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.
Various spots and/or regions around the globe could be warming and cooling separately and independently of one another and offsetting on an aggregate basis.
So let's assume there's no "global" warming then. Let's also assume these warmings and coolings independendly are not influenced by humans.
With these assumptions under our belt, isn't the graph itself, in total isolation, cause for alarm? Both in terms of A) the obvious direction of the trend (2010s have less ice than 2000s which have less ice than 1990s which have less ice than 1980s - where will the 2020s fall?), and B) the implications of this disappearing ice extent (those implications being positive feedback loops like lower albedo caused by less reflective ice and more absorbtive ocean and the release of additional sequestered gasses, less weather buffering, and potentially higher sea levels)?
Scientists claimed for decades if not longer that the idea of a creation event or big bang was silly. Now its accepted by the vast majority of scientist that the universe did start singular big bang.
And this is why science is great. It's open to new ways of thinking based on new evidence.
We do need climate science to be open to new evidence as well.
But the fact that our understanding has historically changed over time does not invalidate what we currently understand based on all currently available evidence.
Before it was called global climate changeit was called global warming. With global climate change as a name everything that changes is claimed as due to man's activities. This is patently false but good marketing.
They're both valid terms. Global warming causes climate change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2
Scientists claimed for decades if not longer that the idea of a creation event or big bang was silly. Now its accepted by the vast majority of scientist that the universe did start singular big bang. Wonder what will be considered settled science in 20 or 40 years on this and other matters..................
I simply believe scientists dont know what they do not know... so their views will change in the future.
What scientific theories were widely held to be factual, but then were disproven by the big bang? There was never a time when 99% of physicists had hard evidence proving that there was no big bang. Science advances with time, but the notion that everything science holds to be true is regularly dismissed in the face of new evidence is preposterous.
People who claim that man-made global warming is happening should certainly be able to produce very clear aggregate global warming data that supports their theory.
Just as prosecutors must provide jurors with clear and unyielding evidence before they can expect a jury to support their theory of a defendant having committed a crime, similar evidence should exist and be presented by global warming supporters. However, aggregate global warming data since 1997 works against their theory.
Where the beef?
Global warming didn't "stop" in 1997. Here is an article that explains why that misconception took root. It is complicated, so try to pay attention.
Yes, I understand that, the point is why that specific period? Why not 1998 thru 2012? Why not 1980 through 2012?
I mean, I know po9 already explained the real reason why, but I'm curious what your justification is.
Obviously, the author cited 1997 thru 2012 in his headline because there has been no global warming during that period -- even though the rallying cry for global warming began during this period.
So let's assume there's no "global" warming then. Let's also assume these warmings and coolings independendly are not influenced by humans.
With these assumptions under our belt, isn't the graph itself, in total isolation, cause for alarm? Both in terms of A) the obvious direction of the trend (2010s have less ice than 2000s which have less ice than 1990s which have less ice than 1980s - where will the 2020s fall?), and B) the implications of this disappearing ice extent (those implications being positive feedback loops like lower albedo caused by less reflective ice and more absorbtive ocean and the release of additional sequestered gasses, less weather buffering, and potentially higher sea levels)?
How do we prepare for this?
No. You seem to be assuming short term weather trends in a region will continue forever. Moreover, you also seem to be implying that mankind could alter them; i.e., that mankind can or could control regional weather.
I think mankind allegedly controlling the weather is exactly what global warming supporters are arguing, except on a much larger scale; i.e., globally. First, let's see the clear and unyielding proof for man-made global warming before we move onto how man can or could control regional weather.
No. You seem to be assuming short term weather trends in a region will continue forever.
No not really. The graph appears to show that each decade, on average, has less sea ice in the northern hemisphere. It is a trend. Will it stabilize at some point? Will it reverse at some point and we'll start seeing decades with more sea ice in the northern hemisphere? Maybe. We don't know. Look at the graph and the trends - the smart money is on less ice.
What is "short term?" Has there been less average ice in the past than there is now? Sure. Will there be more at some point in the future? Probably so. It seems a marked change, in one definite direction, over just my short lifetime.
I could also quibble with the use of the terms "weather" (when we're talking about 35 years of compiled data) and "region" (when we're talking about the sea ice of the northern hemisphere). This isn't just "it's been kinda dry the last few years in north Texas."
But keep reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wudge
Moreover, you also seem to be implying that mankind could alter them; i.e., that mankind can or could control regional weather.
No, I never said anything about how we can reverse the trend, and I even left out the part about how humans may have inadvertently caused this decades-long regression in northern hemisphere sea ice.
What I asked was, isn't the graph ITSELF, in ISOLATION, through 2014, cause for concern? Positive feedback loops? Higher sea levels?
And what I asked was, how do we prepare for this, if indeed the trend does continue? Not "how do we reverse this trend?" Not "how do we stop it in its tracks?" How do we as a species deal with what appears to be happening, regardless of cause, regardless of our inability to prevent or halt it?
I'm not staking out a position on warming, positive or negative feedback, human contribution, etc.
But I ask you, can you reconcile the simple graph I attached with the statement that there's been no warming since 1997?
Oh, that's easy. The folks who don't accept the fact that earth is warming have taken this new "data" as a cause for celebration. Celebration requires beverages; preferably cool. So, the ice that is missing is found in the beverages of those who celebrate that the world is no longer warming.
Duh.....
In the meantime a melting glacier in Alaska (well, I guess it isn't really melting, people are just stealing the ice) has given up an airplane which plowed into it more than 50 years ago.
So essentially what you're saying is that because 1 more can be added to that sliver based on questionable date choices and a very conveniently truncated graph, 13,926 scientists from 1991 to 2012 were all wrong. Experts in the subject should mostly be ignored because the correct way to interpret things is for a random poster on an internet forum, who likely has 0 PhDs and maybe took a required science class or two back in high school, to hand select which minority study he or she best likes and that is reality.
Welp, I guess there's not explanation for that. You must be right. Score one for the deniers.
(The creator of this figure is James Lawrence Powell. He holds a PhD in Geochemistry and served on the National Science Board under Reagan and Bush-1.0 for 12 years. You can use google if you want his methodolgy)
Last edited by Oldhag1; 06-19-2014 at 09:45 PM..
Reason: Copyright material
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 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.
