lolGlobalWarming?

[Tristam]

Nitpicking:



Ugggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh



More nitpicking:
Taking a quote of a person who believes A for reasons that are obviously illogical does not refute A, just the obviously illogical reasons. To claim that A is false simply because there are crazies who believe it is ad hominem. If you want to contribute any serious discourse take the arguments for and against that are considered good and prove why they do or do not hold up.
[/nitpicking]

While I do believe that tripling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would have noticeable and probably significant results, everything you just wrote in opposition the stated claim does exactly nothing to disprove it. If anything it supports it. You might have wanted to include the relative absorption rate or greenhouse units caused by each, and how increased CO2 has been shown in some cases to lead to an increase in H2O / humidity which exacerbates the greenhouse effect.

Supposing we do know exactly what causes the increase in temperature, and supposing we still do it anyways and don't give a fuck, what exactly will happen? What is the oncoming apocalypse we shall suffer as a result? How many people will die? Collectively, humans have the ability to put the Earth into another ice age with minimal effort, something like $5-$10 billion could do it. Or we have the ability to kill off a good 90% of the human population within a week. Objectively, I'm more afraid of falling down the stairs than I am of facing the repercussions of Global Warming caused by humans.

Of the multitude of problems humans face, Global Warming is neither the most immediate, nor the most deadly, nor the most "harmful". Does it deserve attention? Yes. Does it deserve as much attention as it is getting? Fuck no.

for the nitpicking:

please provide a good argument against AGW, I've yet to see one. And certainly none were on the site provided by the OP. That's what I was trying to show by the arguments, that most of them were BS.

For the CO2 argument, what % change in CO2 would it take for you to "believe" humans cause a significant effect? CO2, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide are 37, 156, and 19% above pre-industrial levels, respectively. The increase in CO2 concentration increased 0.5% last year alone. That's a huge change in the composition of our atmosphere. There isn't any hard law that states X amount of CO2 --> X degrees change in temperature. All we can do is look at the climate data from the past hundred years, and model the effects while trying to include all the forcings from positive and negative feedbacks and project what will happen. That's what many have done, and it's what the IPCC summarized. The fact of the matter is it's happening, it's happening due to humans, and considering our infrastructure and society has developed in the geological blink of an eye, it's pretty stupid to think that climate change won't affect us.

For the "why should we give a fuck" argument, it's even easier. For one, weather will become less predictable, sea levels will continue to rise (the louisiana coastline is disappearing in case you hadn't noticed, if mexico took that land from us, we'd be at war.) But the bottom line is that the climate will shift to a new period in earth's history that our infrastructure and technology is quite simply not equipped to handle. Beyond that, we don't know the end result in terms of ecosystem destruction, deforestation, landmass loss, spread of disease, etc. But it won't be good for humans as a species. The rise in CO2 is especially disconcerting because it has a long residence time in the atmosphere, and if the negative forcings are overwhelmed (and evidence continues to mount that things like the oceans are becoming increasingly filled with CO2), then the models will underestimate the net effect over time.

Finally, let me reiterate: we, as a species, are actively changing the climate of a *fucking planet*. Yet this isn't a big deal? Seriously?

[Blarg]

Small changes can have huge effects. I think for hurricanes to form the water needs to be 26 Celsius (not exactly but I think that is where water has enough energy to do all that fancy hurricaning), so if the waters rise just .5 degrees C that will allow many more hurricanes to form which will cause a ton of damage.

[Xno Kappa]

God will save us.

[Mizango]

Exactly, so why worry. Speaking of which, turn it on National Geographic channel, they are talking about a magical box that flew around the battlefield killing the Israelite foes and how it crumbled the walls of Jericho simple being in the presence of the castle.

No seriously, Nat geo noaw! This is srs biz.

[Valkrish]

Silly human, silly human race~

[oldoldman]

I don't think you guys really appreciate how hard it is to measure "Global temperature trends". It's damn near impossible, the degree measurements are little more than educated guesses at the global trend. Some place are getting colder.

Another thing that is never really covered is cloud cover. The earth has been supporting life for billions of years and during that time the main culprits of "greenhouse gas pollution" were there, animals produced methane and volcanoes spewed toxins into the air. Cloud cover is actually the main balancing force in our temperatures, reflecting the suns rays back out into space instead of absorbing them. Most global warming models are still struggling to properly factor in cloud cover into the mix.

[Dimmauk]

Tectonic plates > Al Gore.

[oldoldman]

Tectonic plates > Al Gore.

That's another thing I've realized that really bothers me. In "good science" you have effects and you try to find the cause. What we have seen in the major scientific trend now is they have their "cause" which is global warming/climate change and they are trying to find effects. Anyone that disagrees and states that these things might not actually be effects of global warming is considered a dissenter. But you really have to ask what they are dissenting from.

[Tubbers]

Finally, let me reiterate: we, as a species, are actively changing the climate of a *fucking planet*. Yet this isn't a big deal? Seriously?

Yeah, pretty much.

