Global Warming...

[PatPatPatSack]

You're a much better dancer than a writer. Even as you admit that there's still ongoing debate among the scientific community about global warming, you waste no time praising Al Gore's efforts to highlight a problem that you admit may not even exist.

 

So, do you want that cookie now or later?

 

You really don't understand do you? It's not an act.

[GG]

You really don't understand do you? It's not an act.

 

Too bad. You would kill at the casinos.

[Alaska Darin]

Actually your position is changing. At first you discounted all GW research as junk science. Now you have updated that to suggesting that the problem is too intractable for science. And you have upgraded junk science to "science" (with quotes). That is wishy washy.

You're wrong. It doesn't matter how many ways you spin it. Still wrong.

I don't recollect your calling me out, as if you somehow got my goat.

Why would I have to? The only people in this thread who think there is a winner/loser are YOU and Joey Balls. Try and figure out how funny that is to anyone with a clue.

I believe I continue to restate my original proposition, though from here out I will leave out the name calling. Hope you don't find that too wimpy.

Nah, wimpy is spelling the word "diick" and then trying to justify it as being "for the children". But thanks for leaving out the name calling, especially since you suck as much at it as you do at getting a cognizant point across.

But I am in the position to make demands. You need to back up your spew. You can't. You still won't give me a yea or a nay on the most simple question of all. I not only demand it, your unwillingness to show what you think is because it is a pretty weak position. And one you don't even believe yourself. Go ahead, say it. Say there is NO Global warming trend. Say that everyone who thinks so is wrong.

I've backed up plenty - with links, scientific papers, etc. You choose to ignore them, instead posting an IPCC link that shows "Global Warming based on Human Interaction". You consider that good science, as if the conclusion of a UN sponsored body being a load of schit could possibly mean the rest of the data is gospel.

C'mon mr. balls o'steel. Al Gore isn't here to beat up on.

Nah, he's probably off studying Global Warming further. You know, because he's a scientist.

[KD in CA]

Oh yeah. Al Gore has decided to spend his time preaching about a problem that could negatively impact the human race. Just a wee little thing.

And that makes him money grubbing? If he were pursuing the presidency, I'd allow that insight. If he were (like the scumbag Ron Regan) shilling for foreign companies after his political career was over, I'd accept that. If he were working for a pharmaceutical company trying to get drugs approved by using his political influence to trump the scientists (ala Rummey) I'd believe that.

 

But since you have trumpeted that what 90% of scientists believe: that the earth is in involved in a general warming progression that could fundamently change our society, since you have declared that junk science, then it must be so. Hah.

 

Your opinions on the Bills are entertaining. Your pompous political posturing in the face of real scientists who do this for a living; is just plain retarded.

 

The boy who said the emperor had no clothes was just in it for the money too.

 

Those self same scientists practicing "junk science" have given you a pretty cushy life. But you should join the portion of the human race that forever believes that their dogma is better than science - well, just because.

 

Most consider you a diick. Now you are a stupid diick.

 

Rock on.

 

 

Wow, you are dumber than a box of rocks. See Darin's post for specifics.

 

[finknottle]

I thought that the gallery was fairly unequivocal. If you didn't mean to imply that Gore wasn't a scientist nor using science to back his cause, why did you bring up the comparison between an evangelist and a scientist, when the post you responded to specifically chided Gore for using the pretext of science to further his manbearpug hunt.

 

Perhaps you should change your name to TapTapTapDance. What is your point anyway? You don't want to admit that you carry Gore's luggage for his conclusion of global warming, yet you expect an answer to your nebulous question of what is science? What definition of science do you want? I don't think there's much dispute over the warming trend. The disputes are the causes, severity and potential remedies.

 

I find it ironic that you chastise him for carrying Gore's luggage when I have yet to see a discussion of global warming which is not moved to a political debate about Gore. Don't want to talk about GW? Attack Gore instead. Argue that man's contribution has not been fully determined. That will make the issue go away.

