Global Warming? I don't know what to believe.

[rockgremlin]

Wow! You start right off with a statement that is impossible to prove and is actually the heart of the debate.

There is actually lots of 'if'. Not to mention numerous variations of 'if'.

Wasn't it just a few posts ago where you were admonishing folks for mixing facts with bullshit to try and sway the ignorant?

^^^THIS^^^

It seems to me that when it comes to GW, you latch onto only the points that bolster your position. If you disagree, you immediately label them as absurd and cast them aside without a second sniff. In the process, you condescend to anyone else who disagrees.

It's tough to have an objective discussion when your emotions are running the show.

[stefan]

And nobody has told me why the earth cooled in the 1970's. Everyone is conveniently dodging that question.

the timing of the temperature dip/plateau during the 40s through the 70s coincides very well with the pacific decadal oscillation switching into the cool phase and then back into the warm phase. it switches again into the cool phase in 1998 when the next so called pause occurred. it then switched back to warm phase in early 2013 when temps rose rapidly again. note that during this so-called "pause" in the surface temperature data, the ocean temperatures have been consistently rising. the ocean and atmosphere are a connected system and both need to be considered when looking for heat. if the PDO's cool phase is a signal of when the ocean can take in more heat, you can imagine surface temperatures flattening or dipping as additional heat retained would be going into the ocean.

[jman]

Scientists do know that while a volcanic eruption displaces a lot of CO2 in the air, the year or two that follows, the Earth goes into a cooling effect due to the contaminants in the air that reflect insolation (solar energy) back into space.

The last major eruption that had serious atmospheric repercussions which happened in 1992 - Mount Pinatubo (Philippines). And "major" eruption is classified as a 6 and above on the VEI (Volcanic Explosivity Index).

Global temps after the eruption for 3 years (!!!) was nearly 1 degree F cooler. Also, there was a significant drop in the ozone with the release of aerosols from the eruption.

Pinatubo was the last major eruption that put more particulate into the atmosphere since Krakatoa (1880s).

These smaller eruptions since Pinatubo, while significant, are not a major contributor to global CO2 levels increasing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tallsteve]

What can you do?

1. Don't have any more kids.
2. Live only in the space that you need.
3. Drive a smaller and more efficient vehicle.
4. Live closer to work.
5. Recycle.
6. Eat a vegan diet. If you eat meat, avoid beef. http://shrinkthatfootprint.com/food-...footprint-diet
7. Don't burn coal or truck tires in your fireplace.

What can government do? *throwing out a few obvious ideas*

1. Create policies that move us away from coal/oil, and toward natural gas.
2. Create policies that encourage the development and use of alternative energy.
3. Create policies for cleaner burning cars.

And... ?

1. I'm 57 and my wife is 55 so, yeah, we're done. I'd be dead set against US government mandated kid count control, however.
2. My home is modest now.
3. We only own 2 vehicles between the 2 of us and neither is a gas guzzler. I consolidate errand running now and am pretty much a home-body but, I do drive up the canyon near my home often.
4. My office is 2.5 miles from my home now and my wife's office is about 5 miles away. Can't get much closer.
5. When it's presented to me but, I don't sweat over it. I could do better here.
6. Interesting. I've never thought about it as a way to reduce carbon footprint. I eat very, very little beef now. I like turkey, chicken and fish.
7. I only have a gas fireplace which I don't use very often and I can't recall the last time I started a fire of any kind.

I'd probably give myself a B or B- as well.

[Slot Machine]

Wow! You start right off with a statement that is impossible to prove and is actually the heart of the debate.

There is actually lots of 'if'. Not to mention numerous variations of 'if'.

Amongst expert scientists there is no debate. All facts point to one conclusion (a really obvious conclusion).

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Are there black helicopters circling your house or something?

[Slot Machine]

It seems to me that when it comes to GW, you latch onto only the points that bolster your position. If you disagree, you immediately label them as absurd and cast them aside without a second sniff. In the process, you condescend to anyone else who disagrees.

It's tough to have an objective discussion when your emotions are running the show.

I have no vested interest in any position on this topic. All of the data points to one obvious conclusion. It is like saying I'm getting emotional about proving the world is round. I don't care that it is round. All of the evidence speaks to the fact that it is round. You are asking questions about it being round, I'm giving you data about it being round.

