Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-19-2011, 10:21 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Ok. Thanks. I've never heard or used that term. For what it is worth, I don't know if it will be catastrophic in most places. That is usually, when a change occurs so quickly that no response is possible (e.g. Pinotubo's eruption, Kracatau,etc.), but I think being sensible is highly warranted. Given most of the world's populatio lives within 200' of current sea level, it seems that rapid sea level rise could cause massive human challenges.
It isn't used on that side of the fence because it is a specific definition that properly establishes the objection of many skeptical arguments. We do not argue warming (it is obvious that it has warmed, the question is when, how much, and significance). The arguments arrive more in the realms of mans contribution and its significance as well as what is the key driver within the system (causation) and the various claims of correlated evidence to such a position that is contested.

Those to which skeptics are strongly objecting to are those promoting "catastrophic AGW". People who claim that our contributions are extremely significant, that we are the main driver and that if we do not act with immediacy, there will be massive consequences of epic proportion.

A reasonable skeptic will agree we have warmed, that man does contribute but their objection will often be the evidence that shows mans contribution to be significant to any relevant driver concerning global climate. That is the main point of contention and to which most skeptics argue from; however this is lost in the politics of the issue as all skeptical arguments or objects are placed into one pile and attacked with fallacious means to discredit and avoid dealing with the legitimacy of many skeptical arguments.

You mention sea level rise, but have you looked closely at the issue? The sea level has been rising steady in our global record for years and there has been no catastrophic rise (or even moderate rise) in the world that is related to climate, yet you are arguing the need to be careful in order to avoid the "catastrophic" result of sea level rise? The predictions within this area have been constantly revised (as some have pointed out to you) and continue to be revised lower and lower leaving "catastrophic", "danger", "immediacy" to be completely unfounded and rather "alarmist" in its position. Even though the evidence of such an occurrence is not supported by observed data, the claim that it will occur continues on as if it were certain and strongly supported.

Sensible is not acting with ignorance and emotion, yet this is the primary component of the CAGW position. It is that of dogma, not science.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Frankly, what I worry about in the near term is the failure of the Gulf Stream. Apparently, the Northeast N. America and NW Europe have had a huge range in temperature over the last few million years. When the melting rate of the Greenland Ice Cap reaches a critical level cold water dilutes the high salinity Gulf Stream waters and may screw up the functioning of the thermohaline N. Atlantic conveyer belt, which is what helps pull the warm water up the eastern seaboard. This would cause a plummet in temperatures in that region, even as global temperatures climb. All of NW Europe, in particular has an anomolously mild climate for its latitude, due to the Gulf Stream. The failure of the Gulf Stream would likely be catastrophic for European agriculture. And crop failures in N. Europe could very well result in war, as the devastated, but powerful countries (Russia?), invade southward to secure resources. This is the only huge thing I think might happen quickly, but it seems quite possible, given the melting rates seen in Greenland in recent years.

The problem here is you are using several claims of evidence to summarize your predictive fear, but the problem is, you need to step back and discuss each claim as there are objections to the significance and accuracy of those claims use to support such a position. You claim Greenland ice cap is melting, reaching a critical level, but this is a strong point of contention and a highly contested area of evaluation that is marred with numerous false claims and speculations. You jump to your fear, the "result" of your claims and disregard the objections of a skeptical argument concerning the basis of your claim. You need to look deeper into the Greenland ice melting issue and evaluate both sides of the position (that means evaluating the position from the opposing side from their own words, not summaries of your side of the position). This issue suffers from the same sense of "alarmism" that the sea level rise does and when you begin to evaluate the observed data and the historical data properly, the issue no longer holds a sense of "doom".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Also, there is the possibility that the polar jet will reconfigure itself radically, which might occur rapidly, increasing variability in the middle latitudes. I don't understand that one very well, but the last three years have been pretty odd. Mild early winter patterns followed by a very high amplitude jet that shoots arctic air into the Southeast in late winter. The jet stream has demonstrated higher amplitude and big temperature shifts. I don't know if this is related, just my observation.
The problem here is that it is riding all on massive speculation. Computer models are not divination devices, they are simply a numerical evaluation of variables limited by the knowledge and understanding of those who design them. As for the "odd" weather, are you sure it is "odd"? A large problem in the climate arguments is that historical data is ignored (when it does not support the position) and only recent data is used for the evaluation. For instance, the tornado increase claim is a common fallacy in the position of "increased odd" events. The fact is, the method to which they are calculated has changed in the last years which creates problems. You may be surprised to find if you look deep into the claims and follow the details that there has not been much in the way of things being significantly "odd" in our weather patterns and cycles when you evaluate the historical data.





Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
Again, I just don't know, and I would certainly not say climate cannot do whatever the hell it wants regardless of what we do. But I cannot defend the big global experiment we have underway. It seems like Russian roulette to me.

One who does not know does not act, for to act without knowledge is walking blind on a tightrope and rather foolish. The fact of the matter is that we don't know a great deal of things about our climate and the problem is that some are arrogantly attempting to claim they do and using extremely poor methods to claim these correlations equal causation. Acting on such ignorance only serves to benefit a certain agenda and you should be paying close attention as to what that may be and who are the ones benefiting.