[Oneonta Buffalo Fan]

"Our spatial analysis of Antarctic meteorological data demonstrates a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn."

 

<a href="http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0442(2000)013%3C1674%3AVATIAS%3E2.0.CO%3B2" target="_blank">It is thus quite surprising that despite apparent increase in global temperatures during the last 20 years (e.g., Jones et al. 1999), the Antarctic region in general shows slight cooling during the period. Such cooling could partly explain the slight positive trend in sea ice extent observed during the 1979–96 period by Cavalieri et al. (1997).

</a>

 

We have used ice-flow velocity measurements from synthetic aperture radar to reassess the mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica. We find strong evidence for ice-sheet growth (+26.8 gigatons per year), in contrast to earlier estimates indicating a mass deficit (20.9 gigatons per year).

 

Temperatures could increase rapidly, and then decrease just as rapidly--as they have repeatedly over the past 420,000 years

 

Our data also suggest that the ice masses that border the Weddell Sea are more extensive than they were during the previous glacial minimum.

 

Keep in mind that Antarctica holds about NINETY PERCENT of the world's ICE. Draw your own conclusions. I know the hippies are all over Global Warming and I agree that we need better stewardship of the environment, but...

Good post. Very interesting.

[GG]

I find it ironic that you chastise him for carrying Gore's luggage when I have yet to see a discussion of global warming which is not moved to a political debate about Gore. Don't want to talk about GW? Attack Gore instead. Argue that man's contribution has not been fully determined. That will make the issue go away.

 

Could it be that the resident global warming evangelist is the personification of the manbearpig dilemma? I'll leave the scientific debate to people more suited than I am. My biggest issue with global warming and the fearmongering that Saint Al has drawn to it, is taking attention and resources from serious problems that could be tackled more immediately, and provide a greater benefit to mankind. And it's something that I've been consistent in, even before the Oscars.

[Taro T]

I find it ironic that you chastise him for carrying Gore's luggage when I have yet to see a discussion of global warming which is not moved to a political debate about Gore. Don't want to talk about GW? Attack Gore instead. Argue that man's contribution has not been fully determined. That will make the issue go away.

I find it ironic that the individual that says "I don't care if it is man-made or not", which is a tremendously critical question as to whether ANY resources (not just how many) should be spent to reverse/mitigate global climate change, sees all discussion of global climate change as being about the poster bearer of "let's do something now to trash our economy because if we don't, well I've seen the results of models that say we'll be in worse shape if we don't".

[finknottle]

I find it ironic that the individual that says "I don't care if it is man-made or not", which is a tremendously critical question as to whether ANY resources (not just how many) should be spent to reverse/mitigate global climate change, sees all discussion of global climate change as being about the poster bearer of "let's do something now to trash our economy because if we don't, well I've seen the results of models that say we'll be in worse shape if we don't".

 

So you think I unfairly see all discussion of global climate change as being about Al Gore? Try reading the thread. Precisely three posts went by before we had "Hey Al, whatcha got to say about THIS?" Only after four more Gore digs (not in response to any comments) did PatPatPatSack begin on the other side, after which Gore was periodically re-introduced by the anti-warming crowd.

 

As to whether or not 'climate change is man-made' is critical to whether ANY resources should be devoted to it, please explain why. Is it neccessary to determine whether or not the bird flu virus is man-made before we decide to combat it? How about fighting forest fires? An asteroid screaming down on us, or the sun going nova? It seems perfectly reasonable that you can accept or reject the evidence of trouble without coming to a definitive conclusion about its cause. And with conclusion in hand, you can weigh your options.

[meazza]

So you think I unfairly see all discussion of global climate change as being about Al Gore? Try reading the thread. Precisely three posts went by before we had "Hey Al, whatcha got to say about THIS?" Only after four more Gore digs (not in response to any comments) did PatPatPatSack begin on the other side, after which Gore was periodically re-introduced by the anti-warming crowd.

