None of them are actually doing their own original field, or laboratory scientific research.

Bush supporters will never address why it is that ever single government on the planet, every single national science academy on the planet, and every single scientific body with expertise in climate science has concluded that it is almost certain that humans are affecting climate. Which makes global warming one of the most tested and accepted scientific theories of the past century. Its game over. Only bush supporters are still trying to deny it, and cite some dude with a bacholors degree to support their position

The whole anthropogenic argument is a red herring anyway.

If an asteroid was hurtling towards earth we'd damn well be trying to stop it,
even though it wasn't our fault.

 

[Chris]

It's awesome when internet forum armchair "scientists" chime in about global warming.

They've always got some list off a rightwing blog that claims that tens of thousands of "scientists" have debunked global warming. I've looked at those lists, and the overwhelming, vast majority are people who have bachelors degrees in "botany", economics, public policy, and other pseudo science degrees. The few that have a PhD in the relevant scientific disciplines like physics, atmospheric science, or chemistry, have virtually nothing published in actual reputable peer reviewed scientific journals. None of them are actually doing their own original field, or laboratory scientific research.

Bush supporters will never address why it is that ever single government on the planet, every single national science academy on the planet, and every single scientific body with expertise in climate science has concluded that it is almost certain that humans are affecting climate. Which makes global warming one of the most tested and accepted scientific theories of the past century. Its game over. Only bush supporters are still trying to deny it, and cite some dude with a bacholors degree to support their position

Excellent post.

The level of delusion that these folks have is unbelievable.

 

[KittenKoder]

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'm too lazy to find the actual links, so here's P&T's proof against all this garbage.

 

[Old Rocks]

Eminent Scientists Warn of Disastrous, Permanent Global Warming

SAN FRANCISCO, California, February 19, 2007 (ENS) - The leaders of the world's largest general scientific society issued an imperative climate change warning Sunday. "The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years."

Global warming is not a theory, it is a fact based on a "growing torrent of information," said the Board of Directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, AAAS, in its first consensus statement on climate change. The statement was issued at the association's annual meeting in San Francisco, which concludes today.

"Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies," the board said.


This photo-realistic image of the Earth was made using MODIS surface reflectance data collected and composited over the late spring and early summer of 2001. (Image by Reto Stockli courtesy NASA Earth Observatory)
Approved by the board on December 9, 2006, nearly two months before a similar statement by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the AAAS statement warns, "Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be."
"Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species' ranges, and more," the board stated.

"The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now."

"These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible," warned the board.

The 14 member board includes scientists from Harvard, Yale and Princeton, the University of Michigan, University of Utah, Ohio State, Lehigh, the California Institute of Technology, and the James S. McDonnell Foundation.

Dr. John Holdren, who becomes board president today, told delegates in his presidential address, "Global climate change is real, humans are responsible for a substantial part of it, and it's taking us in dangerous directions."


President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Dr. John Holdren delivers his presidential address to delegates at the 2007 AAAS annual meeting. (Photo courtesy AAAS)
Without swift and urgent action, he said, the problems could spiral toward disastrous, permanent changes for all of life on Earth.
"Climate change is not a problem for our children and our grandchildren - it is a problem for us. It's already causing harm," said Holdren, who serves as director of the Woods Hole Research Center, and is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at Harvard University.

Holdren's address was a review of evidence which, taken together, shows a planet under profound stress. One of the central problems, and the most complex, he said, is ending the reliance on fossil fuels that is damaging and destabilizing the Earth's ecosystem.
Eminent Scientists Warn of Disastrous, Permanent Global Warming

 

[Old Rocks]

Now Kitten, you posted some You Tube sites. Anybody can say anything on You Tube, there are no constraints such as there are in peer reviewed scientific papers. The people in the last post routinely write such papers.