BF2S Forums global warming

I do beleive it is, just not as exaggerated as we think it is.  Read State of Fear by Michael Crichton.

topal63 wrote:

crap - we don’t even have a good enough model to predicate more than week-outwards of weather; with a HUGE margin of error)

This is because of the chaos theory, it is impossible to predict future wether because you need and infinatly accurate peice of starting data to make predictions.

Can you read?

Look most data   “. . . confirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term context.”

And only     “. . . a small minority of scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in recent warming.

What is contestable is a doomsday scenario (pure bullshit).
What is contestable is a model that can accurately predict the actual effects.
What is contestable is the degree of harm it (us contributing to the warming trend) will cause.

That we are contributing to it - not really contested.
That habitats are at risk for many reasons (other than global warming even ) - not really contested.
That the rate-of-change (human contribution to the trend) will probably increase - not really contestable.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-29 17:47:35)

puckmercury wrote:

Did you know that 96.2% of statistics are made up on the spot?  (Wait ... think .... THERE it is.)  The reast are just plain spun beyond any semblence of accuracy.  For crying out loud, there are 3 ways to define and compute an average.  This is to say nothing of the selection of a timeline, scale, or evaluated population.

That comment is just plain stupid - demonstrate that the statistcal ice-core samples taken for the last 20 years is pure bunko faulty science and that the math was done in error or STFU (I mean that STFU in the most positive of ways, of course).

This is not a new issue - it has been around for the majority of my adult life.

It is not contested (that we are contributing to the trend) by the majority of scientists.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-29 17:54:09)

puckmercury wrote:

topal63 wrote:

puckmercury wrote:

Did you know that 96.2% of statistics are made up on the spot?  (Wait ... think .... THERE it is.)  The reast are just plain spun beyond any semblence of accuracy.  For crying out loud, there are 3 ways to define and compute an average.  This is to say nothing of the selection of a timeline, scale, or evaluated population.

This is not a new issue - it has been around for the majority of my adult life.

It is not contested (that we are contributing to the trend) by the majority of scientist.

The notion is not new at all.  It is contested, that is the REASON we have this thread.  It depends on how you define contribution.  I mean, adding 1 to infinity is a contribution, but how important is that really?  Am I saying we should neglect the negative effects we are having?  Certainly not.  But I AM saying we should be realistic about how certain aspects of our behavior affect the globe.  And again, majority is dependant on how you define the populous - which addresses the statistical anomaly I pointed out ... most statistics are anomalies.

That comment is just plain stupid - demonstrate that the statistcal information/data gleaned from ice-core samples taken for the last 20 years is pure bunko faulty science and that the math was done in error or STFU (I mean that STFU in the most positive of ways, of course).

Again what is NOT contested (by the majority) is that the trend is statisitically significant beyond the arcing long-term trend.

What is contested is what I previously stated.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-29 17:59:39)

puckmercury wrote:

well your arguement has quickly degraded.  I am not saying that all data points are negligible.  I am saying that advertised "trends" in our impact on global warming are.  You have done nothing to address the existing and ACCEPTED past trends of the world which happened independent of our existance.  Given that established and indisputable fact, all these recent products of man seem rather inconsequential and unconvincing.  To reiterate, since you are listening only to what you care to, I am not saying we should behave in an unresponsible manner.  In fact I started a thread on alternative fuels arguing for them for just the reason of polution among others.  So seriously, chill out and debate with facts and well founded opinion or STFU ... oh wait.

I am not arguing with you per se, I think you're just posting nonsensical BS.
and. . .
Oh wait you haven't offered any facts or any respectable scientific opinions - but that's OK. . . you have done this though - throwing out pure nonsense - a giant red-herring. Nothing but an opinion from you about faulty science. Honestly if you can't demonstrate that the science is faulty - then you should not make an argument that it is.

We can sit here and post graph after chart after multicolored venn diagram, but I think it digresses from the thread a bit.  I don't think anyone is arguing the notion that the Earth's median temperature is rising.  More or less, every independant study has verified that the global temp is in fact on the rise.  That being said, what can be said to support or contradict the notion that it is a resultant of human intervention?  As was mentioned before, the most recent ice age ended as a result of global warming, and I think we're all pretty happy about that.  Is anyone arguing that it was a result of humans?

Also, now that I think about, LOL
I find it hard to take any comment seriously that contains a veiled; or subtle; appeal to ignorance.

So, I will restate this:
It is only a small minority that disagree; about the SPIKE(!) in the arcing long-term trend.

Seeing that my arguement is that postulated scientific trends are spun and ultimately any study will yield the result the researcher looks to find, it would be more than a little asinine to then turn around and try to use examples of said datum to support my argument.  I enter a debate to discuss ideology, not compare aggregate spun statistics.

