Global Warming/Climate Change

[GTWT]

Scepticism (and by 'scepticism' I mean skepticism) is healthy. It should, however, be informed by some knowledge of the subject. The vast majority of climate scientists - the people with knowledge - believe that climate change is occurring, that it is in large part due to man's activity, and that it will have a huge impact on the well-being of our children & grandchildren.

Man has released massive amounts of CO2. CO2 is a well-documented green-house gas. The earth's mean temperature has shown a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels.

You may believe that climate change isn't happening or that it isn't due to human burning of fossil carbon. Your belief, however, isn't based on science. It's based on economics, or ideology, or some misinformation you've been exposed to.

Edited August 10, 2012 by GTWT

[HoustonEagle]

Scepticism is healthy. It should, however, be informed by some knowledge of the subject. The vast majority of climate scientists - the people with knowledge - believe that climate change is occurring, that it is in large part due to man's activity, and that it will have a huge impact on the well-being of our children & grandchildren.

Man has released massive amounts of CO2. CO2 is a well-documented green-house gas. The earth's mean temperature has shown a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels.

You may believe that climate change isn't happening or that it isn't due to human burning of fossil carbon. Your belief, however, isn't based on science. It's based on economics, or ideology, or some misinformation you've been exposed to.

Have to say, I agree with everything in this post.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Scepticism is healthy. It should, however, be informed by some knowledge of the subject. The vast majority of climate scientists - the people with knowledge - believe that climate change is occurring, that it is in large part due to man's activity, and that it will have a huge impact on the well-being of our children & grandchildren.

Man has released massive amounts of CO2. CO2 is a well-documented green-house gas. The earth's mean temperature has shown a strong correlation with atmospheric CO2 levels.

You may believe that climate change isn't happening or that it isn't due to human burning of fossil carbon. Your belief, however, isn't based on science. It's based on economics, or ideology, or some misinformation you've been exposed to.

Usually scientific conclusions demand evidence. And, as they say, correlation does not imply causation. My skepticism has little to do with economics or ideology. But it does have to do with lack of data that prove global warming is tied to manmade causes.

But you go ahead and cling to your elitist attitude if it makes you feel better.

[GTWT]

Usually scientific conclusions demand evidence.

There's quite a bit of evidence in the scientific literature. I assume you're familiar with it.

And, as they say, correlation does not imply causation.

Correlation doesn't imply causation but it is a necessary condition for causation.

My skepticism has little to do with economics or ideology. But it does have to do with lack of data that prove global warming is tied to manmade causes.

Again, I assume you're familiar with the relevant scientific literature and not just with what Tony Watts says the literature says.

But you go ahead and cling to your elitist attitude if it makes you feel better.

Thank you, I will.

[yyz28]

Usually scientific conclusions demand evidence. And, as they say, correlation does not imply causation. My skepticism has little to do with economics or ideology. But it does have to do with lack of data that prove global warming is tied to manmade causes.

This is exactly the point. Most long-term weather studies show us way warmer than we are now in the past 4000 years, and without human intervention have seen MAJOR sudden drops in temps (1300 A.D is estimated to be considerably hotter than we are now, and within 100 years, they were in the midst of a minor "ice age".) Recent Highs have been in 1991 and 1998, and the trend since 98 has been a downward trend, yet CO2 production continues to be linear. Not only is correlation not equal to causation, we don't really even have correlation when you look at all the evidence. Current consensus is that the current cooling trend may well last through the 2010's, and is predicted to see us under the "57* Normal" mark for several years, with another 1998 beating peak in the 30's. Time will tell, but CO2 emissions still continue to be linear while the temp swings all over the map...

Edited August 10, 2012 by yyz28

[GTWT]

the trend since 98 has been a downward trend, yet CO2 production continues to be linear. ... Current consensus is that the current cooling trend may well last through the 2010's...

“During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 consecutive months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 1,594,323.“

~National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/summary-info/national/2012/6

Edited August 10, 2012 by GTWT

[Monkeypox]

“During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 consecutive months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 1,594,323.“

~National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

http://www.ncdc.noaa...national/2012/6

I would assume you've read and rejected the studies on selection bias present in data collection of the NOAA?

[yyz28]

“During the June 2011-June 2012 period, each of the 13 consecutive months ranked among the warmest third of their historical distribution for the first time in the 1895-present record. The odds of this occurring randomly is 1 in 1,594,323.“

~National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

http://www.ncdc.noaa...national/2012/6

Who said it is occurring randomly? What a straw man. Assuming you buy that data, and I don't based on some of NOAA's history, to state that it isn't random and may have a cause is NOT the same as saying man is causing it. We KNOW we're going through the peak of the 12 year solar cycle. ...and it's interesting that they don't include the fact that the 4 months BEFORE June 2011 were some of the COLDEST on record.

