12 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkYes, but global climate cycles are well known and understood. The thing about global climate change is that it cannot be explained by a global cycle.
Either global warming is part of the earths natural cycle (I remember something from school about the earth cooling down and warming up enough to go into and come out of an "Ice Age". And that was like, waaaay before people and cars and stuff.) OR, it's time to track down that little girl with the map tattooed on her back.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWell.... I think I will still wait a while before I start looking for the map girl. For now anyway.
Yes, but global climate cycles are well known and understood. The thing about global climate change is that it cannot be explained by a global cycle.
Would be more willing to go for it if they could tell me what the weather is going to be in 2 days. 200 years seems like a bit of a stretch at this point. Being from the Midwestern U.S. It would be nice to have fresh Chicago oranges and I don't want to get excited about it now only to be let down later.
Not being a wise guy in this next paragraph.
Is it possible that we cannot explain the current global climate change because we don't have complete (exact yearly averages) temp records for earlier global cycles? After all, we font exactly have the kind of documented records from then like we do for the last couple hundred years.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkI can tell you that the weather patterns are going to be different in 200 years. How could they not be, when over the last 200 years we have dramatically changed the face of the planet? What boggles my mind is that people seem to think that their actions will have no reaction.
Well.... I think I will still wait a while before I start looking for the map girl. For now anyway.
Would be more willing to go for it if they could tell me what the weather is going to be in 2 days. 200 years seems like a bit of a stretch at this point. Being from the Midwestern U.S. It would be nice to have fresh Chicago oranges and I don't want to get excit ...[text shortened]... ly have the kind of documented records from then like we do for the last couple hundred years.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseI do agree that its folly to think we have no affect on our environment. But, I would also agree that global warming skeptics do have grounds for being skeptical about what EXACTLY those effects are. The earth is warming, no one can argue that. Its fact. How much is from human action and how much would happen without humans is another matter. After all, it waa only a few decades ago when it was global cooling. Frankly, that scares me more than warming.
I can tell you that the weather patterns are going to be different in 200 years. How could they not be, when over the last 200 years we have dramatically changed the face of the planet? What boggles my mind is that people seem to think that their actions will have no reaction.
Mmmmmmm..... Fresh Kansas Pineapple......
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkSo, since we agree that there will be effects, what exactly do you think those effects will be? I think the massive changes to the earth that humans have made over the last several hundred years are bound to have some massive effects. Global warming seems to be on about the right scale to me, and there is significant evidence to support it, but if you have another theory about what massive reaction our actions will cause feel free to enlighten me.
I do agree that its folly to think we have no affect on our environment. But, I would also agree that global warming skeptics do have grounds for being skeptical about what EXACTLY those effects are. The earth is warming, no one can argue that. Its fact. How much is from human action and how much would happen without humans is another matter. After all, it waa ...[text shortened]... ooling. Frankly, that scares me more than warming.
Mmmmmmm..... Fresh Kansas Pineapple......
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkThere is a big difference between weather and climate. I can't tell you if it'll rain in two days time - that is weather. I can tell you, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, it's likely to be cold (because it's winter time), that's climate. Weather = short term stochastic fluctuations, climate = long term patterns. We are experiencing climate change, not weather change. Of course, we don't have perfect historical records, but we can predict things pretty well based upon ice core isotope data and things like dendrochronology. For example, for the 600,000 years before 1750 the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere never exceeded 300ppm. It's currently nearly 400. The average temperature currently, is the warmest it's been in the last thousand years, which is quite apart from any climate cycles. And, of course, the rate of change in climate is the most rapid in 6 billion years.
Well.... I think I will still wait a while before I start looking for the map girl. For now anyway.
Would be more willing to go for it if they could tell me what the weather is going to be in 2 days. 200 years seems like a bit of a stretch at this point. Being from the Midwestern U.S. It would be nice to have fresh Chicago oranges and I don't want to get excit ...[text shortened]... ly have the kind of documented records from then like we do for the last couple hundred years.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWe all know that there is good evidence for global warming, yet people continue to dispute it. What I want to know is whether people honestly believe that our actions have no consequences for the fate of the planet, or if they have an alternate explanation of what those consequences will be. If there is an alternate explanation, I would honestly love to hear the evidence for it. Otherwise, since global warming is currently the only scientific theory concerning the consequences of our actions, we should assume it is true until another viable theory is presented. Unless I am mistaken this is how the scientific process usually works.