Another appeal to ignorance. . . I have to say you’re quite consistent. The Greek sophists & rationalists would be proud of your denial of the empirical method. Certainly you must be right - all science is just ideology; there is no science in science(!); your conclusion defies the credulity of a child.

Last edited by topal63 (2006-06-29 18:43:10)

First of all, I have to ask from mr "pro Bush" Fleder, would you have posted your arguments if your mentor Bush "intelligent" younger wouldn't have refused to join Kyoto agreement?

You are eager to paste charts about temp changes during last thousands of years. Back then there was hardly anything that could be called life. So what are you trying to prove here? Not to mention that you being a true christian, you shouldn't believe that tearth is so old...

Another thing, your post about species living in equator; main reason is steady climate.

I have hard times understanding your logic (if I forget your uncompromising faith in conservative Bushist world). You sound like typical middle aged man who doesn't care what'll happen after your death. (save from speech about your children).

You got me pissed if it wasn't obvious.

Vilham wrote:

Darth_Fleder as you can see on those graphs the temperature change is like 2 degrees, the complete flaw in your argument is that in the last 100 years there has already been a change of 2 degrees. Now acording to your own evidence that should have taken 1000 years, thats a huge difference.

From where?

I could pull up hundreds - if not thousands - of temp records that do not support your theory. They are either flat or downward. AND THIS IS USING THE FULL RECORD - no cherry-picking here.

umm......yeah...............that's it (backs away slowly)

puckmercury wrote:

Did you know that 96.2% of statistics are made up on the spot?  (Wait ... think .... THERE it is.)  The reast are just plain spun beyond any semblence of accuracy.  For crying out loud, there are 3 ways to define and compute an average.  This is to say nothing of the selection of a timeline, scale, or evaluated population.

and you realise that statistic is made up, that statistic is a joke, thats the whole point of it...

Spark wrote:

From where?

I could pull up hundreds - if not thousands - of temp records that do not support your theory. They are either flat or downward. AND THIS IS USING THE FULL RECORD - no cherry-picking here.

sorry are you trying to claim average temperature is falling, if so your a moron and quite literally know nothing. Temperatures ARE rising, STOP dont even bother to deny that, if you do your more of a fool than i currently think you are.

lol thats all i can say to that, btw we also gunna life in fridge costumes, like robots.

Vilham wrote:

Darth_Fleder as you can see on those graphs the temperature change is like 2 degrees, the complete flaw in your argument is that in the last 100 years there has already been a change of 2 degrees. Now acording to your own evidence that should have taken 1000 years, thats a huge difference.

Unfortunately you are incorrect, the change has been .6C and the they graph the change in temperature, not the actual temperature itself. A graph that shows the actual average global temperature (which I posted three pages ago which makes me doubt your ability to follow the conversation)

Oh my *gasp* .6C or 1.08f. If you look at the average global history chart that is posted on page four you will see that Earth is in a period that is the coldest it has EVER been.

Since you seem to focus on the sharp changes, take a little closer look at what happened approx. 10,000 and 12,000 years ago.

You will note the sharp changes there that by far outstrip what we are experiencing today, stone age campfires perhaps? Now as to the relevance of all the graphs, especially the short term graphs compared to the long term graphs, to fully understand what is going on you have to understand that these types of graphs are composed of fractals and are chaotic in nature. Yes topal63, chaos theory is very relevant here.

topal63 wrote:

Also the majority of the graphs you show (or can find on the Web) when they isolate the last 50-100 years - SPIKE(!) above the normal trend.

I am sure that if you focus on that closely on any period shown in the graphs you can find these alarming spikes. Which is why long term graphs are more meaningful than short term ones are.


Now, as arguments have been brought that suggest that the warming of the Earth is causing deserts to expand and plant life to dwindle...

During the Ice Age


Since the Ice Age


As you can see that as the Earth has warmed over the last 18,000 years, vegetation across the globe has flourished and spread. I would also like to point out that there has been not enough significant drift of the continents to account for the change. WARM=GOOD. I would reiterate here that deforestation is a far greater threat than global warming. There is still concern out there that the current inter-glaciation period of relative warmth will end soon and I am sorry, I choose a warm planet over a ball of ice. No one has been able to produce any data that concretely supports any dire consequences of a warmer planet. If you look carefully in any predictions you see a great many words such as may, could, conceivably, might, possibly, potentially, perhaps, interspersed throughout. Next time....count them.

