Filo
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,910
|
Post by Filo on Apr 19, 2009 19:11:05 GMT -5
Wow... it seems to go up quickly from the mid-1950s... was there something that people started to buy and use during that time around the world that emitted CO2? Wonder what it could be.... Looks like the old folks were right. Those gosh darn rock-and-roll records are bad for you. They even cause global warming.
|
|
DrumsGoBang
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
DrumsGoBang - Bang Bang
Posts: 910
|
Post by DrumsGoBang on Apr 20, 2009 7:58:48 GMT -5
Global Warming doesn't exist. It was created by the greeting card companies in 1956 to sell Earth Day cards. When Al Gore found out about it in 1984 he was blackmailed into going along with it because the card companies found out his secret....he eats babies.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Apr 20, 2009 8:40:07 GMT -5
I am currently burning as much styrofoam and tires as I possibly can, because that new show on The History Channel, "Life After People" looks like it's gonna be really cool and I want to make that happen as soon as possible.
We're never going to destroy this planet, just maybe our way of life on it. And to that, I say, "Meh, we've had a pretty good run."
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 20, 2009 10:25:00 GMT -5
Can joke about it all you want but the data keeps increasing indicating the planet is not warming. You're joking here, right? Ten warmest years on record: Global 10 Warmest Years Mean Global temperature (°C) (anomaly with respect to 1961-1990) 1998 0.52 2005 0.48 2003 0.46 2002 0.46 2004 0.43 2006 0.42 2007(Jan-Nov) 0.41 2001 0.40 (tie) 2008 0.40 (tie) 1997 0.36 First, the warmest day on record (as defined by your average temperature) was 1934, not one of the years you quoted. Seems scientists discovered they had made a mistake, heaven forbid. So, if you use 1934 as your measuring point and your average earth temperature, the earth has cooled since then. It has also cooled, according to your measurements, since 1998. Second, your graph is really impressive in that you (and scientists) chose to show the ordinate in tenths of degrees C to make the change look bigger than it might have been. Since 1880 we are talking about only a little over 1 degree Fahrenheit on your chart. Third, what is the significance of an average temperature, based on a few hundred measurements on the entire earth? See: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070315101129.htm. I could measure more than a one degree difference between my front yard and my back yard. And I could show you an almost 100 degree change in my yard between July and February. Yet, through hocus-pocus, scientists are able to show an "alarming" increase in "average" temperature. Question for you: how would you go about measuring the average temperature in your own yard for the year, accounting for the day of the year, time of day, location in your yard, accuracy of your thermometer, etc.? And, how would you integrate your measured temperatures with others over selected areas of the globe to define an "average earth temperature"? Until you and scientists can honestly answer these questions in a manner that is believable, I will continue to be a skeptic.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
|
Post by TC on Apr 20, 2009 10:45:23 GMT -5
Argument one : Warmest Day on Record is in 1934 = WEATHER (not climate). Look up the definitions of weather and climate. Argument two : Earth is warming but attack the statistics with some crazy argument about variance of yard temperatures. Last I checked, neither NASA or NOAA were determining global temperatures from a thermometer in my yard.
Let me get this straight - you fall back on the Church's opinions on war, capital punishment, and abortion - but climate change - which definitely threatens the sanctity of life, you disregard the Church's current position (it is happening and it is anthropogenic) and that of climate scientists and side with the Republican Party.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Apr 20, 2009 11:41:33 GMT -5
Argument one : Warmest Day on Record is in 1934 = WEATHER (not climate). Look up the definitions of weather and climate. Argument two : Earth is warming but attack the statistics with some crazy argument about variance of yard temperatures. Last I checked, neither NASA or NOAA were determining global temperatures from a thermometer in my yard. Let me get this straight - you fall back on the Church's opinions on war, capital punishment, and abortion - but climate change - which definitely threatens the sanctity of life, you disregard the Church's current position (it is happening and it is anthropogenic) and that of climate scientists and side with the Republican Party. I know that when I think global warming, I immediately want to know what the Vatican's position is? I think the Chruch's stance on war, capital punishment and abortion are a little more germane to the subject than its stance on global warming or, say, Adam vs. Danny.
