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.
So what you are really saying in this "great debates" thread is that you are entirely uninterested in learning, debating, or having viewpoints other than yours discussed.
If you want to believe science is nothing but a giant liberal conspiracy bent on whatever you think they're bent on (making money? ha), and then use that line of thought to insult both scientists and those on welfare, you can do that. But then it's not a post for a debate, it's a post for a rant. They are different things. I'm certain I could find a video to explain the difference to you if you give me some time, with or without schmaltzy music.
I would be interested to hear your thoughts on the best way to address anthropogenic climate change and the associated issues, and also what other areas of science you choose to ignore. Certainly, you wouldn't want your life in the hands of those drug-developing welfare queens when you go to the hospital.
Climate change is a naturally recurring cycle; however what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change attributable to global warming. There have been a considerable number of threads posted on this discussion forum asserting, inter alia, that there is a continuing scientific debate on the subject of global warming and climate change. That is simply not true. Global warming is no longer a question of belief or opinion, it is a scientific fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon has for over a decade acknowledged the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.
Climate change is a naturally recurring cycle; however what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change attributable to global warming. There have been a considerable number of threads posted on this discussion forum asserting, inter alia, that there is a continuing scientific debate on the subject of global warming and climate change. That is simply not true. Global warming is no longer a question of belief or opinion, it is a scientific fact. The evidence of global warming, and its links to human activity, has been established by research and experimentation results collected by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on over seven million observations of temperature, salinity and other variables in the world’s oceans; and that has definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature, which has risen 0.9F in just the past 40 years. (The same findings were made in a long-range study in Britain.) Even the Pentagon has for over a decade acknowledged the fact of global warming and the threat of climate change on national security interests. See Peter Schwartz and Doug Randall, "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security" (October 2003). In face of the scientific evidence, which has been independently verified, to say that there is any doubt about it is no longer tenable.
Consensus is not fact. Agreement is not reality. So, firstly, despite your arbitrary pronouncement, there is debate as to the veracity of AGW. I can quote hundreds of dissents by scientists. But it is not necessary. Why? Because popular opinions may still be wrong, and are often wrong. We have 95% of the planet believing in deities. Including many AGW types.
And science that cannot predict the weather has "definitively ruled out natural climate variations due solar activity, volcanic eruptions, photosynthesis, etc. as the cause of measurable increase in ocean temperature"
Definitively. Just like that. No possible debate. No possible error. Perfection. Not just science, but omniscience.
Moderator cut: personal attack
Last edited by Oldhag1; 07-30-2014 at 03:03 PM..
Reason: removed color font
Science is not based on consensus of opinion, but observable, verifiable evidence. The overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that global warming is occurring at an accelerated rate caused by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere, and that anthropogenic activity is a significant contributing factor. What we know is that the polar icecaps are melting as evidenced by satellite imagery and decrease in mass verified by scientific measurements in situ. We also know that climate change occurs naturally as evidenced by core samples of the earth's surface. However, as I said above, what we are seeing now is abrupt climate change; which the evidence links to the growth of the earth’s human population and activities over the past 250 years; and, most dramatically, in the last half century. What we know is that there is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays; and that it is being depleted by industrial emissions into the atmosphere resulting in the rise of the ocean temperature that generates the earth’s climate conditions. Just a small change in ocean temperature will affect the thermohaline conveyor leading to more harsh winter weather, reduced soil moisture and more intense winds in regions that provide the significant portion of the world’s food production, and cause a dramatic decrease in the human carrying capacity of the earth’s environment.
The naysayers have succeeded in politicizing the global warming debate; and they are wrong for the true test of science is empirical evidence - not political correctness. The fact that there is a lack of consensus of opinion is inapposite. See article "The cold truth about climate change" by Joseph Romm, Salon (February 27, 2008). As Dr. Romm put it: "What matters is scientific findings - data, not opinions."
Location: The High Desert of the American Southwest
214 posts, read 230,848 times
Reputation: 364
And what is this rubbish about not being able to find a scientist who supports individualism or freedom? Good Lord, truth and freedom from institutions built on superstition IS freedom! Of the highest order. Look around and you will find that the nations with the best scientific community are also the most free.
Without Climatologists we would not:
be able to predict weather
be able to issue severe weather warnings that save thousands of lives
be able to help farmers manage crops
understand what comprises our atmosphere
understand what types of pollutants hurt our atmosphere, and thus take corrective measures
understand the value of the ozone; how it helps protect us from skin cancers, and thus inform the public, allowing them to take precautions and avoid potentially fatal health problems.
I shake my head every time anyone says something like "Climate changes every day of course..." because that just shows they don't understand what "climate" means.
Weather is the thing that changes every day. Climate is the long term pattern, the normal range of weather over a large area. As the old saying goes, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."
Climate scientists think in terms of decades of weather, centuries even. And barring major natural cataclysms, like the long ago asteroid hitting the Yucatan peninsula that wiped out the dinosaurs, climate change has historically been slow and gradual, something that occurred over lifetimes. But now we've arrived at an era in which climate change... the overall patterns of weather over time and over large areas... is occurring with startling and unprecedented speed.
Modern science, utilizing modern technology, has enabled us to measure the myriad of rapid changes we've been experiencing, with great clarity, and in amazing detail. Satellite photos and measurements show the inexorable retreat of the summer polar ice caps, and the melting away of a 1,000 years of glacier accumulation in only a few short decades. The seas are rising, local temperatures are breaking historic records every day, wildlife migration routes are shifting, local crop yields are changing. No open-minded and reasonable person, looking at the great body of evidence which is now public and readily accessible, could conclude anything less than that we are in the midst of rapid, that is to say unnatural, climate change.