 

As to whether or not 'climate change is man-made' is critical to whether ANY resources should be devoted to it, please explain why. Is it neccessary o determine whether or not the bird flu virus is man-made before we decide to combat it? How about fighting forest fires? An asteroid screaming down on us, or the sun going nova? It seems perfectly reasonable that you can accept or reject the evidence of trouble without coming to a definitive conclusion about its cause. And with conclusion in hand, you can weigh your options.

 

 

Because if global warming is not man made, how the hell could we fight it?

 

If global warming is not man-made, then we can't do !@#$ all about it except for pray for the best. How do you reverse something that isn't happening?

[Taro T]

So you think I unfairly see all discussion of global climate change as being about Al Gore? Try reading the thread. Precisely three posts went by before we had "Hey Al, whatcha got to say about THIS?" Only after four more Gore digs (not in response to any comments) did PatPatPatSack begin on the other side, after which Gore was periodically re-introduced by the anti-warming crowd.

 

As to whether or not 'climate change is man-made' is critical to whether ANY resources should be devoted to it, please explain why. Is it neccessary to determine whether or not the bird flu virus is man-made before we decide to combat it? How about fighting forest fires? An asteroid screaming down on us, or the sun going nova? It seems perfectly reasonable that you can accept or reject the evidence of trouble without coming to a definitive conclusion about its cause. And with conclusion in hand, you can weigh your options.

Are you really so daft as to believe that bird flu virus is man made? Obviously many, but not all, forest fires are man-made.

 

How would you have us prevent the sun going nova? Does a 50% reduction in emissions eliminate that issue? IF the sun is the source of global climate change, and it very well could be from what I've read to date, how does destroying the U.S. economy effect global climate change?

 

UNDERSTANDING the CAUSE of global climate change SIGNIFICANTLY effects the responses to it. If it isn't caused by the activities of humans, it is VERY possible that humans can't reduce/avert it. If that is the case, then rather than tilt at windmills, we'd be better off adjusting to it's effects.

 

And you explicitly stated that you don't care whether global warming is man-made or not. Thank you for playing, I'm glad you are not in charge of my tax dollars.

[finknottle]

:

And you explicitly stated that you don't care whether global warming is man-made or not. Thank you for playing, I'm glad you are not in charge of my tax dollars.

 

I don't care *because* in my determination it is real and there is now too much inertia to do anything about it. If I weren't at that point then the question would be more relevant.

[finknottle]

How would you have us prevent the sun going nova? Does a 50% reduction in emissions eliminate that issue? IF the sun is the source of global climate change, and it very well could be from what I've read to date, how does destroying the U.S. economy effect global climate change?

 

UNDERSTANDING the CAUSE of global climate change SIGNIFICANTLY effects the responses to it. If it isn't caused by the activities of humans, it is VERY possible that humans can't reduce/avert it. If that is the case, then rather than tilt at windmills, we'd be better off adjusting to it's effects.

 

And you explicitly stated that you don't care whether global warming is man-made or not. Thank you for playing, I'm glad you are not in charge of my tax dollars.

 

I wouldn't, and that's the point. If the sun is going to go nova, sit back and enjoy the fireworks.

 

If the basic climate patterns go off kilter, whether caused by man or not, then I do not believe even a complete cessation of man's activities can reverse it. They will seek a new equilibrium.

[TheMadCap]

I don't know how many of you are actual scientists and have studied environmental systems. And while I do not claim to be an expert, I have studied these things before, under the tutelage of actual experts, so allow me to put my two cents onto the roller coaster:

 

 

1. On whether the Earth is actually warming - The real answer is we don’t know yet. The Earth goes through cycles where we get a bit hotter then cooler. So we really don’t know yet, and we won’t know for a while. Fact is, our records don’t go back far enough (or are accurate enough) to be sure at present.

 

2. Carbon Dioxide, water vapor, etc, will indeed absorb in the infrared (think HEAT), so putting more of it into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing. Problem is, in the last fifty years there has been an exponential increase in their addition to the atmosphere, and I cannot stress enough to you how brief a timeframe that is to base any conclusions on. We just haven’t been looking at their effect long enough yet.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to limit their production and introduction to

the environment. But as someone (I think AD) pointed out, limiting our (the

USA) CO2 output does some good, but it does nothing to prevent China and India

from more than making up the difference for us.