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Apr 20, 2009 11:48:35 GMT -5
Argument one : Warmest Day on Record is in 1934 = WEATHER (not climate). Look up the definitions of weather and climate. Argument two : Earth is warming but attack the statistics with some crazy argument about variance of yard temperatures. Last I checked, neither NASA or NOAA were determining global temperatures from a thermometer in my yard. Let me get this straight - you fall back on the Church's opinions on war, capital punishment, and abortion - but climate change - which definitely threatens the sanctity of life, you disregard the Church's current position (it is happening and it is anthropogenic) and that of climate scientists and side with the Republican Party. I know that when I think global warming, I immediately want to know what the Vatican's position is? I think the Chruch's stance on war, capital punishment and abortion are a little more germane to the subject than its stance on global warming or, say, Adam vs. Danny. Yeah that "stewards of the Earth" part...that's the one part of the Bible that no longer applies. The stuff about Edited, though, that's all still totally applicable no questions asked.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
|
Post by TC on Apr 20, 2009 11:59:18 GMT -5
I think the Chruch's stance on war, capital punishment and abortion are a little more germane to the subject than its stance on global warming or, say, Adam vs. Danny. Oh, I disagree - having to listen to Danny Bonaduce on the radio is definitely an affront to the sanctity of life.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 20, 2009 12:44:54 GMT -5
TC, totally off topic, but Psych is awesome.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 20, 2009 12:45:20 GMT -5
Argument one : Warmest Day on Record is in 1934 = WEATHER (not climate). Look up the definitions of weather and climate. Argument two : Earth is warming but attack the statistics with some crazy argument about variance of yard temperatures. Last I checked, neither NASA or NOAA were determining global temperatures from a thermometer in my yard. Let me get this straight - you fall back on the Church's opinions on war, capital punishment, and abortion - but climate change - which definitely threatens the sanctity of life, you disregard the Church's current position (it is happening and it is anthropogenic) and that of climate scientists and side with the Republican Party. I don't care about your definitions. Was 1934 warmer than 2007 or 2008? Was 1998 warmer than 2007 or 2008? Using your definitions. The subject of this thread is Global WARMING. Let me get this straight - you fall back on scientist's opinions on evolution and "climate change" but disregard scientist's position on embryos and their later developed grown humans as being one and the same? Since you didn't like my questions about temperatures in my yard, let me rephrase. How can scientists reliably take measurements, each with a measuring error averaging about 0.3 degrees C, at selected locations over the globe, and account for day of the year and time of the day, and integrate these measurements over the entire globe (including areas where there was no measurement) and arrive at a meaningful "average", accurate to within a tenth of a degree so they can be plotted on a graph who's ordinate is tenths of a degree? It would be helpful if you would answer that question rather than ridiculing the one who asks the question.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
|
Post by TC on Apr 20, 2009 13:16:10 GMT -5
Let me get this straight - you fall back on scientist's opinions on evolution and "climate change" but disregard scientist's position on embryos and their later developed grown humans as being one and the same? Exactly, Ed! I would never argue that the fetus does not exist against all scientific evidence to the contrary. The abortion debate is over who gets priority when (mother/fetus) - not whether the fetus exists in reality or whether or not the causes of the fetus are anthropogenic. Since you didn't like my questions about temperatures in my yard, let me rephrase. How can scientists reliably take measurements, each with a measuring error averaging about 0.3 degrees C, at selected locations over the globe, and account for day of the year and time of the day, and integrate these measurements over the entire globe (including areas where there was no measurement) and arrive at a meaningful "average", accurate to within a tenth of a degree so they can be plotted on a graph who's ordinate is tenths of a degree? Read Hansen, et all (1999) or Hansen, et all (2001) to see where he comes up with his figures and how he deals with variance. I think the 2001 report is the one the chart is from.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Apr 20, 2009 15:06:47 GMT -5
