The New Global Warming Thread

[USN_Squid]

I think you're having a hard time following the different arguments and quotes coming from so many different directions. I'm going to bow out and agree to disagree with you.

edit:

With one last caveat. Guess the author of this statement:

I am decidedly an optimist about this situation. Our country (the United States) is often criticized for producing 25% of the world's anthropogenic CO2. However, we are rarely recognized and applauded for producing, with that same CO2, 31% of what the world wants and needs; it's food, technology, medical advances, defense of freedom, and so on.[6] Today this is done primarily with the burning of carbon, but in the future will come from other inexpensive and efficient sources. For example, the US produces a unit of GDP using about 55% of the energy required to produce the same unit in 1970. The U.S. is decarbonizing its economy and this will continue. Even though carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and energy from carbon allows people to live better lives, we can look forward to new sources of energy as the genius of America works on the next source of inexpensive energy.

If you guessed Dr. John Christy Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville or UAH, Alabama's State Climatologist and former Lead Author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change you would be correct. link

[Lucky Shot]

On the subject of the solar radiation theory, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../11/warm11.xml, I find it dubious at best to put faith in a test that has not been done yet. This is still in the experimental stages. The scientist has yet to do the test with the particle accelerator and even if successful it will still not prove/disprove that the warming of the earth is due to solar radiation.

The sun creates wind and is directly involved in evaporation of water. And it has been shown that cosmic rays can create aerosols which aid in cloud formation. It's also a series of experiments for Svensmark that starts in 1996 but originally started by Edward Ney in 1958. Solar Radiation is an unpredictable variable and is a factor in weather creation. I have doubt about how many climate models treat it as a constant.

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

You skeptics seem to be under the impression that global warming is like a house of cards, where if you can find a quote from one scientists with a different opinion, or mention some disprovable factoid, that the whole argument comes tumbling down. Unfortunately, this issue is more like a finished jigsaw puzzle, where you can take pieces away but the whole pictures is still quite clear.

I highly suggest reading through the Skepticforum "debate". Those on that forum do a much better job of educating the under informed than I can about global warming and their misconceptions about C02, the sun, and whatever else skeptics throw at them.

It seems that fear, ignorance, politics and greed are all that are fueling these arguments against science. Thankfully though, as someone else has said, you are just spitting into the wind.

[Kerostasis]

I am trying so hard to find good, non bias anti-global warming information. It's not easy... only more and more about how the GOP is attacking science, Americans are confused, and the science behind global warming is overwhelming. Sounds about right.

Yeah, that sounds about right for examples of the biased information you report you keep finding. Of course, the only reason you haven't seen any un-biased information is because you close your eyes every time you get near it, so I guess I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. Spitting into the wind indeed...

[Pistos]

This is one of those threads that I love to read, but I've never really had anything to add. I still don't have anything new to bring to the table, but I do have a question for GlobalWarmin.

For the sake of argument let's say that climate change is occuring and that human's are the cause and that the change is going to be more than the (recent) historical up and down swings and that its going to cause bad, bad things to happen. What do you suggest we do about it? Are you saying we should all try and use a bit less energy where we can? Or is there some other solution you would like to see enacted?

[GlobalWarmin]

Of course, the only reason you haven't seen any un-biased information is because you close your eyes every time you get near it...

Haha. Where is it? End this once and for all. Show me proof of ONE worldwide scientific organization that will back up any claims against mainstream science on global warming. I'll show you 3 organization to every 1 you can prove, and keep in mind that there are a lot of fake Internet organizations funded by oil companies, so make sure you do all the research before you mention them. Also, show me ONE current story from any major non right-wing news source that totally and convincingly discredits all mainstream science on global warming (no editorials). For every 1 story you can find I will show you 10 that discredit that one story. Make sure if you do read an editorial from some tiny newspaper, that you read the comments people write. That should be so easy for you, even though it's been impossible for me, since you think the scientific community is so divided over the issue.

At least it'll be cooler in the hole skeptics have dug for themselves

[Lucky Shot]

For every 1 story you can find I will show you 10 that discredit that one story.

Well your about 5000 behind, so go get posting!

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

For the sake of argument let's say that climate change is occuring and that human's are the cause and that the change is going to be more than the (recent) historical up and down swings and that its going to cause bad, bad things to happen. What do you suggest we do about it? Are you saying we should all try and use a bit less energy where we can? Or is there some other solution you would like to see enacted?

First, I suggest that everyone listens to the highest scientific authorities on the issue and no one else. Climate change is very real, and anyone can feel free to debate the causes of it all they want. Unfortunately, had science been able to prove what has been predicted for so long (or had governments been willing to listen) about man's effect on the climate sooner, we wouldn't be in the lose-lose situation we face now. I'm not saying it's certain that everywhere will be a dessert or underwater in 100 years (and neither is mainstream science), but certainly there is going to be bad weather ahead that is going to displace many people and change the way we live. This is already happening -- there is no doubt of this.

Something natural WILL kill our species eventually, unless we can use science to save ourselves. If global warming is partially man-made, mostly man-made, or not at all man-made is almost a moot point. Thankfully the governments of the world do at least take the issue seriously now, as they have no choice because climate change is already affecting us, and, maybe, just maybe science can find a way to make these climate changes that are happening easier on human civilizations without further harm to the environment.