[GRT]

James Watson believes black people are stupid, as did Darwin.

This has been scientifically disproven? I'm being totally serious (and totally racist I guess)

[thatwasnifty]

It certainly hasn't been proven in the first place, and those "studies" that have been published were written by racists to advance their agendas.

. . . I can't stop staring at your sig. Which SNK game is that from?

[GRT]

king of fighter 16 >.>


I read somewhere a while ago about a study on how long babies of different race on average spend in their mothers' womb before being born. They drew that with the superiority of each race's muscle mass and brain function.

It was something like black people spend the most time on average in their mother's womb therefore they have better physical strength while white people spend the least with better intelligence.

I was skeptical and wasn't paying too much attention, but it just came up while reading this thread, and that's why I asked the question.

[guartz]

Holy fuck, did anyone watch "The Day the earth stood still"? It's like hollywood is trying to top al gore.

[Tristam]

That's another thing I've realized that really bothers me. In "good science" you have effects and you try to find the cause. What we have seen in the major scientific trend now is they have their "cause" which is global warming/climate change and they are trying to find effects. Anyone that disagrees and states that these things might not actually be effects of global warming is considered a dissenter. But you really have to ask what they are dissenting from.

whaaaat?

No No No, science has always been about (1.) making observations and (2.) investigating the causes of observations. The global warming model is the model that fits the data we have, I really don't think you've read a single report or piece of data about this ever have you? What we have is a laaarge number of observations (1.) related to climate and temperature etc. that have been published independently of a model, and then the modelers have fit the data to a model incorporating all the known parameters (2) that are avaliable to them, and using the same model projected what the change in temperature will be over the next few decades. THAT IS THE GLOBAL WARMING MODEL, IT IS THE MODEL THAT BEST FITS THE DATA.

What we term "deniers" are people who either nitpick the quality of the model to suggest that the entire premise of global warming is invalid (this is not science). Or people who simply do not understand the data and choose to rely on their gut feeling for whatever reason (arrogance of ignorance).

I still have yet to see any real data that changes my opinion of the global warming model, I implore you to show me what you have lying around that I haven't read yet. I will say with 100% honesty that I have read papers that present data that aren't immediately in-line with popular thinking about global warming in popular journals, but that dosen't mean the model itself is 100% wrong. It means data will continue to be added to the model and it will become further refined.

For a fun homework exercise, try to read the introduction and conclusion of the paper cited by the website in the OP, the 50% sun-effect one, maybe you'll understand how much data we really have at this point.

edit: This is the second time in as many months someone has posted a misinterpretation of a paper that they think will "overthrow" the global warming consensus. It's garbage, in both cases the data agree with the AGW model.

[oldoldman]

whaaaat?

No No No, science has always been about (1.) making observations and (2.) investigating the causes of observations. The global warming model is the model that fits the data we have, I really don't think you've read a single report or piece of data about this ever have you? What we have is a laaarge number of observations (1.) related to climate and temperature etc. that have been published independently of a model, and then the modelers have fit the data to a model incorporating all the known parameters (2) that are avaliable to them, and using the same model projected what the change in temperature will be over the next few decades. THAT IS THE GLOBAL WARMING MODEL, IT IS THE MODEL THAT BEST FITS THE DATA.

What we term "deniers" are people who either nitpick the quality of the model to suggest that the entire premise of global warming is invalid (this is not science). Or people who simply do not understand the data and choose to rely on their gut feeling for whatever reason (arrogance of ignorance).

I still have yet to see any real data that changes my opinion of the global warming model, I implore you to show me what you have lying around that I haven't read yet. I will say with 100% honesty that I have read papers that present data that aren't immediately in-line with popular thinking about global warming in popular journals, but that dosen't mean the model itself is 100% wrong. It means data will continue to be added to the model and it will become further refined.

For a fun homework exercise, try to read the introduction and conclusion of the paper cited by the website in the OP, the 50% sun-effect one, maybe you'll understand how much data we really have at this point.

edit: This is the second time in as many months someone has posted a misinterpretation of a paper that they think will "overthrow" the global warming consensus. It's garbage, in both cases the data agree with the AGW model.

Well, I work for the EPA and have seen a bunch of the reports they have been putting together about Global Warming. I've even read reports that say their models show the world will enter a 10 year Cooling trend. While this is admittedly outside of my field I do have the advantage of seeing what is being done before it is published. I do know how much Data is coming in but I also know how much is estimated. The rise in temperature is not solid data, it is an estimate. The loss of coastal land in Louisiana is not proven to be caused by global warming but it has been jumped on as proof. The main problem I have which I said before is people are trying to attribute whatever they can to "global warming" whether it fits or not.

[archibaldcrane]

It was something like black people spend the most time on average in their mother's womb therefore they have better physical strength while white people spend the least with better intelligence.

This didn't sound right to me, so I looked around. This study:

Multiparous women, women aged <19 OR >34 years, and black women were found to have shorter gestations than primiparous women, women aged 19 to 34 years, or white women.

confirms what I suspected, that white women on average have longer gestation periods than black women. Tying this to intelligence or physical fitness seems like a stretch though.