Let me get this straight - you fall back on scientist's opinions on evolution and "climate change" but disregard scientist's position on embryos and their later developed grown humans as being one and the same? Exactly, Ed! I would never argue that the fetus does not exist against all scientific evidence to the contrary. The abortion debate is over who gets priority when (mother/fetus) - not whether the fetus exists in reality or whether or not the causes of the fetus are anthropogenic. Since you didn't like my questions about temperatures in my yard, let me rephrase. How can scientists reliably take measurements, each with a measuring error averaging about 0.3 degrees C, at selected locations over the globe, and account for day of the year and time of the day, and integrate these measurements over the entire globe (including areas where there was no measurement) and arrive at a meaningful "average", accurate to within a tenth of a degree so they can be plotted on a graph who's ordinate is tenths of a degree? Read Hansen, et all (1999) or Hansen, et all (2001) to see where he comes up with his figures and how he deals with variance. I think the 2001 report is the one the chart is from. You didn't answer my questions about 1934 and 1998.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 20, 2009 16:59:51 GMT -5
. Second, your graph is really impressive in that you (and scientists) Not ALL scientist Ed. There are some who still have rational minds and refuse to give into popular culture and scientific fads. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmingand these arent people from Devry university- Harvard, USC, Wisconsin, University of Ottawa, Colorado St., Columbia. The thing that bothers me the most about this whole global warming bull is that the popular belief is that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and that ALL scientists agree with that sentiment.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Apr 20, 2009 18:31:38 GMT -5
. Second, your graph is really impressive in that you (and scientists) Not ALL scientist Ed. There are some who still have rational minds and refuse to give into popular culture and scientific fads. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmingand these arent people from Devry university- Harvard, USC, Wisconsin, University of Ottawa, Colorado St., Columbia. The thing that bothers me the most about this whole global warming bull Edited is that the popular belief is that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and that ALL scientists agree with that sentiment. I just think if all scientists agree or not, who cares? If a majority agree...and there's a fair amount of support for the causes...and the policies are rationally weighed against other options, we're probably in good shape. But of course, that never happens. As with most political struggles it's an all-in push that ruins the entire conversation. Remember "Global warming will cause our axis to tip and go hurtling into space?" Or how about "We will run out of fresh water by 2010?" I heard those in junior high. Scared me to death. Scientists almost always make broad predictions and, here's the kicker, because they're scientists they actually calculate and run multiple scenarios. Pundits and idealogues don't. Instead they take the worst scenario, push it in the press, and try to make it the justification for their policy positions. So what happens with fear-mongering? Pretty soon you realize there are no WMDs and we're not going to run into Jupiter. The worst part is the other side of the always binary argument feeds the fire by saying stupid things like "Global warming isn't happening." It's happening. The rate, significance in the scheme of global history, control we have over it, and the policy implications thereof are debatable. Why not debate those instead of just stonewalling the entire notion? Same reason we were hurtling towards Jupiter. Extremism justifies deaf ears and kills debate. And nobody wants debate in politics. That would be like work or something.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 20, 2009 18:33:16 GMT -5
. Second, your graph is really impressive in that you (and scientists) Not ALL scientist Ed. There are some who still have rational minds and refuse to give into popular culture and scientific fads. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmingand these arent people from Devry university- Harvard, USC, Wisconsin, University of Ottawa, Colorado St., Columbia. The thing that bothers me the most about this whole global warming bull Edited is that the popular belief is that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and that ALL scientists agree with that sentiment. A list of scientists supporting your position is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is data and research, and like it or not, the research at this point supports the conclusion that it's happening, and that it's man made. This is based on volumes upon volumes of observation and experiment, which is all a Google search away if you care to read it. However, all the "evidence" I hear from the denialists ranges from the deceitful (citing only 5 years of a 200 year graph showing global average temperature) to the truly moronic ("It's snowing in April!!!"). A fancy wit can't win you scientific dispute, only data can. There is an intellectually honest libertarian position that I've seen espoused that states that while AGW is happening, retooling our economy to stop it would be too disruptive. While I don't agree with this argument, at least it's based in reality and doesn't involve denying established science like a creationist, PETA member, or anti-vaccination kook. You might want to look into it.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,458
|
Post by TC on Apr 20, 2009 19:14:52 GMT -5
I don't care about your definitions. Was 1934 warmer than 2007 or 2008? Was 1998 warmer than 2007 or 2008? Using your definitions. The subject of this thread is Global WARMING. 1998 was warmer than 2007 and 2008. The chart whips back and forth but the overall trendline rises.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 20, 2009 21:18:06 GMT -5