If you think those promoting the CAGW position are practicing science, then you are sadly mistaken. They are practicing politics, promoting a bias to a some agenda or benefit to themselves. Some are colluding, others simply see benefit personally to supporting such a direction, but none that are proclaiming doom scenarios and demanding urgency are practicing science, they are simply emotionalizing dogma.

You really need to read the Climategate 1 and 2 emails (yourself) and do some heavy reading into the specific players and issues of the topics discussed. Those who claim they are "out of context" and "nothing to see" are often ignorant of them to any personal evaluation and simply parroting off talking points that are politically driven to dismiss them.

Do this...

Read many of the C1 emails. Then, go looking for the responses from those implicated in them right after the C1 release. After that, go read the C2 emails relevant to the C1's you read (they place the C1's in context) and then finally go back and look at the responses to the C1 emails again as well as the responses to the C2. You may just be surprised.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2011, 12:03 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,920,524 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27 View Post
sure sounds like "CLASS ENVY" to me. You feel that those with wealth should not enjoy their wealth?
LOL, are you serious? It has nothing to do with his wealth or how he spends it. It's the hypocrisy of it that is the issue, the man is a hypocrite and not only that the policies he supports will cost the average person more money enriching Al Gore so he can go buy another 20 room house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:30 PM
 
3,201 posts, read 3,850,725 times
Reputation: 1047
How come nobody takes credit for being a global warming fan anymore?

Is Global Warming Dead?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:39 PM
 
25,804 posts, read 16,451,635 times
Reputation: 15993
Quote:
Originally Posted by joebaldknobber View Post
How come nobody takes credit for being a global warming fan anymore?

Is Global Warming Dead?
I think the latest term is "Climate Change"

I have been neutral on the subject myself trying to have an open mind. My brother is much smarter than me--a PHD in Physics and a professor at Johns Hopkins University believes that the climate is changing and that Man owns his share of the reason.

I live in Minnesota and this winter is like nothing I've ever seen before. No snow and 40's and 50's for highs every day so far. Very strange.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:55 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,928,755 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
I think the latest term is "Climate Change"

I have been neutral on the subject myself trying to have an open mind. My brother is much smarter than me--a PHD in Physics and a professor at Johns Hopkins University believes that the climate is changing and that Man owns his share of the reason.
Well, you know what they say about opinions...



Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
I live in Minnesota and this winter is like nothing I've ever seen before. No snow and 40's and 50's for highs every day so far. Very strange.
Anecdotal, which to be honest is one of the problems with the field at the moment. They aren't applying proper scientific process and putting far too much "faith" in assumptions driven by loose correlations. It has gotten them into a mess of trouble if you have been keeping up with any of the science.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 08:59 PM
 
5,915 posts, read 4,805,422 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
I live in Minnesota and this winter is like nothing I've ever seen before. No snow and 40's and 50's for highs every day so far. Very strange.
If you'd been around for 10.000 years you would've seen even more weird stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Pa
20,300 posts, read 22,182,754 times
Reputation: 6552
Stupid? NO
Perhaps lack of faith in the messengers.
How can you take someone seriously when they tool around in private jets? When they provide the very worst example to follow? When time and time again the so called science used is shown to be based for on speculation and less on valid science.
I believe in global warming and I even believe that man is contributing to it. I also can believe that it is cyclic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:24 PM
 
25,804 posts, read 16,451,635 times
Reputation: 15993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirdik View Post
If you'd been around for 10.000 years you would've seen even more weird stuff.
I don't know enough about this subject to really argue one way or the other but I'll just share my brother's opinion on it--he's a scientist so I think his opinion is worth repeating. And to be clear, this is not his field just his opinion backed by much scientific knowledge.

Something I did not know is how oil was formed. I always thought that oil was formed from rotting plant life and animals and maybe others here believed that as well. My brother said the most oil was actually formed by tiny one cell creatures (plankton type creatures) that laid on top of the massive oceans of the young Earth many eons ago. The atmosphere of the Earth was very poisonous, full of H2S and Carbon Monoxide and much worse. Well, these tiny creatures consumed the atmosphere over eons of time. They would take in 2 parts of poisonous atmosphere and secrete one part oxygen and one part slime (oil). The would die and eventually made their way to the bottom of the ocean taking that one little part of oil with them.

Over the eons these oil deposits became larger and larger and the air became cleaner and more breathable for mammals. So we can thank these tiny little creatures for the air we breath.

Eons later these other Earth animals (humans) began to pump this oil to the surface and are in the process of converting it back into poisonous gasses.

This is from my memory and I'm not a scientist so forgive me for my mistakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:30 PM
 
4,042 posts, read 3,522,864 times
Reputation: 1968
No, Global Warming Deniers are not stupid. Let's keep it real.

What most of them/us are doing is NOT denying that the earth is in a warmer cycle, yet again but we are denying this crackpot, Political Agenda of the left that claims the current global warming is manmade.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2012, 09:44 PM
 
5,915 posts, read 4,805,422 times
Reputation: 1398
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger View Post
Eons later these other Earth animals (humans) began to pump this oil to the surface and are in the process of converting it back into poisonous gasses.
Apart from poisonous gasses humans convert oil into energy and stuff like plastic.
So even if we use up all oil the atmosphere is not going to get the same amount of poisonous gasses back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top