In fact any substantial debate about whether climate change is real, beyond a reasonable doubt, has been over for a decade. The US Military, confronting reality, has been doing widespread planning and implementing large scale operational changes as a result for that long. There really is no substantial controversy on this point, only the artificial controversy that keeps being ginned up for political reasons. But there is simply no such major controversy within scientific communities.
The political controversy is fed by concerns about money, not truth. There are huge financial fortunes at risk from the conclusions of scientific research about causes and remediations, so huge sums of money are being sluiced into the public arena to try to ward off any curtailment of the fossil-fuel industries being cited as primary contributors to the problem.
So rather than being a considered debate about the fine points of various hypotheses between learned men of science, this has become a slug fest between political groups who are not motivated by the search for truth, as real scientists are, but by the acquisition and use of financial and political power. The problem is that the acrimonious arguing and partisan posturing obscures rational discussion about what we can and should do about addressing the issue.
We don't need any more politically based wrangling on this. We do need more people looking at, and acting intelligently on, what the research is actually showing us.
Are the oceans warming? Yup
Do the oceans cover 70% of the Earth's surface? Yup
Don't let the Radical Republicans bamboozle you. Global warming is real.
How is the oceans temperature measured? How many measurements points are used now and how do we know it's a good measure of the temperature of the ocean? What depth of ocean is measured, surely it's more than a single point surface measurement as deep as it is and as great a heat sink as water is. This is the easy part, measuring today's temp. Over what period have we consistent measurement points of the ocean? Are the same devices used now as say 40 years ago? How are they calibrated / maintained to remain accurate? Has the measurement device and technology changed over the 40 years in my example?
I want to see the calculations given some of the reported shenanigans reported about data manipulation in the past. Saying some one is a scientist in theory means they don't have an agenda but in practice and reality most all people do, so show the data and calculation of the earths temp since it is so certain?
Well I think this must be significant even though I claim no expertise in this topic:
It seems that temperature and CO2 have been cycling long before we had anything to do with it and it was not more than about 10,000 years ago that North America was under a mile of ice. I would be more worried about cooling, crop failures, the resulting health impact. Anyway, supposedly all of our CO2 generating activities are only putting 1 more molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere for every 100,000 air molecules, so is that even enough to care about? Does the earth receiving a maximum of 1/100,000th extra sunlight reflected back really matter, or is what's happening just what happens?
Well I think this must be significant even though I claim no expertise in this topic:
It seems that temperature and CO2 have been cycling long before we had anything to do with it and it was not more than about 10,000 years ago that North America was under a mile of ice. I would be more worried about cooling, crop failures, the resulting health impact. Anyway, supposedly all of our CO2 generating activities are only putting 1 more molecule of CO2 into the atmosphere for every 100,000 air molecules, so is that even enough to care about? Does the earth receiving a maximum of 1/100,000th extra sunlight reflected back really matter, or is what's happening just what happens?
Oh no. This can't be right. It doesn't fit the message and the agenda. It can be refuted easily by some of the "enlightened truth seekers", aka environmental scientists. It's simply a matter of providing some "truer data" from a United Nations "scientific" committee. We'll take care of it...
I shake my head every time anyone says something like "Climate changes every day of course..." because that just shows they don't understand what "climate" means.
Weather is the thing that changes every day. Climate is the long term pattern, the normal range of weather over a large area. As the old saying goes, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."
Climate scientists think in terms of decades of weather, centuries even. And barring major natural cataclysms, like the long ago asteroid hitting the Yucatan peninsula that wiped out the dinosaurs, climate change has historically been slow and gradual, something that occurred over lifetimes. But now we've arrived at an era in which climate change... the overall patterns of weather over time and over large areas... is occurring with startling and unprecedented speed.
Modern science, utilizing modern technology, has enabled us to measure the myriad of rapid changes we've been experiencing, with great clarity, and in amazing detail. Satellite photos and measurements show the inexorable retreat of the summer polar ice caps, and the melting away of a 1,000 years of glacier accumulation in only a few short decades. The seas are rising, local temperatures are breaking historic records every day, wildlife migration routes are shifting, local crop yields are changing. No open-minded and reasonable person, looking at the great body of evidence which is now public and readily accessible, could conclude anything less than that we are in the midst of rapid, that is to say unnatural, climate change.
In fact any substantial debate about whether climate change is real, beyond a reasonable doubt, has been over for a decade. The US Military, confronting reality, has been doing widespread planning and implementing large scale operational changes as a result for that long. There really is no substantial controversy on this point, only the artificial controversy that keeps being ginned up for political reasons. But there is simply no such major controversy within scientific communities.
The political controversy is fed by concerns about money, not truth. There are huge financial fortunes at risk from the conclusions of scientific research about causes and remediations, so huge sums of money are being sluiced into the public arena to try to ward off any curtailment of the fossil-fuel industries being cited as primary contributors to the problem.
So rather than being a considered debate about the fine points of various hypotheses between learned men of science, this has become a slug fest between political groups who are not motivated by the search for truth, as real scientists are, but by the acquisition and use of financial and political power. The problem is that the acrimonious arguing and partisan posturing obscures rational discussion about what we can and should do about addressing the issue.
We don't need any more politically based wrangling on this. We do need more people looking at, and acting intelligently on, what the research is actually showing us.
The reason this has become a political slugfest is simple and self-evident. It was always politically oriented.
The field of "environmental science" is debauched, and has been for a long time.
It is humorous, though, to see "progressive" environmental scientists approvingly referring to the US Military now that it suits the agenda. Politics does indeed make for some very strange bedfellows.
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.
