Ok stop disputing (man's effect on) climate change

monkey spanker

anybody know why greenland is called what it is? the earth has been heating up and cooling off since long before we came around, and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.

sourdough

monkey spanker wrote:

anybody know why greenland is called what it is? the earth has been heating up and cooling off since long before we came around, and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.

Nobody is disuputing that climate has fluctuated in the past and will in the future due to natural causes. That is not what this debate is about.

searchlightsoul

sourdough wrote:

Nobody is disuputing that climate has fluctuated in the past and will in the future due to natural causes. That is not what this debate is about.

But when you realise that climate has fluctuated often rapidly in the past it becomes difficult to understand why people expect it to always be the same into the future.

Obi Once

acoustic guy wrote:

Too me it makes sense to say that we are to blame for the melting but my father in law who is a really intellingent guy makes some good points about how people forget that the last Ice Age ended about ten thousand years ago which is not that long ago when you are talking about the earths life span.
The earth goes thru changes, some more drastic then others.
With that said i do believe we need to start to really make some serious changes in how we live our life.

He sounds like an inteligent man, and it's true, the earth has cycles in climate, but there is a trend of heating that is not supposed to happen YET if we look at the bigger picture. The last ice age is not like in the cartoon movie, it was a mild change. Fanch provided a good link for that.

monkey spanker wrote:

scientists can't even predict if we're going to have a dry winter, or a snowy one. but we are supposed to put our economy on hold because they think in 90 years the ocean may be 7 inches deeper? the bigger question is, what will the alarmists hang onto next? the population explosion didn't wipe us out. the ice age didn't get us. the hole in the ozone layer caused by hair spray didn't kill us off. AIDS didn't wipe out large portions of our country like they told us. acid rain didn't get us...........

the same people that tell us not to worry about islamic terrorism, tell us to worry about everything else. its almost enough to make you think they may have an agenda.

They same people? Islamic terrorism is something the whole of the western world is alarmed about, yet I don't let it control my peace of mind or social and political point of view.

And comparing the weather forecast to climate change makes no sense. Time for the bigger picture so start reading a bit more.

And there is no reason to put the economy on hold to find solutions to fight global warming.

searchlightsoul wrote:

The whole nature of science is to continually question and test theories. It's quality control. The UN report stated that it was 'very likely' that humans are responsible for much of global climate change but even then it remains a correlation and open to criticism because there are many other variables which affect climate. Simply because most scientist in a field support it does not change its ability to be falsified or altered.

No but it does mean the mayority of scientists agree on it. Just like the mayority agrees dinosaurs lived on the earth, some try to dispute it with very dumb excuses, yet I think we can agree they existed. Same now goes for our impact on the greenhouse effect and thus climate chage.

Obi Once

monkey spanker wrote:

the earth has been heating up and cooling off since long before we came around, and it will continue to do so long after we are gone.

Sure it will, but don't underestimate the melting of the ice in Greenland and the rise of water or the discontinuation of the (warm) North Atlantic Current.

polaris

again ... those who dispute climate change have either ...

1. not bothered to read about it and are likely googling "climate change is a fraud" to get their info ..

or

2. too stubborn to jump off that conservative bandwagon ... one in which even the conservatives here and bush have leaped off ...

**************

we need wide-scale changes ... let's not get distracted with people who aren't even willing to provide a legitimate source to their info ...

Obi Once

polaris wrote:

again ... those who dispute climate change have either ...

1. not bothered to read about it and are likely googling "climate change is a fraud" to get their info ..

or

2. too stubborn to jump off that conservative bandwagon ... one in which even the conservatives here and bush have leaped off ...

**************

we need wide-scale changes ... let's not get distracted with people who aren't even willing to provide a legitimate source to their info ...

And that is exactly what I'm trying to achieve, hopefully by informing these people with some SCIENTIFICAL FACTS instead of the politically shaped nonsense they've heard and read they might actually learn something. I'm not interested in doom scenarios, but in solutions. And even if I am completely wrong tempering the rise in temperature will only do good.

polaris

Obi Once wrote:

And that is exactly what I'm trying to achieve, hopefully by informing these people with some SCIENTIFICAL FACTS instead of the politically shaped nonsense they've heard and read they might actually learn something. I'm not interested in doom scenarios, but in solutions. And even if I am completely wrong tempering the rise in temperature will only do good.

