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

[Iceaxe]

Bill Nye the science guy gets destroyed by Tucker Carlson as he tries to argue from the same perspective @Slot Machine always argues from.

[twotimer]

Yeah, I saw that last night. Mr. Nye cited the "fact" that you can grow grapes in England nowadays when (supposedly) in the past, you couldn't. A quick google of "growing grapes in England" revealed that to be an exaggeration.

That's the problem with these guys trying to sell the AGW thing, they sprinkle sensational bullshit into their arguments. He also gave Tucker some beef for having kids. Just another know it all judgemental snob.

BTW...it's the last day of February, it's 6:30 here in Denver, there's a fresh coat of snow on everything and it's a chilly 23 degrees. Global warming my ass.

[Scott P]

BTW...it's the last day of February, it's 6:30 here in Denver, there's a fresh coat of snow on everything and it's a chilly 23 degrees. Global warming my ass.

Really? And what about the rest of the month?

[twotimer]

Really? And what about the rest of the month?

The rest of the month was absolutely fantastic for mountain biking in the lower foothills. I loved it...it's also something that occurs here in the front range nearly every winter. A nice dry spell in January and/or February, with those groovy Chinook winds.

Within the next two weeks little green things will start popping out of the ground. We'll also get more heavy, wet snow.

Nothing new under the sun, really.

[Iceaxe]

Really? And what about the rest of the month?

Same old argument... no one denies the climate is changing.... but to what extent are humans responsible?

[Scott P]

Same old argument... no one denies the climate is changing.... but to what extent are humans responsible?

That would be a difficult question to answer. (An even harder question to answer is what the effects will be, both positive and negative [yes there would be positives to parts of the world as well]).

There are basically four different "factors" that cause climate change. (Note edited; I should have mentioned continental drift!).

1. Changes to Sun activity.

2. Changes to the tilt of the Earth and orbital variations (maybe that could be two things, but changes to the Earth's position is the single key here).

3. Continental drift.

4. Changes to atmospheric chemistry.

Natural events can change (and have changed since the earth began) any one of these. Humans could only potentially change one of these (unless we come up with a bigger bomb). It can't be argued however that changing the atmospheric chemistry of the atmosphere won't cause any change. That is scientifically impossible. What is difficult however, is to calculate how much change should be attributed to each factor. Also, the first three factors should favor a very slight cooling in recent years. If this isn't happening, factor 4 must have some effect.

Do you think it is possible to change the atmospheric chemistry and not have change occur? If so, why?

Also, why is Venus hotter than Mercury, even though Mercury is much closer to the sun?

Why is the average temperature of the moon about 60F degrees colder than that of the earth?

I really think that you are smart enough to answer those questions.

PS, as for the record highs in Denver, I was just wondering why this month's conditions were used for the statement "Global warming my ass", when the month was actually well above normal. It cannot be claimed that the high temperatures were due global warming. Although global warming could potentially add a degree or two, most of the record heat in Denver was due to La Niña/positive phase of the El Niño Southern Oscillation.

it's also something that occurs here in the front range nearly every winter. A nice dry spell in January and/or February, with those groovy Chinook winds.

Nothing new under the sun, really.

80 degrees does not occur in Denver every winter, in fact before this year it has never occurred anytime during the meteorological winter since records began.

================================================== ===========

Personally, I think it is stupid that the question of Global Warming is dependent on what political party someone belongs to. What political party someone belongs to should have no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is occurring any more than that of whether or not cigarette smoking causes cancer.

[twotimer]

Personally, I think it is stupid that the question of Global Warming is dependent on what political party someone belongs to.

I couldn't agree with you more...but I also think it's a bit ignorant to assume that everyone aligns their views on this with politics.

Don't throw a wet blanket over everyone that questions it, Scott. I'm hearing and reading all the same stuff you are in regards to the GW "settled science"...it's just that I'm also listening to the critics, and not blowing them off as idiots.

An 80 degree day in February is hardly a reason to panic, IMO. All records are meant to be broken...and some day that one will, too.

[Iceaxe]

Personally, I think it is stupid that the question of Global Warming is dependent on what political party someone belongs to. What political party someone belongs to should have no bearing on whether or not Global Warming is occurring any more than that of whether or not cigarette smoking causes cancer.

What does political party have to do with it? I believe you are the only one that introduced political party into the equation.

LET ME REPEAT... no one (at least on Bogley) denies the climate is changing.... the question is to what extent are humans responsible?

[Scott P]

I couldn't agree with you more...but I also think it's a bit ignorant to assume that everyone aligns their views on this with politics.

I don't assume that everyone does that; I just think it's dumb that it has become a partisan issue (and I'm speaking to both sides on this).

Don't throw a wet blanket over everyone that questions it, Scott. I'm hearing and reading all the same stuff you are in regards to the GW "settled science"...it's just that I'm also listening to the critics, and not blowing them off as idiots.

Then don't listen to the doomsayers or the critics.

The fact that changing the atmosphere's chemistry or adding CO2 to the system will cause change (and CO2 causes warming; many other changes cause cooling) is settled science any very easily proved by looking at the temperatures of several of the celestial bodies in our solar system and comparing their atmospheres or lack thereof combined with the distance from the sun.

You don't have to listen to any side. This can also easily be proved in a sixth grade science class; i.e. by filling one small greenhouse with a large percentage of CO2 and one greenhouse with straight air and taking the temperatures of both over a given period of time. This really is settled and easy to prove.

What isn't settled is how much change will occur in a large system (such as the earth) and what the effects will be. This is not settled. As stated, there will also be positive effects as well. Predicting the future is also not settled as there are many factors that affect climate (and as said before, technically we're still in an ice age when compared to the entire earth's history).