Actually, if I were to get emotional and have a personal position, I'd pretend the GW data and conclusions are false. I want to burn gasoline as bad as anyone. That stuff is awesome.

Wow! @jman and @stefan are loaded with pertinent info. ^Nice posts^. *impressed*

[Slot Machine]

I'd be dead set against US government mandated kid count control, however.

Why? Not arguing, or saying you are wrong. The US does not need such a mandate, with the exception of Provo (HA!). Really, I'm just curious.

I think that the world has about 4-5 billion too many people, and when oil runs out, the surplus will fight to the death. Luckily for us, we won't be here to see it.

[tallsteve]

Why? Not arguing, or saying you are wrong. The US does not need such a mandate, with the exception of Provo (HA!). Really, I'm just curious.

I think that the world has about 4-5 billion too many people, and when oil runs out, the surplus will fight to the death. Luckily for us, we won't be here to see it.

Religious reasons.

[Iceaxe]

Amongst expert scientists there is no debate. All facts point to one conclusion (a really obvious conclusion).

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Are there black helicopters circling your house or something?

You are wrong and you are again spinning facts and bullshit together to try and support your agenda.... Global warming might be a fact, that is something many will agree with, but that was not your original statement. Your original statement was..........

GW is caused by humans. There is no if.

So.... while global warming might be a fact, exactly how much if any is attributed to human is still very much in debate by most expert scientists.

And don't try and bullshit us that you don't have a dog in this fight. Reading your posts anyone can see you're the guy giving Al Gore a hand job, not that there is anything wrong with that....

[twotimer]

So I have DDavis telling me 2016 is the hottest on record, ever....then Scott is telling me we're still in an ice age.

Well, if both of them are right then we're REALLY screwed!

[rockgremlin]

There are continual comparisons between GW and the earth being round. But that's an apples and oranges comparison. One need only hike atop a large mountain and see the curvature to prove the rotundity of the earth. GW is different. The amount of observations and calculations that go into global climate data is massive, and changing all the time.

That said, I'm going to refer back to what I said waaay back on page 1: The earth is warming, no doubt. But the degree to which man is affecting that is up for debate...that is NOT debatable. There's no humanly way that we can claim "well if we had never burned fossil fuels the earth would be x degrees cooler."

So, GW is real. But what are we gonna do about it? It's nice that people don't have kids and ride bikes to work, but this is a global issue...which means that everybody the world over has to contribute to the solution. Good luck trying to convince the world's 7 billion people to convert to veganism, live in solar power yurts, and get around via bicycles and rickshaws.

In other words, it's nice that us white folks here in America can "decrease our carbon footprint," but honestly, in the grand scheme of things it's really only just allowing us to sleep better at night.

[jman]

In other words, it's nice that us white folks here in America can "decrease our carbon footprint," but honestly, in the grand scheme of things it's really only just allowing us to sleep better at night.

Are you implying "why bother then" or am I just inferring that?

And actually the world is waking up and becoming more conscious of these things.

Europe and Australia is on board when it comes emission controls and pollution. China is starting to change their ways. I'm not sure about Russia, Africa or South America, but us folks in America aren't the only ones who are caring about this issue.

And sure it may take decades to change, but it will happen. The traditions of your fathers are dying at a rapid pace and the younger generations are stepping up to the plate.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Slot Machine]

You are wrong and you are again spinning facts and bullshit together to try and support your agenda.... Global warming might be a fact, that is something many will agree with, but that was not your original statement. Your original statement was..........

What is my agenda? Studying data and coming to logical conclusions? If so, guilty as charged.

.... while global warming might be a fact, exactly how much if any is attributed to human is still very much in debate by most expert scientists.

How about some hard data form the IPCC? The IPCC shows that the earth would be cooler than it was in 1950, had we left the planet alone. So, we are responsible for MORE than 100% of the global warming observed since 1950. How is that for quantity? Is the IPCC not legit enough for you?

If you have data to refute this, now is your chance to shine.

don't try and bullshit us that you don't have a dog in this fight. Reading your posts anyone can see you're the guy giving Al Gore a hand job, not that there is anything wrong with that....

I could care less about the political side of this. This is about thwarting ignorance to me.

This is fun. I could dunk over you naysayers with science all. day. long.

[Slot Machine]

There are continual comparisons between GW and the earth being round. But that's an apples and oranges comparison. One need only hike atop a large mountain and see the curvature to prove the rotundity of the earth. GW is different. The amount of observations and calculations that go into global climate data is massive, and changing all the time.