Stephan H. Schneider in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989 wrote:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula.
Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.”
http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Pu … itNews.pdf

Stephan H. Schneider is a leading advocate of the global warming theory and considered a 'lion' in this effort on Capital Hill.

topal63 wrote:

I am sorry but I have to laugh at the: some plants like it anecdotal-argument (pollution & CO2 = longer growing seasons for farmers; people can spin anything).

Spin, topal? No one said anything about keeping up the introduction of other pollutants, I don't know where you get that.


Trees respond to CO2 fertilization more strongly than do most other plants, but all plants respond to some extent. The above chart shows the response of wheat grown under wet conditions and when the wheat was stressed by lack of water. These were open-field experiments. Wheat was grown in the usual way, but the atmospheric CO2 concentrations of circular sections of the fields were increased by means of arrays of computer-controlled equipment that released CO2 into the air to hold the levels as specified.
There is no way to contest that CO2 helps plants grow, I am sorry topal my friend, it is what they respirate. Also, the growing season begins when temperatures grow warm, longer periods of warm=longer growing season.

topal63 wrote:

Look most data   “. . . confirms the conclusion that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term context.”

Agreed.

topal63 wrote:

And only     “. . . a small minority of scientists contest the view that humanity's actions have played a significant role in recent warming.

Yes, and once not so long ago a small minority of scientists contested the accepted view that the universe revolved about the Earth. Some few even lost their lives for it.

S. Fred Singer wrote:

An unprecedented number of American scientists—more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees—have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.
http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/petition.html

topal63 wrote:

What is contestable is a doomsday scenario (pure bullshit).
What is contestable is a model that can accurately predict the actual effects.
What is contestable is the degree of harm it (us contributing to the warming trend) will cause.

Agreed

topal63 wrote:

That we are contributing to it - not really contested.
That habitats are at risk for many reasons (other than global warming even ) - not really contested.
That the rate-of-change (human contribution to the trend) will probably increase - not really contestable.

Agreed. However, from the data I have read, the amount that we are contributing is actually a small percentage. As I have pointed out, the main focus of concern is CO2, a prime ingredient of life on earth, not some compound that does normally appear in nature like DDT, CFC's, or plastics.


Atmospheric concentrations of the various greenhouse gases have been adjusted for heat retention potential of each. For example, the global warming potential (GWP) of various man-made chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) range between 1,300 and 9,300 times greater potency as greenhouse gases than CO2. Methane has a GWP of about 21 and nitrous oxide a GWP of about 310.
Comparing greenhouse gases by strict concentration only, the total human component is somewhere between 0.1% and 0.2%, depending on whose numbers you use. Adjusted for GWP, the total human contribution to Earth's overall greenhouse effect is about 0.28%.  http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFoss … _data.html

FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE wrote:

Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.

CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.

CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

So, yes, we are contributing to more CO2 in the atmosphere, but a small fraction of the total.

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Good information, but irrelevant to the Gulf Stream argument.  The Gulf Stream doesn't pass by Greenland, and Greenland is not in Northern or Western Europe.  What is this science that is still in its infancy, like you say?

It is perfectly relevant to the Gulf Stream argument. I have not heard of anything to suggest that Europe was undergoing frigid temperatures during this period, indicating that the whatever was warming Greenland was continueing to keep Europe temperate. Meteorologic science is still in infancy, KEN.

PekkaA wrote:

First of all, I have to ask from mr "pro Bush" Fleder, would you have posted your arguments if your mentor Bush "intelligent" younger wouldn't have refused to join Kyoto agreement?

You are eager to paste charts about temp changes during last thousands of years. Back then there was hardly anything that could be called life. So what are you trying to prove here? Not to mention that you being a true christian, you shouldn't believe that tearth is so old...

Another thing, your post about species living in equator; main reason is steady climate.

I have hard times understanding your logic...

You got me pissed if it wasn't obvious.

I am sorry that posted FACTS that are contrary from what you choose to believe pisses you off, PekkaA. If exposure to data and facts upsets you, perhaps you need to be pissed off more often.

I have no doubt that you have a hard time following logic based upon this response.
"Back then there was hardly anything that could be called life."
What on God's green earth are you talking about? Just how do you define 'life'? Apparently you are not very well acquainted with the history life on the planet to make a statement like that.

As for George Bush refusing to join the Kyoto Accords...as the U.S. Constitution is written, treaties must be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate before they go into effect. There was a vote 95-0 in the senate to not ratify the treaty. If Bush was pushing the global warming hysteria, I would still be posting opposition to it. I have posted just a minuscule portion of data that flies in the face of the current hysteria, that alone should give any reasonable person pause to consider that the issue is far from decided.

Last edited by Darth_Fleder (2006-06-30 09:55:54)