 

3. Not ALL scientists are convinced that humans are the driving force behind any type of global warming. Contrary to popular belief, people who study these things for a living (the ones I know) are taking a very cautious approach in determining how much of a factor humans really are.

 

4. The fear of what melting arctic ice, whether from GW or not, means for the environment is quite possibly as bad as advertised. While not everyone agrees fully on this aspect of climate change either, effects of melting ice on thermohaline circulation can catastrophic. CAN be, not WILL be, or IS. Anyone who cares to discuss this aspect with me can do so if they wish.

 

 

To summarize, climatology and the factors influencing it are incredibility complex and are not fully understood. Some data suggesting that a possible increase in global mean temperature can have very serious and damaging effects on our planets, and certainly OUR, health has been discussed, as some posters have illustrated. But I want everyone to realize that we do not have all the answers yet. We don’t and are not likely to know for sure for some time. What we need to be doing is to be carefully studying the situation, and doing everything we can to limit our possible contribution to the overall input of greenhouse gases, without imposing stifling economic sanctions.

[elegantelliotoffen]

How many of you applauding Alaska Darin for his "interesting post" actually took the time to read these articles (and not just the abstracts or the excepts he posted in the links?). Why didn't anyone ask why he was presenting articles published nearly a decade ago as new research?

[Alaska Darin]

How many of you applauding Alaska Darin for his "interesting post" actually took the time to read these articles (and not just the abstracts or the excepts he posted in the links?). Why didn't anyone ask why he was presenting articles published nearly a decade ago as new research?

How exactly are they presented as "new research"? Or is that just another of your techniques in an attempt to win credibility?

 

You act as though the science in this area has grown leaps and bounds in the last decade. It hasn't. Or that these studies are irrelevant because of when some were published. They aren't.

 

There are still far more questions than answers despite the ridiculous "consensus" that "Global Warming" is at least "partially" because of human beings. Boy, that's damning.

[Wacka]

"Science" that is based on runing computer models and not from reproducible experiments is not science. The models cant even produce the current conditions with the data we already have. And yes, I am a scientist.

[elegantelliotoffen]

How exactly are they presented as "new research"? Or is that just another of your techniques in an attempt to win credibility?

 

You act as though the science in this area has grown leaps and bounds in the last decade. It hasn't. Or that these studies are irrelevant because of when some were published. They aren't.

There are still far more questions than answers despite the ridiculous "consensus" that "Global Warming" is at least "partially" because of human beings. Boy, that's damning.

 

What makes these studies so effective in your opinion?

[Alaska Darin]

What makes these studies so effective in your opinion?

Answer my question first. How exactly was this information presented as new?

[elegantelliotoffen]

Answer my question first. How exactly was this information presented as new?

 

You don't think that if you're providing a "summary" (more like a cherry picked out of context sentence from the abstract) you should also provide the source and date. Even you said yourself that you didn't expect many people to go to the links and read for themselves.

 

"I'm not sure what posts you're referring to but when you post things on this forum, you have to consider the audience. There are not more than a handful of people here who are capable or willing to read much more than a summary."

 

Considering this and the fact that this forum is used to discuss current events it gives the impression that you were trying to deceive readers into believing that these were brand new studies. By the way, I've cherry picked some lines from these studies as well.

 

The records show that the warmest year recorded in this century occurred in 1998, the warmest 10 years in succession occurred in 1989–98, and the warmest decade is expected to be the 1990s. Surface air temperatures have indeed been reported to be on the rise in many stations in Antarctica, especially in the Antarctic peninsula, where the trends are as high as 0.5°C decade

 

Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that Greenhouse Trace Gases account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.

 

Unfortunately the other 3 articles require you to PAY to read more than just the abstract (By the way drawing conclusions from a scientific article after reading ONLY the abstract is a big no-no).