Hundreds of years ago, claiming the earth was round was a serious topic of debate. Now those debates seem silly. After 10 years of looking at quality GW data, it seems silly (at least to me) to continue debating today. It is apples/apples to me.

However, I see how it is apples/oranges to you. I encourage you to keep looking at data. (not being snarky for a change)

So, GW is real. But what are we gonna do about it? It's nice that people don't have kids and ride bikes to work, but this is a global issue...which means that everybody the world over has to contribute to the solution. Good luck trying to convince the world's 7 billion people to convert to veganism, live in solar power yurts, and get around via bicycles and rickshaws.

In other words, it's nice that us white folks here in America can "decrease our carbon footprint," but honestly, in the grand scheme of things it's really only just allowing us to sleep better at night.

I agree with you on this^. We can do better, but it won't be good enough to make a substantial difference. The situation seems hopeless to me.

[rockgremlin]

Yea!! Me and Mr. Machine found some common ground!!

For the record, I reiterate that I don't refute that GW exists, just the degree of man's complicity in it.

I think the key to overcoming carbon emissions and hence GW lies in technology. Once we engineer a solar cell with the capability to efficiently produce as much energy as fossil fuels then that will be the turning point. Once solar makes fossil fuels obsolete we're golden. We're not there yet. But I believe possibly my children might live to see it happen. And that's what helps me sleep better at night. Well, that and eucalyptus/spearmint pillow mist. :)

[Slot Machine]

Yea!! Me and Mr. Machine found some common ground!!

Fot the record, I reiterate that I don't refute that GW exists, just the degree of man's complicity in it.

Dig into the IPCC data above. The chart I posted paints a clear picture. 100% our fault.

Summarized-

"Put it all together, and the IPCC is 95 percent confident that humans have caused most of the observed global surface warming over the past 60 years. Their best estimate is that humans have caused 100 percent of that global warming."

I think the key to overcoming carbon emissions and hence GW lies in technology. Once we engineer a solar cell with the capability to efficiently produce as much energy as fossil fuels then that will be the turning point. Once solar makes fossil fuels obsolete we're golden. We're not there yet. But I believe possibly my children might live to see it happen. And that's what helps me sleep better at night. Well, that and eucalyptus/spearmint pillow mist. :)

I wish that solar could replace oil, but it can't. Oil is very energy dense, but sunlight is not. 100% efficient solar cells don't even come close to competing with oil.

Natural gas will be a good replacement for a while. Once that runs out, humanity will suffer badly. But look at the bright side, CO2 emissions will come down during the apocalypse. Yay!

[Iceaxe]

Lemonade out of lemons....

......so tell me again why I should have my panties in a bunch over global warming? I really wasn't listening the first time as I was too busy riding my mountain bike in the middle of February. I have to say I'm not really seeing much of a downside today.

[ddavis]

NCAA cooked the books on climate change.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/...r-charges.html

A not-scandal, you mean. This is what the whistleblower himself has to say:
https://skepticalscience.com/bates-k...e-science.html

Whistleblower: ‘I knew people would misuse this.’ They did - to attack climate science Posted on 9 February 2017 by dana1981 This weekend, conservative media outlets launched an attack on climate scientists with a manufactured scandal. The fake news originated from an accusation made by former NOAA scientist John Bates about a 2015 paper by some of his NOAA colleagues. The technical term to describe the accusation is ‘a giant nothingburger’ (in this case, a NOAA-thing burger) as Bates clarified in an interview with E&E News: The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was. Bates later told Science Insider that he was concerned that climate science deniers would misuse his complaints, but proceeded anyway because he felt it was important to start a conversation about data integrity: I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people. “Misuse” is the understatement of the year Misuse it people did – and how! Bates’ complaints boiled down to the fact that the paper didn’t have “a disclaimer at the bottom saying that it was citing research, not operational, data for its land-surface temperatures.” The Mail on Sunday (just banned by Wikipedia as an unreliable source) warped that minor procedural criticism into the sensationalist headline “Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.”

[twotimer]

Lemonade out of lemons....

Indeed...81 here in Denver today, so my friend Dave and I took advantage of it. I'm kinda diggin' the GW thing, too. Although it's supposed to snow 5 inches here in town before Monday night.

[oldno7]

of course--scientist never have a political agenda....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ming-data.html