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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 01-18-2014, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
3,931 posts, read 1,950,573 times
Reputation: 1491

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
there is no such thing as man made global warming. any global warming that is going on, is natural and not caused by man.

I will say this. I think everyone is effectively wrong in how they look at the problem.


As you burn fossil fuels and clear forests, you would see a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. A rise in CO2 should see a rise in temperature. Thus, I think any sane person would recognize that humans most likely have an impact on the Earth's climate. The question isn't whether or not we impact the Earth, its how much of an impact we actually have, and whats its effects would actually be.


In my view, the problem with the discussion about global warming, is that we seem to be effectively broken down into polar opposite camps.

On one end you have the people who deny that human activity could possibly affect the Earth. And so any change in climate must necessarily be a result of natural changes over time.

On the other end, you tend to have climate alarmists, who declare that if we don't do something about global warming today, within a very short time we are going to see catastrophic changes which will be irreversible.



Now, had the discussion about global warming stayed rational and fact-driven from the beginning. We might be able to handle any of the potential problems associated with climate-change in a reasonable way. But since one side doesn't even want to talk. While the other side has been predicting catastrophic runaway global warming, which was supposed to cause sea-level rise of several feet by now. And we were supposed to see tens of millions of "climate refugees" by now. We were supposed to see excruciating heat. And a severe melting of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica, which would contribute even more to global warming. We were supposed to see more and bigger storms.

The problem is, yeah the Earth warmed slightly over time. But the temperature change has been almost entirely isolated in the arctic. There has been a reduction in the number of tornadoes, there have been fewer hurricanes. At least in the United States, we keep seeing record snowfall and record cold. We haven't seen anything remotely close to climate-refugees fleeing their homes. The ice on Greenland and Antarctica seem to either be relatively stable, or they seem to be growing. And even more, sea-level rise has not been nearly as severe as what was predicted. If you were to take the sea-level rise data from only the last six years for instance, we have actually seen a relatively sharp decline in sea-levels.

Greenland's Ice Sheet More Stable Than Once Believed

File:Global Mean Sea Level.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The problem is that, the more wild predictions the global warming alarmists make. The easier it is for the other side to ignore you as just a bunch of crazies. If you would simply make appropriate predictions, instead of trying to scare everyone. Maybe people would take you more seriously.


Here is my prediction. As long as we don't suddenly fall into an ice age, warming will continue at a very slow rate for the next couple decades, with almost all warming happening in the polar regions. Within a decade or two, you might see an acceleration of warming, but warming will generally slow down over the next 100 years compared to the last 100 years, and then "plateau". After which, you would see a moderate reversal, as biomass and other renewables begin to replace fossil fuels more and more(simply because they will become more cost-effective).

Sea-levels will rise at a slower rate over the next two decades than over the last two decades. Sea levels will most likely rise about 10 inches over the next century. As sea-levels will generally follow the same pattern as temperature rise. This sea-level rise will practically be unnoticed by most major coastal areas. But you will see large-scale projects in certain cities to create more "sea walls", or other "dams". Not to directly hold back 10 inches of sea-level rise. But rather, to prevent "storm surges" from damaging the cities. I would say, we have a few hundred years before any major city risks "being lost". And that is assuming that the current patterns basically hold over that long of a period of time.


Basically, I'll probably still be alive in 2050. And by 2050, the climate will be about as different from what it is today, as the climate is different today compared to what it was in 1980. You know, slightly different but practically unnoticeable by anyone who isn't a scientist.

But even after decades of almost unnoticeable changes, you'll still have alarmists running around saying basically the same crap they are saying now.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-18-2014, 01:36 AM
 
Location: Under Mount Doom
9,247 posts, read 6,107,249 times
Reputation: 4746
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I will say this. I think everyone is effectively wrong in how they look at the problem.


As you burn fossil fuels and clear forests, you would see a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. A rise in CO2 should see a rise in temperature. Thus, I think any sane person would recognize that humans most likely have an impact on the Earth's climate. The question isn't whether or not we impact the Earth, its how much of an impact we actually have, and whats its effects would actually be.


In my view, the problem with the discussion about global warming, is that we seem to be effectively broken down into polar opposite camps.

On one end you have the people who deny that human activity could possibly affect the Earth. And so any change in climate must necessarily be a result of natural changes over time.

On the other end, you tend to have climate alarmists, who declare that if we don't do something about global warming today, within a very short time we are going to see catastrophic changes which will be irreversible.