The logic in the cause and effect is wrong - IF (and that's a big if) it isn't random, it must be man made? Pretty big leap there if you ask me.

[GTWT]

I would assume you've read and rejected the studies on selection bias present in data collection of the NOAA?

Sounds interesting. Link please.

[GTWT]

Who said it is occurring randomly? What a straw man. Assuming you buy that data, and I don't based on some of NOAA's history, to state that it isn't random and may have a cause is NOT the same as saying man is causing it. We KNOW we're going through the peak of the 12 year solar cycle. ...and it's interesting that they don't include the fact that the 4 months BEFORE June 2011 were some of the COLDEST on record.

The logic in the cause and effect is wrong - IF (and that's a big if) it isn't random, it must be man made? Pretty big leap there if you ask me.

YYZ28, I know you're too intelligent to reject an analysis just because it comes from NOAA. Do you doubt the moon landings because the information is from NASA?

If the link isn't random, and it certainly doesn't seem to be, the relationship withhuman activity is the one I gave earlier - CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Man has released massive amounts of CO2 that had been sequestered in fossil fuel deposits. The rise in global temperatures over that time is what one would expect if, indeed, the released CO2 was causing the increase in temperature.

I would like to acknowledge that I dodn't expect to change your mind using science. The science isn't why you deny anthropogenic climate change. Other folks, people who are still open to argument, should know that your doubt of the reality of climate change isn't rational. Rather it's a defense mechanism gone awry.

Edited August 11, 2012 by GTWT

[Monkeypox]

Actually, science isn't the reason anyone believes in anthropogenic global warming, at least, not if we're being honest. Any person truly interested in the science would reject the methods and data mining that both sides have been using to further their agendas. Fact of the matter is we are incapable of accurately measuring our impact, and it's unlikely we'll overcome our limitations in the fields of climatology, meteorology, and geology enough to make any such claims with scientific accuracy. When scientists can't agree on the timeframe of leads between temperature and CO2 or agree on even theoretical feedbacks from global warming, there's simply nothing to compel one to trust in the climate models. When they're having to take "best guesses" at the interactions between deep sea environments and atmosphere, I can't honestly see how anyone can take these models as scientifically accurate. Furthermore, nearly ALL of the studies on global warming over the last 20 years have been conducted under the premise that global warming IS manmade. IOW, that's all they're looking for.

Personally, I don't care what causes global warming. If human extinction is an inevitability, so be it. If we can fix it, great. But our analysis of it and reaction to it should be based in good science, not feel-good philosophy.

I firmly believe we're relying far too much on fossil fuels, that we need to improve technologies, and that we need to work towards minimizing our impact on the planet. But until I hear sensible solutions and see the real backing put into smart projects, I'll continue to rail against bunk science and fairytale politics.

[UNT90]

YYZ28, I know you're too intelligent to reject an analysis just because it comes from NOAA. Do you doubt the moon landings because the information is from NASA?

If the link isn't random, and it certainly doesn't seem to be, the relationship withhuman activity is the one I gave earlier - CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas. Man has released massive amounts of CO2 that had been sequestered in fossil fuel deposits. The rise in global temperatures over that time is what one would expect if, indeed, the released CO2 was causing the increase in temperature.

I would like to acknowledge that I dodn't expect to change your mind using science. The science isn't why you deny anthropogenic climate change. Other folks, people who are still open to argument, should know that your doubt of the reality of climate change isn't rational. Rather it's a defense mechanism gone awry.

Or, your human emotional need for control and the belief that since you can affect something, you can change it, is a defense mechanism that has gone awry.

Edited August 11, 2012 by UNT90

[UNTstormchaser]

Or, your human emotional need for control and the belief that since you can affect something, you can change it, is a defense mechanism that has gone awry.

Yup, because the fact that we have released billions upon billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere certainly isn't cause for the belief that we can effect and change our environment...

[UNT90]

Yup, because the fact that we have released billions upon billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere certainly isn't cause for the belief that we can effect and change our environment...

Humans emit C02 with every breath. The earth's population has tripled or quadrupled in the last 150 years.

Maybe we should start thinning the heard?

[GreenMachine]

Humans emit C02 with every breath. The earth's population has tripled or quadrupled in the last 150 years.

Maybe we should start thinning the heard?

Probably more helpful to thin the herd.

[Andrew]

Love your avatar green machine! I knew people who had common sense used these boards!!

[GreenMachine]

Love your avatar green machine! I knew people who had common sense used these boards!!

Thank you! However,it doesn't take much reading to see people with no common sense post here too.

[UNTstormchaser]

Humans emit C02 with every breath. The earth's population has tripled or quadrupled in the last 150 years.

Maybe we should start thinning the heard?