There is a big difference between weather and climate. I can't tell you if it'll rain in two days time - that is weather. I can tell you, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, it's likely to be cold (because it's winter time), that's climate. Weather = short term stochastic fluctuations, climate = long term patterns. We are experiencing climate chan ...[text shortened]... s. And, of course, the rate of change in climate is the most rapid in 6 billion years.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseOne must first assume that the reaction will be "massive" in order to offer an alternate "massive" reaction theory.
So, since we agree that there will be effects, what exactly do you think those effects will be? I think the massive changes to the earth that humans have made over the last several hundred years are bound to have some massive effects. Global warming seems to be on about the right scale to me, and there is significant evidence to support it, but if you have another theory about what massive reaction our actions will cause feel free to enlighten me.
All that is am trying to say is that those who feel global warming is a human effect have grounds to base that belief on and those that are skeptics have grounds to be skeptical.
If both sides of this arguement refuse to believe that the other has basis nothing will get done because both groups will be too busy working against each other to accomplish anything meaningful.
As for the joking in my posts, it is in no way an insult to you or your stance on the subject. Its only humor intended to lighten the angry mood that always surrounds this debate. Please, do not take offense
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkThe fact that each side believes the other has no basis is why the debate always ends in a stalemate. In order to accomplish something meaningful, we should do our best not to create massive changes to the environment we live in(and yes, we have made some massive changes in the past several hundred years), rather than argueing over specifics of how we are going to kill ourselves if we do.
One must first assume that the reaction will be "massive" in order to offer an alternate "massive" reaction theory.
All that is am trying to say is that those who feel global warming is a human effect have grounds to base that belief on and those that are skeptics have grounds to be skeptical.
If both sides of this arguement refuse to believe that the o ...[text shortened]... ded to lighten the angry mood that always surrounds this debate. Please, do not take offense
So, to make the debate constructive rather than angry, what do you think you and I can do to lessen our impact on our environment?
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzSo you're saying it was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today?
There is a big difference between weather and climate. I can't tell you if it'll rain in two days time - that is weather. I can tell you, if you're in the Northern Hemisphere, it's likely to be cold (because it's winter time), that's climate. Weather = short term stochastic fluctuations, climate = long term patterns. We are experiencing climate chan ...[text shortened]... s. And, of course, the rate of change in climate is the most rapid in 6 billion years.
See what I mean about skeptics having reason?
Ice core data is great, but that can't tell us what the average temp was each and every year. It can't be narrowed down to an annual number is the problem. That's what makes the rate of change arguement seen as fuzzy. Not saying ice core data is crap, just saying its not perfect. though I know its more informative than most give it credit for, especially the skeptics.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by whiteroseIf you agree to stop using paranoia rousing scare phrases like "massive reaction" and "fate of the planet" you will have a better chance at legitimate debate. Granted, not much, but a little.
The fact that each side believes the other has no basis is why the debate always ends in a stalemate. In order to accomplish something meaningful, we should do our best not to create massive changes to the environment we live in(and yes, we have made some massive changes in the past several hundred years), rather than argueing over specifics of how we are ...[text shortened]... e rather than angry, what do you think you and I can do to lessen our impact on our environment?
Otherwise, you will have to suffer a never ending onslaught of Waterworld and Seattle mango jokes. 😉
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by jammerPiltdown was also found to be a fake by scientists. It seems there were charlatans back in 1912, just as there are today. Thankfully, mainstream science tends to ignore the people you cite as "evidence" against global warming.
I think it was Piltdown Man that first noticed Global Warming .. it's right their in my 10th grade science textbook.
It must be true .. a scientist said so.
13 Dec 06
Originally posted by MerkNo, just that definitive measurements only go back that far. Of course, ice core data can't tell you precisely what temperature it was in any given year, but it can definitely put you in the ballpark, and show trends.
So you're saying it was warmer a thousand years ago than it is today?
See what I mean about skeptics having reason?
Ice core data is great, but that can't tell us what the average temp was each and every year. It can't be narrowed down to an annual number is the problem. That's what makes the rate of change arguement seen as fuzzy. Not saying ice core da ...[text shortened]... t. though I know its more informative than most give it credit for, especially the skeptics.