Now, had the discussion about global warming stayed rational and fact-driven from the beginning. We might be able to handle any of the potential problems associated with climate-change in a reasonable way. But since one side doesn't even want to talk. While the other side has been predicting catastrophic runaway global warming, which was supposed to cause sea-level rise of several feet by now. And we were supposed to see tens of millions of "climate refugees" by now. We were supposed to see excruciating heat. And a severe melting of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica, which would contribute even more to global warming. We were supposed to see more and bigger storms.

The problem is, yeah the Earth warmed slightly over time. But the temperature change has been almost entirely isolated in the arctic. There has been a reduction in the number of tornadoes, there have been fewer hurricanes. At least in the United States, we keep seeing record snowfall and record cold. We haven't seen anything remotely close to climate-refugees fleeing their homes. The ice on Greenland and Antarctica seem to either be relatively stable, or they seem to be growing. And even more, sea-level rise has not been nearly as severe as what was predicted. If you were to take the sea-level rise data from only the last six years for instance, we have actually seen a relatively sharp decline in sea-levels.

Greenland's Ice Sheet More Stable Than Once Believed

File:Global Mean Sea Level.svg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The problem is that, the more wild predictions the global warming alarmists make. The easier it is for the other side to ignore you as just a bunch of crazies. If you would simply make appropriate predictions, instead of trying to scare everyone. Maybe people would take you more seriously.


Here is my prediction. As long as we don't suddenly fall into an ice age, warming will continue at a very slow rate for the next couple decades, with almost all warming happening in the polar regions. Within a decade or two, you might see an acceleration of warming, but warming will generally slow down over the next 100 years compared to the last 100 years, and then "plateau". After which, you would see a moderate reversal, as biomass and other renewables begin to replace fossil fuels more and more(simply because they will become more cost-effective).

Sea-levels will rise at a slower rate over the next two decades than over the last two decades. Sea levels will most likely rise about 10 inches over the next century. As sea-levels will generally follow the same pattern as temperature rise. This sea-level rise will practically be unnoticed by most major coastal areas. But you will see large-scale projects in certain cities to create more "sea walls", or other "dams". Not to directly hold back 10 inches of sea-level rise. But rather, to prevent "storm surges" from damaging the cities. I would say, we have a few hundred years before any major city risks "being lost". And that is assuming that the current patterns basically hold over that long of a period of time.


Basically, I'll probably still be alive in 2050. And by 2050, the climate will be about as different from what it is today, as the climate is different today compared to what it was in 1980. You know, slightly different but practically unnoticeable by anyone who isn't a scientist.

But even after decades of almost unnoticeable changes, you'll still have alarmists running around saying basically the same crap they are saying now.
I know what you are saying about the alarmists, they can be too much. I have been an incrementalist myself, until this winter. I began pondering why we were seeing such varied weather in the mid latitudes the last few years (ridiculously mild temps followed by arctic blasts). I had once seen a presentation by a climatologist about Rossby Waves in the jet stream related to climate shifts. I realized soon afterward that is what was starting now. Check out this thread I started on the weather forum. It includes an interesting video by Dr. Jennifer Francis. No alarmism at all, just science. Pretty compelling, and frankly, scary, because it is happening right now, and it is big. As for the human role, read up on Arrhenius. The atmospheric physics are not new...or fabricated by money grubbing scientists.

Rossby Waves and Climate Extremes

Svante Arrhenius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of the greenhouse effect and global warming
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 02:13 AM
 
15,691 posts, read 5,577,342 times
Reputation: 3669
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeywrenching View Post
neither can you prove that man is the cause of global warming. oh btw, how is the global warming going? how about all those people freezing their butts off with -40 below weather lately.


here you go for your proof.

http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleProof.pdf
Where did these non-climate-scientists deniers (a mathematician who gets get degrees and radians mixed up, an electrical engineer who seems more interested in banking and a tv host who did children's programs) "Hide" the more than 13000 published articles in the past 20 years that support the opposite conclusions to those 2 already well rebutted articles by Craig Loehle and Akasofu.

In their shorts?

Published Rebuttal of Akasofu Paper “On the Present Halting of Global Warming” | Global Warming: Man or Myth?

RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress

Shall we call it "Hide it in the shorts-shtick"?

I repeat:

If there were substantial evidence to refute AGW, there would surely be many many Journal articles with the evidence published by now. Where is it all?