An 80 degree day in February is hardly a reason to panic, IMO. All records are meant to be broken...and some day that one will, too.

I never said it a reason to panic, in fact I said that the primary reason for the warm temperatures was not because of global warming. I just thought your comment was silly (I couldn't tell if you were joking or not) since most of the month has been very warm (and once again global warming was not the primary reason Denver has been so warm lately).

[Scott P]

[QUOTE=Iceaxe;584236]What does political party have to do with it?[quote]

Almost all the doomsayers are Democrats and almost all the deniers are Republican. Like it or not, the politicians and others have made it a partisan issue.

LET ME REPEAT... no one (at least on Bogley) denies the climate is changing.... the question is to what extent are humans responsible?

I have already said that that would be a difficult question to answer. However, it really can't be reasonably argued that changing the atmosphere's chemistry won't cause change, neither can it be argued that CO2 doesn't cause warming. This is very easy to prove.

PS, I have never said that I was one of the doomsayers either. Although there will be negative (and positive effects), it is probably impossible for man-made climate change to cause the earth to be doomed. Even if all the fossil fuels on earth were burned immediately, the majority of the CO2 would by cycled out of the atmosphere in a few hundred years. Even worst case scenario, this wouldn't be enough to wipe out life on earth. There is also no chance of the polar ice caps completely melting anytime soon either, unless something other than man causes this.

Although climate changes (both warming and cooling) have caused mass extinctions in the past, it would take something a lot more drastic than burning of fossil fuels to wipe out most life. It would take a more drastic change in the atmosphere or a change in the earth's orbit or tilt to do that. Something like an asteroid or even a nuclear war might be able to do that as well, but the burning of fossil fuels in itself wouldn't do it.

[tallsteve]

I found this article on a new study out of the University of Wisconsin quite interesting. From the article: “The impact of astronomical cycles on climate can be quite large,” explains Meyers, noting as an example the pacing of the Earth’s ice ages, which have been reliably matched to periodic changes in the shape of Earth’s orbit, and the tilt of our planet on its axis.

http://news.wisc.edu/from-rocks-in-colorado-evidence-of-a-chaotic-solar-system/

[rockgremlin]

Bill Nye the science guy gets destroyed by Tucker Carlson as he tries to argue from the same perspective @Slot Machine always argues from.

Carlson: You're not a scientist, you're a popularizer.

LOL. He's got a point.

Speaking of deniers, how did you like Bill Nye denying he ever recommended locking up GW deniers? Bill didn't look too happy as they ended the segment.

[hank moon]

no one (at least on Bogley) denies the climate is changing.... the question is to what extent are humans responsible?

This is not a productive question. Humans are 100% responsible for any action taken to address the issue - so what'll it be?

[Iceaxe]

This is not a productive question. Humans are 100% responsible for any action taken to address the issue - so what'll it be?

If humans are not responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And if humans are responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And to top it off climate change is not necessarily a bad thing.

[hank moon]

If humans are not responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And if humans are responsible for climate change should we be taking action to correct it?

And to top it off climate change is not necessarily a bad thing.

Climate change has consequences - yes, humans should (and must) take action to address those.

Human activity influences climate change - yes, humans should take action to minimize the negative influence and maximize the positive.

Broad value judgments on climate change are useless. It's like saying the wind is inherently bad or good. Fact is that it's happening, and how will we respond? Hosting endless debates about the degree of human responsibility for CC itself is spitting in the wind.

[Iceaxe]

And broad statements like you posted are not pissing in the wind?



I guess some of you guys will just never understand what I find so comical about the whole issue.....

But I'll try one last time.... how is it that those who believe man is 'mostly' responsible can make broad statements and we are just supposed to accept them, yet those who believe nature is 'mostly' responsible can not? At least on Bogley anyways...

[hank moon]

And broad statements like you posted are not pissing in the wind?

But I'll try one last time.... how is it that those who believe man is 'mostly' responsible can make broad statements and we are just supposed to accept them, yet those who believe nature is 'mostly' responsible can not? At least on Bogley anyways...

To me, the question of “percentage of human responsibility in having brought about climate change” is irrelevant. I have no idea or belief on the matter. How can I make it any plainer that my concern is only with what action to take to address the ongoing consequences of climate change?

[Scott P]

But I'll try one last time.... how is it that those who believe man is 'mostly' responsible can make broad statements and we are just supposed to accept them, yet those who believe nature is 'mostly' responsible can not?

Please explain further. You haven't explained why you believe the way that you do.Which factors do you believe that nature is currently changing to make the world warmer vs. the ones man is currently changing to make the world warmer?

Here are the factors:

1. Changes to Sun activity.

2. Changes to the tilt of the Earth and orbital variations (maybe that could be two things, but changes to the Earth's position is the single key here).

3. Continental drift.

4. Changes to atmospheric chemistry.

Which of the above is (are) the current primary cause(s) for nature causing most of the change? Please be detailed and explain your answers.

[twotimer]

How can I make it any plainer that my concern is only with what action to take to address the ongoing consequences of climate change?

Well..."Operation Dark Storm" from the Antimatrix didn't work too well. Perhaps we shouldn't try to screw with the atmosphere? I'm joking of course, but at the same time I'm not.

[Iceaxe]

How can I make it any plainer that my concern is only with what action to take to address the ongoing consequences of climate change?

Oh, I get it now.... even if climate change is completely natural and God's will you still think it's bad and us puny humans should attempt to interfere. Got it.