Global Warming...

Page 1 of 8  

If we accept the premise that global warming is occurring, must we accept the premise that man is causing it?
What about the past? There is evidence that global warming happened in the past without any apparent help from man. So, why is not now our fault?
We can't go back and discover why it happened in the past. Maybe the same mechanisms that caused it to happen then are causing it to happen now, regardless of what humans do or don't do?
This isn't to say we should be stupid and squander resources and pollute the earth unnecessarily...
...lets just get some prospective. (I'm going to go spend a lot of money and drive my SUV)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are so many factors that come into place WRT global weather and science......the elliptical orbit of the earth, the wobble of the earth spinning on it's axis, sunspots, volcanic eruptions, etc etc. The computer models that "validate" ma made global warming were based on that theory and modeled around it.....so they get the answer they wanted.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
P. Fritz wrote:

http://www.junkscience.com - take some time and poke around the global warming stuff...very interesting and eye opening.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I had an actual science teacher in an actual college lecture about acid rain bunk and global warming bunk. Made me happy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
gruhn wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The bet is meaningless. Twenty years? Doesn't exist on the scales that should be being talked about.
Of course, it's exactly the scale used to start clamoring about global warming.
Without seeing their theory, which I'm not qualified to understand let alone judge, I don't buy "sunspots" either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
- 3D Peruna -

- Nehmo Let me answer that with a question to you. Does human activity affect the weather? If so, in what way?
--
|||||||||||||||| Nehmo Sergheyev ||||||||||||||||




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You need a basic textbook.
Tes, human activity affects the long term trend in the weather, the CLIMATE. Please see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1
Mankind affects the climate in many many ways. Please see: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Roger Coppock wrote:

http://www.junkscience.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
- Roger Coppock -

- 3D Peruna -

- Nehmo - That page has links to *at least* six articles about global warming. Which one are you referring to? And what particular point are you making?
Or are you just making a broad statement that global warming is junk? It s a complicated subject, and if you want to persuasively argue one way or the other, and it seems you do because you started the thread, you need to expend more effort.
For starters, you can address the question I put to you, which I will now rephrase a bit: Does human activity affect the worlds climate? If so, in what way?
--
|||||||||||||||| Nehmo Sergheyev ||||||||||||||||



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nehmo wrote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/28/AR2005062801248.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleolast.html http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel.htm http://www.nap.edu/books/0309074347/html / http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00 /
But this is a silly game. Good information is about quality of sources not quantity. The IPCC report represents the fidings of the world's best researchers in climate and climate related fields. It represents hundreds of experts and hundreds of research papers. All the links I provided above are scientific sources, not advocacy groups.
Sceptic sites like JunkScience.com do not do research, rather they cherry pick results and data that cause naive readers to have doubts about what truly is an overwhelming scientific consensus. They are also not disinterested in the political ramifications of this scientific issue, being funded directly by fossil fuel industry corporations who feel their profits threatened by AGW. So while it can be educational to read their POV and investigate the science surrounding their claims, the conclusions they come to are actually what make their URL appropriate.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Coby Beck wrote:

I see I've started a religious argument...
One other minor point..there have been lots of times in the world's history where the "majority" of the "worlds' best" have all agreed...and they were all wrong.
If we accept the premise that global warming is occurring, must we accept the premise that man is causing it?
What about the past? There is evidence that global warming happened in the past without any apparent help from man. So, why is not now our fault?
We can't go back and discover why it happened in the past. Maybe the same mechanisms that caused it to happen then are causing it to happen now, regardless of what humans do or don't do?
This isn't to say we should be stupid and squander resources and pollute the earth unnecessarily...
...lets just get some perspective.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sorry? Which of the 7 links I provided for you are religion?

There is always that possibility. Could it be that that "Cost of Kyoto" counter on your junk science site is wrong?
Fortunately for GW mitigation strategy, there are many other good and compelling reasons for drastic reductions in fossil fuel burning, ranging from national securty, to environmental, to industrial. It really is a win-win-win course of action.

Absolutely not. The case for anthropogenic causes is, as it should be, completely independent from the case that GW is occurring.