The best solution to this problem was to act on the warning signs and advice of scientists sooner, like around the Industrial Revolution. Regardless of whether fossil fuels are to blame, they will run out. America needs to be leading the way in discovering new, renewable energy resources, or risk missing out on the next big economic boom. It seems almost certain that the threat of global warming will result in some nation profiting greatly from new discoveries. Public support in America will help influence policy in this direction, but public doubt about fossil fuels and the likeliness of global warming only distracts policy makers from dealing with the inevitable. My specific solution is therefore to use this opportunity to make America even wealthier, and try to give our species a fighting chance for long term survival. Most importantly of all, don't let those who are waiting for a supernatural being to come lift them from the planet influence government policy about the future!

I wish I could say that using less electricity or driving a fuel efficient vehicle was the solution; however, it's the least one can do to be a responsible citizen of the planet at this point. But as some have already said, reducing carbon emissions isn't much of a satisfactory solution to scientists or economists right now. The warming will not stop suddenly if we stop using fossil fuels. The tipping point is near though. Remember, it only takes a one degree difference for water to boil or freeze. Figuring a way to pull the C02 from the air is the logical next step. Hopefully we don't end up having to block the heat with dimming pollution.

We need to work with science and not attack it based on political reasons, forget about the costs, and begin a new modern era of environmentally responsible societies. That is all we can do. If we keep doing nothing and kidding ourselves that these problems don't exist, I have no doubt that the near future for the planet will not include thriving human civilizations.

[Lucky Shot]

Remember, it only takes a one degree difference for water to boil or freeze.

Which scientist discovered this, link?

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Which scientist discovered this, link?

Lucky Shot

Easy, you just have to lower the pressure to somewhere below 0.006 atmospheres, where water vapor sublimates directly from ice instead of melting first.

General Phase diagram, with dotted line representing the specific activity of Water

[GlobalWarmin]

Which scientist discovered this, link?

Lucky Shot

Come on, think about that a little will you?

1 degree Celsius water is liquid, but you only need a difference of 1 degree to make it into a solid. And you want to debate science?

http://www.onedegree.com/

[Kerostasis]

Haha. Where is it? End this once and for all. Show me proof of ONE worldwide scientific organization that will back up any claims against mainstream science on global warming. I'll show you 3 organization to every 1 you can prove, and keep in mind that there are a lot of fake Internet organizations funded by oil companies, so make sure you do all the research before you mention them. Also, show me ONE current story from any major non right-wing news source that totally and convincingly discredits all mainstream science on global warming (no editorials). For every 1 story you can find I will show you 10 that discredit that one story. Make sure if you do read an editorial from some tiny newspaper, that you read the comments people write. That should be so easy for you, even though it's been impossible for me, since you think the scientific community is so divided over the issue.

At least it'll be cooler in the hole skeptics have dug for themselves

You've defined the answer out of existence. You want a story holding a position that is anathema to anyone with a leftwing slant, but it can't be told by anyone with a rightwing slant, it can't be contained in an editorial, and it can't take any funding from anyone who has a reason to agree with it. It must be reported by a global scientific organization, AND it must attempt to discredit global scientific organizations in their entirety. Disproving the conclusions of global warming alarmists is not sufficient, it must simultaneously disprove every piece of evidence and every model ever associated with global warming.

With THAT list of criteria, is it any wonder you haven't found what you want? Thats about as feasible as the article by the Cookiemonster that Leejo keeps asking you for. You can find plenty of mainstream scientists that agree with projections of anthropogenic global warming, and still don't support the apocalyptic viewpoint that you put forward. Why should they have to be proven wrong before we are allowed to disagree with you personally?

[Kerostasis]

Come on, think about that a little will you?

1 degree Celsius water is liquid, but you only need a difference of 1 degree to make it into a solid. And you want to debate science?

http://www.onedegree.com/

You didn't say liquid to solid. You said boil to freeze, which requires 100 degrees C at normal atmospheric temperatures. Fortunately, I have already rescued you from your tragic misspeech, by pointing out that your rediculous claims are actually quite feasible so long as you reduce the air pressure by 99.5% first!

You should thank me.

[Lucky Shot]

Come on, think about that a little will you?

1 degree Celsius water is liquid, but you only need a difference of 1 degree to make it into a solid. And you want to debate science?

http://www.onedegree.com/

I don't accept that source, it looks like a blog. What else you got?

Lucky Shot

[GlobalWarmin]

You didn't say liquid to solid. You said boil to freeze, which requires 100 degrees C at normal atmospheric temperatures. Fortunately, I have already rescued you from your tragic misspeech, by pointing out that your rediculous claims are actually quite feasible so long as you reduce the air pressure by 99.5% first!

You should thank me.

Yes it was very funny

But I suggest you read what I said again, so I don't have to flame you back about your poor reading comprehension:

Remember, it only takes a one degree difference for water to boil or freeze.

edit:

It's also quite fitting that out of my whole post above, all you do is pick out one sentence that you misread to try and flame me about. Bravo!