Probably more helpful to thin the herd.

I actually totally agree with your point UNT90. Though the amount we breathe out pales in comparison to the amount that is produced through the burning of fossil fuels, it is still very significant, and since our population is growing rapidly and we're making the plant population dwindle rapidly, it's a bad combination. I think mother nature will be thinning the herd soon enough, as batshit crazy as that may sound. We're overdue for a major cataclysm. Be it the supervolcano in Yellowstone that is 60,000 years overdue and showing signs of increased activity, the meteor in 2033 that is going to miss us at first but has a 1 in 1,000 chance of hitting us on it's backswing around the Earth, some freakish famine caused by mass drought that could already be beginning, we're due. Or, we could blow ourselves up in a World War 3, which isn't that unlikely either. Thin the herd it is!

Edited August 12, 2012 by UNTstormchaser

[Monkeypox]

Well, now we're getting interesting. Having a child is actually the worst thing an individual can do, if they're interested in protecting the environment. Interesting that you'll never see that on a list of "ways to reduce your carbon footprint," even though having a single child will negate 100% recycling, driving less while having a greener car that gets high mpg, living in a green house, using only high efficiency bulbs...

[UNTstormchaser]

Well, now we're getting interesting. Having a child is actually the worst thing an individual can do, if they're interested in protecting the environment. Interesting that you'll never see that on a list of "ways to reduce your carbon footprint," even though having a single child will negate 100% recycling, driving less while having a greener car that gets high mpg, living in a green house, using only high efficiency bulbs...

Agreed, but asking a life form to stop performing the main function of life (reproducing) for the sake of life, is kind of counter-intuitive. Having children isn't really the issue here in the US, that's the issue in poorer nations where people still insist on having 7 kids.

[GTWT]

Actually, science isn't the reason anyone believes in anthropogenic global warming, at least, not if we're being honest.

Well, the people who actually practice science, say the American Association for the Advancement of Science, disagree...

http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=447

[oldguystudent]

I produced a single child who will likely have some form of association with UNT in a few years. So sue me and charge the damages to my carbon credit account.

[Monkeypox]

Well, the people who actually practice science, say the American Association for the Advancement of Science, disagree...

http://archives.aaas....php?doc_id=447

They can practice it all they want. Until they increase their knowledge, though, and address prime faults in their scientific process and methods, then it's just profit by means of conjecture. People who practice science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. People who practice science used to believe that vaccinations in the 80s wouldn't stop working in 2000. Quite frankly, you can post all the links you want, but until you post one about consensus in the scientific community regarding lead times of CO2 temperature change or absolute analysis of deep sea interaction with the atmosphere, then this "science" is based on faulty climate models. By the way, I can keep going, there's at least 3 or 4 more areas where climate models fail and rely on conjecture.

But again, I'm not expecting scientific debate here. Pointing out the lack of clean science in the matter is the same as pointing to a lack of consensus on Biblical interpretations. People believe what they believe, and they're not going to change it.

[Monkeypox]

Agreed, but asking a life form to stop performing the main function of life (reproducing) for the sake of life, is kind of counter-intuitive. Having children isn't really the issue here in the US, that's the issue in poorer nations where people still insist on having 7 kids.

In which case, people in the US should adopt the children from those poorer nations until they catch up. Fact of the matter is, if you have a child, you have no business asking someone else to change their lifestyle. If you claim that you want to reduce your carbon footprint, and then go and have children, you're a hypocrite. It's worse than driving an SUV while eating veal and towing a boat to go to a McMansion that's insulated with blue whale blubber and baby seal fur,cools itself with the stolen polar ice caps, and heats itself by burning blood diamonds.

Also, the reason it's a problem in the US is also the consumption of resources per capita. While we might have some cleaner technologies and tighter EPA regulations, we're still MASSIVE consumers (who, in the end, pass on a lot of the carbon footprint of our consumption onto those poorer countries full of brown people so we can feel better about ourselves).

[UNTstormchaser]

They can practice it all they want. Until they increase their knowledge, though, and address prime faults in their scientific process and methods, then it's just profit by means of conjecture. People who practice science used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. People who practice science used to believe that vaccinations in the 80s wouldn't stop working in 2000. Quite frankly, you can post all the links you want, but until you post one about consensus in the scientific community regarding lead times of CO2 temperature change or absolute analysis of deep sea interaction with the atmosphere, then this "science" is based on faulty climate models. By the way, I can keep going, there's at least 3 or 4 more areas where climate models fail and rely on conjecture.

But again, I'm not expecting scientific debate here. Pointing out the lack of clean science in the matter is the same as pointing to a lack of consensus on Biblical interpretations. People believe what they believe, and they're not going to change it.

There is zero question that the ocean plays the largest role in the climate of the Earth.