. Second, your graph is really impressive in that you (and scientists) Not ALL scientist Ed. There are some who still have rational minds and refuse to give into popular culture and scientific fads. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warmingand these arent people from Devry university- Harvard, USC, Wisconsin, University of Ottawa, Colorado St., Columbia. The thing that bothers me the most about this whole global warming bull Edited is that the popular belief is that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt and that ALL scientists agree with that sentiment. Well, let's ignore the "wikipedia as a source" issue, and move on... Your wikipedia article does not agree with ed. Out of all the scientists there, there are only three listed that disagree with the concept that the planet is not warming. There are some who have issues with the methodology and don't know if it is warming and there are some who don't think it is man-made and some who don't know. Here's my issue with your thinking: we're not going to know for certain. Consensus could be wrong. It's almost certainly wrong about something. But here's the thing: the real world often has to make decisions based on imperfect data. If the cost is better mileage for cars, better air filters, etc., and the vast majority is of the opinion that global warming is occurring and manmade (and I bet even some of your skeptics will say SOME of it is manmade), then that seems like an easy trade-off. I get you're a libertarian, and this is where we're always going to conflict. There's no absolute freedom in this world -- and the environment is a common good.
|
|
jgalt
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,380
|
Post by jgalt on Apr 20, 2009 21:44:25 GMT -5
A list of scientists supporting your position is not scientific evidence. Scientific evidence is data and research, and like it or not, the research at this point supports the conclusion that it's happening, and that it's man made. This is based on volumes upon volumes of observation and experiment, which is all a Google search away if you care to read it. You must not have bothered to read that link. It is not only a list of names. Each name is associated with a short description of their objection and a link to where this objection is found and the scientific evidence that their view is based on. The link states: Finally, if your main argument is that because "many" scientist believe something, that is pretty lame. I wont begin to cite the thousands of examples in history where this has turned out to be the worst reason to believe something.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,783
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Apr 20, 2009 22:16:40 GMT -5
You must not have bothered to read that link. I did read the link. In fact what you posted is more or less what I said. Perhaps if you read the argument you're jumping into, you would have seen that Ed was arguing the validity of the claim that the Earth's climate is warming. Only three of the folks listed on your link actually had an issue with that point. That's my point. That's true. Of course, so is believing something simply because you want it to be true, or believing something because the vast minority of the scientific community has qualms. What's more ridiculous? Believing something because the majority of the scientific community does or believing something else against the majority? I'm sure your argument is based upon your years of personal scientific research. The rest of us living in the real world have to evaluate things like this by incorporating multiple, conflicting viewpoints. Lack of action is still an action. There's a chance that the idea that global warming is occurring, man made, and a problem is wrong. But you have to make a decision off imperfect information. I'm trying to figure out why I would ignore it -- what's the cost? The economic implications are wildly overstated. If we need better air filters, we need air filter factories and air filter scientists. If we need high mpg cars, we need research and new capital investment and new plants and people have to buy new cars. I'm trying to figure out why you wouldn't take simple steps to reduce carbon emissions, especially since even if global warming isn't real, it's kinda nice not to breathe that crap. I agree science outputs shouldn't be politicized, but they are outputs into the political process. If we were talking about something like the Malaria example, where air filters would cost people's lives, I understand the POV. Heck, I think this argument may even have merit in developing countries in some industries. However, in the U.S., I simply don't see it. It would be one thing if the cost was horrifically high. It would be another thing if the consensus wasn't that global warming is occurring and manmade.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Apr 20, 2009 22:16:56 GMT -5
That's perhaps the exact opposite of what I was arguing. My point was that "# of people believe X" is not logically valid (it's called the bandwagon fallacy). The only thing that matters in a scientific dispute is data and research. Most of the people on your list are taking issue with studies done by others. This is, of course, completely valid, but it's not enough to overture the volumes of good research on the other side. Let's see some conflicting data, damnit! Ah, an appeal to "science was wrong before" Weak tea, my friend.
|
|