340,000 displaced in indonesia due to flooding ... how many will die? ... time to forget the "skeptics" ...

Smellyman2

I like to be a glass half full (or "half glass full" as Bush said) guy. The good news about global warming is Florida would be first to go.

sourdough

searchlightsoul wrote:

But when you realise that climate has fluctuated often rapidly in the past it becomes difficult to understand why people expect it to always be the same into the future.

I don't think anyone is saying that it will not change again under natural conditions, but clearly the science is showing that this is NOT just a natural fluctation. With the amount of greenhouse gasses that we are putting into the atmosphere along with the abrupt and severe spike (which has not occurred before naturally) there is reason for concern. If we can attribute the changes as human caused damage, then we must re-asses our attitudes and actions.

searchlightsoul

polaris wrote:

340,000 displaced in indonesia due to flooding ... how many will die? ... time to forget the "skeptics" ...

There you go again. You have absolutely no evidence to support this and as such it is blatant misinformation. Greenhouse periods reduce the variability of climatic events as the past testifies. Please read the bottom paragraph espescially:


Century of Data Shows Intensification of Water Cycle but No Increase in Storms or Floods
Released: 3/15/2006 12:13:21 PM

U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication

Editors: Copies of the report "Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis," are available to reporters from the author.

A review of the findings from more than 100 peer-reviewed studies shows that although many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified, including precipitation and evaporation, this trend has not consistently resulted in an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms or floods over the past century. The USGS findings, which have implications on the effect of global climate change, are published today in the Journal of Hydrology.

"A key question in the global climate debate is if the climate warms in the future, will the water cycle intensify and what will be the nature of that intensification," said USGS scientist Thomas Huntington, who authored the study. "This is important because intensification of the water cycle could change water availability and increase the frequency of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere could amplify climate warming."

For the report, Huntington reviewed data presented in more than 100 scientific studies. Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing. The key point with the glaciers is that there is more snowfall resulting in more wintertime mass accumulation – another indication of intensification.

"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.

Huntington notes that the long term and global scale of this study could accommodate significant variability, for example, the last two Atlantic hurricane seasons.

"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.

Link to article- http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1475

searchlightsoul

Smellyman wrote:

I like to be a glass half full (or "half glass full" as Bush said) guy. The good news about global warming is Florida would be first to go.

Hooray to that!

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

There you go again. You have absolutely no evidence to support this and as such it is blatant misinformation. Greenhouse periods reduce the variability of climatic events as the past testifies. Please read the bottom paragraph espescially:


Century of Data Shows Intensification of Water Cycle but No Increase in Storms or Floods
Released: 3/15/2006 12:13:21 PM

U.S. Geological Survey
Office of Communication

Editors: Copies of the report "Evidence for intensification of the global water cycle: Review and synthesis," are available to reporters from the author.

A review of the findings from more than 100 peer-reviewed studies shows that although many aspects of the global water cycle have intensified, including precipitation and evaporation, this trend has not consistently resulted in an increase in the frequency or intensity of tropical storms or floods over the past century. The USGS findings, which have implications on the effect of global climate change, are published today in the Journal of Hydrology.

"A key question in the global climate debate is if the climate warms in the future, will the water cycle intensify and what will be the nature of that intensification," said USGS scientist Thomas Huntington, who authored the study. "This is important because intensification of the water cycle could change water availability and increase the frequency of tropical storms, floods, and droughts, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere could amplify climate warming."

For the report, Huntington reviewed data presented in more than 100 scientific studies. Although data are not complete, and sometimes contradictory, the weight of evidence from past studies shows on a global scale that precipitation, runoff, atmospheric water vapor, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, growing season length, and wintertime mountain glacier mass are all increasing. The key point with the glaciers is that there is more snowfall resulting in more wintertime mass accumulation – another indication of intensification.

"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.

Huntington notes that the long term and global scale of this study could accommodate significant variability, for example, the last two Atlantic hurricane seasons.