Firstly, a minor terminological nitpick. The term "global warming" is in fact specific to the current climate change, and not applicable to any rise in global temperature at any time in the past. But your question stands, and is a good one.
There are two important things to keep in mind when looking at past changes with an eye to implications for the current change. Firstly, the same consequence can follow from various causes. So it is not enough to note that the temperature rose in the past and thus conclude that it is rising now for natural reasons. Secondly, natural past flucuations, both up and down, are by and large on hugely different timescales, timescales measures in millenia not decades. And in fact, those changes in the past that appear to have been as sudden and severe as what we are in the middle of show signs of the same dire consequences scientist warn us of today: sudden sea level rise, mass extinction events, loss of bio-diversity.

There is actually a great deal that can be learned about the past, even without the services of time travel. Proxy indicators are preserved in ice and sediment cores, fossils, coral reefs, tree-rings, stalag[t|m]ites, geological formations. So in fact we can understand a great deal about what caused climate changes in the past as well as understanding in detail what is driving it today.

Agreed. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 15:26:12 -0500, 3D Peruna

This is just plain wrong. There have been a few cases where the inertial force, or other pressures, hold up the show. This isn't one of them. This is not even close to one of them.
All you're doing with this crutched-up argument is trying to make everyone re-prove everything to you.

It's not a premise. It's a fact. Global temperatures are rising enough in enough places at enough times to raise the global average temperature.
No, you don't have to accept the premise that Man is causing it. But every Man-free explanation has come out very poorly compared to the evidence for a human connection.

Waddya mean 'why'. Industrial pollution on a global scale. You knew that, right?

Your statement supports the point above - you formed a conclusion in advance of any investigation. You're making these statements so people will explain it all to you, while you throw up endless objections and they-dunno's.

If you really stand behind that phrase, you'll probably fess up to the GW problem faster than most.

Do some investigation. The evidence isn't going away. The misinformation wears down a lot faster.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I got a question. Isn't the global warming happing at a faster rate than ever recorded? I would think that would be caused by man. Sure the ice records from Antarctica show it happened before but if the same is going on now and it only took a fraction of time wouldn't anyone with a brain think maybe all that crap we put into the air is bad?????
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 21:42:15 -0400, "gashauler"

The answer is the usual suspect - 'depends'. Depends on the comparison periods.
For known years, if it's not the fastest it's the most extreme in absolutes. Here's a site that breaks it out And links to the data:-
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ei/ei_reconsa.html
For the 'longer view' the range I've seen from ice age trough to inter-glacial is about +6dC over about 5,000 years. The standard graph seems to agree with that:-
The site:- http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/paleoclimate.htm
The graph is the farthest down, Vostok Core source.
Within all that comes the caution about 'fastest'. There some paleo evidence of eye-popping temperature surges:
http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/ce120799.html
4. Emergence from an Ice-age
... The 18O/16O analysis of Greenland ice cores shows that an immense melting of glacier ice began about 13,000 years ago and was essentially completed within a millenium. But this information is slow-moving in time, although it possesses the great merit of being of world-wide significance. On a more restricted geographical scale, fossil insect records show that the summer temperature in Britain rose by 10oC or more in as little as 50 years, an essentially decisive indication of a catastrophic event as its cause. The fossil insect record also shows that a second catastrophic event of a similar nature occurred 10,000 years ago, again with a major temperature rise in only a few decades. ...
As a comparison, global rise is going on right now at +.2dC per decade. Fred Hoyle's presentation is about +2.0dC per decade!

My pref is say the pollution volumes correlate with a lot of environmental corrosion - warming and climate are at or near the top of the problem list.
Cause and effect can be a beartrap with a snap - especially with something like weather, climate, and change. Ex. aerosols cause both heating and cooling, and may be neutral at night.

Mmmmm, not bad enough to re-design the world's economy.
The good news is the empty bath ...
It's taking a lot of work, a lot convincing, a lot of challenging, and a lot of proving. It should.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3D Peruna > wrote:

A variation on the so-called "Galileo gambit"; Google for details.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Raymond Arritt wrote:

One doesn't need to go past the medical profession to have proofs of the herd heading off in the wrong direction...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.