[Tristam]

Well, I work for the EPA and have seen a bunch of the reports they have been putting together about Global Warming. I've even read reports that say their models show the world will enter a 10 year Cooling trend. While this is admittedly outside of my field I do have the advantage of seeing what is being done before it is published. I do know how much Data is coming in but I also know how much is estimated. The rise in temperature is not solid data, it is an estimate. The loss of coastal land in Louisiana is not proven to be caused by global warming but it has been jumped on as proof. The main problem I have which I said before is people are trying to attribute whatever they can to "global warming" whether it fits or not.

I don't know in what context you work for the EPA, but if you're a scientist my heart goes out to you, that agency has changed quite a bit in the past eight years. I, for one, would trust a summary review article coming from a journal before I trusted anything coming from the EPA. But I also do not think you get to see raw data unpublished, as that is the private intellectual property of the researchers/institutions that collected the data, and most of those people would probably choose to publish in a journal rather than through a govt agency, but I digress. If the EPA collects raw data of their own, I look forward to their results.

On to the data discussion.

There are 10 year cooling trends predicted based on natural cycles of solar irradiation and other natural cycles. These data are part of forcings that go into climate change models. It's worth pointing out that the recent climate change has already been shown to be disconnected from these natural forcings and in some cases completely overwhelm them. Solar irradiance actually decreased from 2000-2005, has been increasing since, and will decrease again from 2010-2015.

For the loss of coastal land: Rising sea levels are a predicted consequence of climate change, and sea levels have in fact been rising according to predictions. Of course you're correct that projects limiting the ablilty of the Mississippi to deposit new land has aggravated the effect (I'm looking at you Army Corps of Engineers), but with any of these consequences the end result is going to be a combination of multiple things. The bottom line is that the climate is one of them, and as the global average temperature increases the effect will increase as well. A rise in sea temperatures will increase the severity of any storm surge and also the moisture content in the air above the oceans, this will directly result in more precipitation (regardless of the season, you western new yorkers better like your lake effect snow!). So yes, the loss of costal land isn't "proven" to be caused by global warming, but a rise in temperature certainly contributed to the loss. The next question is will it get any worse, to which the models point... yes.

Finally the raw data. Raw data is raw data. The temperature records since 1850 are quite accurate and are based on solid science. The recent rise in temperature is solid data from multiple independent sources, I don't think anyone would call temperature recordings of the past 50 years estimates in the sense that they are educated guesses. They're global average temperatures, which of course vary from location to location, so think of estimate as "most likely average". For the future projections, yes of course they're estimates, they're based on a model and nothing can be predicted on this scale with 100% certainty, but there's a big difference between cautiosly interpreting what is statistically likely to happen based on past data, versus claiming that something five standard deviations outside the mean is just as likely as something one SD away simply because the data/model is complicated.

[Kuya]

That's another thing I've realized that really bothers me. In "good science" you have effects and you try to find the cause. What we have seen in the major scientific trend now is they have their "cause" which is global warming/climate change and they are trying to find effects. Anyone that disagrees and states that these things might not actually be effects of global warming is considered a dissenter. But you really have to ask what they are dissenting from.

Though i know very little about this topic and the only thing i know is what i've heard from professors who have claimed global climate change is true, and i believe them; i have noticed this disturbing trend in science, and as it has been commented to me by professors, where we have correlates but somehow it is assumed that the structure or idea must be the cause because there are correlations, and the problem is not so much the scientists, but somewhat the media's fault who tends to sell these correlations in such a way that it makes it seem like a cause has been found.

[Mizango]

This has been scientifically disproven? I'm being totally serious

I was kind of wondering the same thing D: Sad thing is I am black as well. Most of my old friends really and truly believe that if you are smart you are trying to be white or are just lame. One guy apparently called me a sell out to a mutual friend because I went to College and earned a degree, then another from Saint Louis University.

Funny thing about that is he is doing fed time now and has been since '98. Funny how that goes hand and hand. Enjoy being a statistic.


Inb4 Miz is Uncle Ruckus.

[Max™]

I don't think it's a question of Global Warming being real, the warming trend is simply a documented observation.

I don't think it's in question that human emissions of greenhouse gases have been increasing alongside global temperatures.

I do think someone should be questioning if these "Climate Scientists" actually understand that silly old Scientific Method thingamajig.

Observe, Hypothesize, Theorize, Experiment, Proof... that sort of stuff?

Looked to me, years back when all this stuff started getting really popular in Politics, that these "Scientists" went from observing a correlation (Human CO2 + Global temperatures rising), to making a hypothesis (Human CO2 emissions are accelerating the effects of Global Warming), and then skipped straight to posting it as facts.

Theory? Experiment? Peer review? Falsifiability? Integrity?

Fuck that, if you manage to scare people, you can just say that it's Science and count on laziness to hold your scam in place for years.