Last edited by Ceist; 01-18-2014 at 02:29 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 06:31 AM
Status: "Rand Paul 2016 !!!" (set 28 days ago)
 
Location: Austin
18,968 posts, read 5,739,068 times
Reputation: 4213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Seems to be a crossover with posters who deny the science of AGW who also deny the science of evolution. Interesting.
Seems to be a crossover with posters who support the AGW hoax and who also support global wealth redistribution. Interesting.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Volunteer State
753 posts, read 319,105 times
Reputation: 1142
It was amusing to read this post...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddlehead View Post
The best I can say is they are invested in their viewpoint, and hate to admit they are wrong, so the will fight to the death to defend a losing position. Worst case, they are just intellectually dishonest. A good number of the conservative posters who post so frequently on this topic are employed in the energy industry (oil drilling, coal,etc.), so this is their bread and butter. Folks will always find or support arguments that support their livelihood.
Now let me just adjust this here for a second and see if any of you can spot the irony...


The best I can say is they are invested in their viewpoint, and hate to admit they are wrong, so the will fight to the death to defend a losing position. Worst case, they are just intellectually dishonest. A good number of the liberal posters who post so frequently on this topic are employed in the green energy field, so this is their bread and butter. Folks will always find or support arguments that support their livelihood.

Notice anything?

Every argument that is brought up by one side can, with just a change in a small handful of words, can be used by the other side.

You people are simply spouting off that which you've heard before - and many times by the other side!! Oh my God, find something original to use as your debate points, as opposed to these stupid, trite cliches.

Debate the damn science!

Last edited by Starman71; 01-18-2014 at 07:57 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 07:33 AM
 
Location: My ranch
15,145 posts, read 6,544,694 times
Reputation: 3995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Where did these non-climate-scientists deniers (a mathematician who gets get degrees and radians mixed up, an electrical engineer who seems more interested in banking and a tv host who did children's programs) "Hide" the more than 13000 published articles in the past 20 years that support the opposite conclusions to those 2 already well rebutted articles by Craig Loehle and Akasofu.

In their shorts?

Published Rebuttal of Akasofu Paper “On the Present Halting of Global Warming” | Global Warming: Man or Myth?

RealClimate: Past reconstructions: problems, pitfalls and progress

Shall we call it "Hide it in the shorts-shtick"?

I repeat:

If there were substantial evidence to refute AGW, there would surely be many many Journal articles with the evidence published by now. Where is it all?


you see, any peer reviews or scientists that get their information on the public dime is automatically considered suspect, as their livelihood is all about getting another paycheck.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Volunteer State
753 posts, read 319,105 times
Reputation: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
One thing I'd like to ask is, I get the impression that people who deny Human-Caused Global Warming believe we shouldn't bother with any of the supposed remedies either (IE public transport, renewable energy, environmentally friendly buildings, reduced emissions, alternative fuels, sustainable growth etc). Which is strange, because these remedies help reduce carbon emissions, costs, and improve livability by reducing air pollution. They are wholly beneficial to everyone; their effect on Global Warming is only just an added plus. And yet they believe we shouldn't bother with these. My question is-why? It seems to me that things that are universally beneficial would have universal support, but I guess not. Would any AGW proponents and opponents like to weigh on this? Also, are there any AGW opponents out there that don't feel this way, and if so, would you kindly explain? Thank you in advance for input.

Nope. Wrong.

No one - well not very many - who claims to be skeptical on AGW actually states that we shouldn't be working on renewable energies or making our home clean. I firmly believe that - if asked - they would strongly support these efforts.

But they will also strongly disagree with making these things happen at a detriment to an economy that supports the livelihoods of billions of people. They disagree with spending trillions (eventually) on measures that will have very little to any effect if the movement isn't global, which it's not. And they have huge problems with the extreme measures supported by others that 1) will not use these same measures themselves, & 2) simply make money for others.

I want us off oil, if only to make our country energy independent. I would love to see in my lifetime an affordable 4-door EV (or equivalent) that could go 400 miles on a single charge carrying 4 passengers and 200lb of luggage. It would be wonderful to have PV cells on my roof that could power my family of 4's entire needs. Clean water, fresh air, etc. - all of us want it.

Last edited by Starman71; 01-18-2014 at 08:06 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Volunteer State
753 posts, read 319,105 times
Reputation: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
Did you miss the part where I said "crossover"? Did you see me write ALL? Are you unaware of the difference between someone who is skeptical and someone who is a denier?