"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.

Link to article- http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=1475

what do you mean again?? ... are you saying there is no flooding in indonesia right now where 29 are already dead??

what does this last paragraph mean to you when you add the previous statement?

"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.

"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.

how can you say climate change reduces climate variability?? ... that contradicts everything in the IPCC report ... do you have any proof?? ... this report supports nothing of what you claim ... did you even read it?

searchlightsoul

polaris wrote:

"We are talking about two possible overall responses to global climate warming: first an intensification of the water cycle being manifested by more moisture in the air, more precipitation, more runoff, more evapotranspiration, which we do see in this study; and second, the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms which we don't see in this study," said Huntington.

"This intensification has been proposed and would logically seem to result in more flooding and more intense tropical storm seasons. But over the observational period, those effects are just not borne out by the data in a consistent way," said Huntington.

how can you say climate change reduces climate variability?? ... that contradicts everything in the IPCC report ... do you have any proof?? ... this report supports nothing of what you claim ... did you even read it?

Ah you evidently didn't read it

He states clearly that the intensfication of tropical storms would seem logical but is NOT supported- "not bourne out"- by the data. In other words tropical storm intensity has not increased in response to global warming.

I posted earlier about the uniformity of Mesozoic climate which during that period was a greenhouse system. Maybe you should read the posts?

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

Ah you evidently didn't read it

He states clearly that the intensfication of tropical storms would seem logical but is NOT supported ("not bourne out") by the data. In other words tropical storm intensity has not increased in response to global warming.

I posted earlier about the uniformity of Mesozoic climate which during that period was a greenhouse system. Maybe you should read the posts?

how do you read "not bourne out in a consistent way"?? ... it doesn't mean that it is not happening ... also ... if you HAD read the report - you will also see the note that data was incomplete and often contradictory ... but, that doesn't fit your ideas ... so, feel free to ignore it ...

again ... your theory has no scientific backing ... feel free to read the latest ipcc report ...

searchlightsoul

polaris wrote:

how do you read "not bourne out in a consistent way"?? ... it doesn't mean that it is not happening ... also ... if you HAD read the report - you will also see the note that data was incomplete and often contradictory ... but, that doesn't fit your ideas ... so, feel free to ignore it ...

again ... your theory has no scientific backing ... feel free to read the latest ipcc report ...

Look it is pretty clear that there is no evidence from this reprort to support intensification of storm systems and the term "not bourne out in a consistent way" followed by the comment "that the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms [which] we don't see in this study" pretty clearly supports my assertion. For Gods sake how a bout you read the TITLE!
Now how you can manipulate this into supporting the intensification of storms I'll never know but good luck.

polaris

searchlightsoul wrote:

Look it is pretty clear that there is no evidence from this reprort to support intensification of storm systems and the term "not bourne out in a consistent way" followed by the comment "that the potential effects of the intensification that would include more flooding and more tropical storms [which] we don't see in this study" pretty clearly supports my assertion. For Gods sake how a bout you read the TITLE!
Now how you can manipulate this into supporting the intensification of storms I'll never know but good luck.

first of all, your report shows evidence ... just not in a consistent way and with the disclaimer of incomplete data and contardictory information ... but apparently, this one report is definitive ... while all those other reports from the IPCC are not ...

so ... all these extreme weather events happening all over the world - are you saying its normal?

this study didn't even factor the most recent years where we have seen the most significant evidence of climate change ...

macgyver06

Ahnimus wrote:

Hey, I don't doubt human contribution to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. I doubt it's effects on global temperature.

Carbon Dioxide is what plants breath. It doesn't cause temperature change. If it does, it's insignificant. That's what I think anyway.

OMG!!! go breathe on some glass!

surferdude

macgyver06 wrote:

OMG!!! go breathe on some glass!

I did, now what?

As cows produce more CO2 emissions than humans, maybe we'd be best off to continue to drive our cars and kill all the cows.

polaris

surferdude wrote:

I did, now what?

As cows produce more CO2 emissions than humans, maybe we'd be best off to continue to drive our cars and kill all the cows.

lemme guess ... tim ball told you that ...