Uhh, you actually didn't say crossover until after my post. But your previous posts indicate you are the one that seems unable to differentiate between skeptics and deniers. You lump everyone that disagrees with you all together. And there's not a poster in here that would say differently.

I have never read any of your posts or responded to your posts before as far as I know, yet you accuse me of all sorts of things.

I accuse you - and an awful lot of other who are doing the very same thing - using the catch phrase "denier" and other generalizations of all who disagree.

How would I categorize you? Just from this post alone, I would say paranoid, arrogant, angry and perfectly willing to attack your own straw man arguments.

Paranoid?!? Arrogant?!? Wow... Man do you really need some reading comprehension skills. I teach a class in it, would you care to join?
And what F***ing strawman argument did I ever bring up?!??! Here's another example of flawed logic. And yet another example of using those cliches spouted by others (on both sides) without bothering to see whether they apply or not.


Were you aware that the "the science is settled" statement is a straw man argument created by AGW deniers? No true scientist says the science is truly settled on anything. But it can certainly get to a point where it becomes silly to keep denying all evidence out of hand because of religious or political or economic reasons - especially those who show they've never even read a Journal article in their life and get all their information from conspiracy denier blogs like WattsUpWithThat and tabloid infotainment sources like the UK Daily Mail and Fox 'News'.

Wrong again. I have heard & read in these very forums, posters using this exact same phrase, telling skeptics and deniers both that the science is settled. It's not a bloody strawman argument when posters like you use the damn phrase consistently. Oh my God...

My comment was based on the anecdotal observation that quite a few of the regular AGW deniers (yes deniers, not skeptics) on these forums show they are science deniers when it comes to evolution or AGW- and they make it really obvious they don't understand any of the science behind either topic.

It would be interesting to do a poll.
But you lump them altogether. Your posts don't differentiate between them. You basically state that all who disagree with you are deniers. I don't think I've ever seen you - or others (not to pick just on you) use the word skeptic, until a couple of posts ago, when you finally decided to do, but only after my post pointing it out.

Last edited by Starman71; 01-18-2014 at 08:08 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 07:55 AM
 
Location: Volunteer State
753 posts, read 319,105 times
Reputation: 1142
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
NORDEN, Calif. — Cattle ranchers have had to sell portions of their herd for lack of water. Sacramento and other municipalities have imposed severe water restrictions. Wildfires broke out this week in forests that are usually too wet to ignite. Ski resorts that normally open in December are still closed; at one here in the Sierra Nevada that is open, a bear wandered onto a slope full of skiers last week, apparently not hibernating because of the balmy weather.

On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown made it official: California is suffering from a drought, perhaps one for the record books. The water shortage has Californians trying to deal with problems that usually arise in midsummer.
And this has never happened before in the history of California, right? Only since man has been able to artificially produce CO2 from ICE's and factories did droughts occur in an area already low on water and an ever increasing population, right? And droughts only count if they occur after man has moved into the region, correct? So any droughts before in the last, oh say 4 billion years, means nothing. Gotcha.

What does have to do with the topic?!?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2014, 08:13 AM
 
15,691 posts, read 5,577,342 times
Reputation: 3669
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starman71 View Post
But you lump them altogether. Your posts don't differentiate between them. You basically state that all who disagree with you are deniers. I don't think I've ever seen you - or others (not to pick just on you) use the word skeptic, until a couple of posts ago, when you finally decided to do, but only after my post pointing it out.
My one line post that you responded to used the word 'crossover'. Are you blind?

I don't use the word 'skeptic' very often on CD, because all these endless "Global Warming Hoax"! denier threads are by mindless parroting deniers, not true skeptics. You only have to read the posts to realize how sickeningly ignorant most of them are - they just repeat the same tired old brain dead denier memes.
How many of them have any real interest in climate science or learning anything? They post links to conspiracy blogs where the science is woefully misrepresented and poorly understood. How many of them would even have access to Journals so they can research the original published articles instead of what their favorite crackpot weather-man tells them the articles say? They look for any tabloid piece that attacks climate science and regurgitate it mindlessly no matter how stupid it is. It's mostly all about mocking science and scientists who they think are all 'libtards' sucking money off the public purse. Is that what you would seriously call a 'skeptic'?

Last edited by Ceist; 01-18-2014 at 08:28 AM..
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.


 
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 $84,000 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.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top