Your take on Global Warming

[Nonamer]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nati ... nworld-hed

While the question of global warming was settled years ago for all but a few holdouts in the scientific community, the landmark report delivered Friday by a global network of scientists created new certainties: Climate change will remain a potent force in politics, business and, of course, weather for generations to come.

Just one article among many of its kind. I'm slight offended by the few holdouts at SB.com, who despite overwhelming evidence still refuse to believe in GW as caused by human activity. So what's this board's take on GW? I think it's obvious that it's happening, and it's caused by us, and we need to do something sooner rather than later.

[sonofccn]

I know I'm going to regret this *sigh*.

I don't belive GW is caused by man nor is it something to be unduly concerned with. People have been talking about doom and gloom of a freezing/heating earth for decades and we're all still here. I believe man has been on this little planet for to little to know if what's going on is man made or merely the product of the earth natural flow. Call me a holdout if you want but that's what I believe. Now I don't debate this at all, so I don't want to get into one with you. You asked for what the board believed in so I replied in all honesty.

I figure I'll be in a minority here, possible the only against vote at all. Such is life.

[watchdog]

I've seen 'An Inconvienient truth' and I believe it. I look at it this way, eventually mother nature will tire of our disrespect in the name of the almighty dollar and she will get almighty on our @$$. After we've all been wiped off the face of the earth then the world will start over again and perhapse better, smarter stewards will inherit the earth (my money is on the whales).
SB has always had a bit of a right-wing bent to it which is why I never bothered with the discussions in the non-verses sections, I cant stand such absolutism based on faith alone.

[Nonamer]

I know I'm going to regret this *sigh*.

I don't belive GW is caused by man nor is it something to be unduly concerned with. People have been talking about doom and gloom of a freezing/heating earth for decades and we're all still here. I believe man has been on this little planet for to little to know if what's going on is man made or merely the product of the earth natural flow. Call me a holdout if you want but that's what I believe. Now I don't debate this at all, so I don't want to get into one with you. You asked for what the board believed in so I replied in all honesty.

I figure I'll be in a minority here, possible the only against vote at all. Such is life.

The problem with GW denial is that, once you've acknowledged all the evidence, you simply cannot support your position anymore. It's very much like creationism or flat Earth believers in that only ignorance and the stupid can possible believe what they believe.

We know as a fact, not theory, that the Earth is warming. We know as a fact, not theory, that sea levels are rising. We know as a fact, not theory, that glaciers in Greenland and everywhere else in world are melting. As of a few years ago, the only question left is why, and that has been answers in the last few years. The geological record strongly indicates that there has never been warming at this speed in the last few hundred thousands years, and likely not in the last few tens of millions of years. On top of that, virtually every possible other form of global warming such as a brighter sun or volcanoes have been completely ruled out. To say that it's not caused by greenhouse gases is tantamount to saying "it's magic."

So when you put all together, the overwhelming fact that we are experiencing unprecedented global warming combined with the extremely good correlation with the rise of greenhouse gases along with total lack of alternative explanation makes this an open and shut case. GW by human activity is a resolved debate, just like creationist vs. evolution or round vs. flat Earth. Any further debate is merely an exercise in ignorance or stupidity and is meaningless discussion.

[sonofccn]

As I said I don't debate it. I have niether the interest nor care to bother with something I consider "a closed and shut case". Same as you no doubt. We will never convert one another, merely get mad at the end.

To sum it up as I see it, People have been saying the exact same thing you've been saying for decades,a nd saying something had to be done ASAP or we all be dead. Yet here we all are. Before we had GW we had Global freezing which IIRC implored some of the same greenhouse gases that are now supposed to be warming up the planet. Thier is evidence that the Earth has warmed up slightly over the past 50-100 years, but none that man is to blame, or that this trend will continue until we all perish. Except in computer sims. You point to melting iceburgs and rising sea levels. You see Global warming, I see the Earth going through a warm period. Time will tell who is right. I'm just as confident that I'll be as you are that you'll be.

Oh and watchdog IF and I stress IF mankind falls I'm betting on the roaches. Durability and survivbility in it's purest form. I bet they attack and enslave the whale people :)

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

I think that climate change is a natural part of Earth's ecosystem. That said, I think that we have accelerated the natural process, but we are not on the precipice of self annihilation. And by the way I think Al Gore is almost as big a douche bag as Michael Moore.

[Jedi Master Spock]

At first, there was some room for ambiguity. Climate science was not well developed, and climate scientists had very limited data to work with. Back when climate science was young, in fact, some scientists were worried that we might be descending into a second ice age. Geologically speaking, it was about time for it.

However, we've now had several decades of pretty good global temperature data. We have, in other words, a good picture of the entire system, and that picture has become increasingly sharp.

Twenty years ago, climatology could not provide more than suggestive evidence that we were in a strong warming trend and suggest that it was probably man-made circumstantially.

Ten years ago, there was still room for some doubt among experts as to whether or not the warming that there was no doubt was occurring was, in fact, definitely man made, although most climate scientists felt pretty sure that sharp action needed to be taken to curb global warming.

Today, computer models have become orders of magnitude more sophisticated and accurate, and each year brings with it an upward revision of the probability that climate scientists can be sure global warming is entirely man-made. The current figure is expressed in its most conservative terms as a 90% confidence that human emissions of greenhouse gases caused the current warming trend.

Scientifically speaking, it's impossible to deny that the world is experiencing a very dramatic change in climate currently. Temperatures are spiking, and spiking fast. CO2 levels within the ocean are also spiking, and mass disappearance of aquatic species is underway as a result. Ice is melting. In short... things are being disrupted on an epic scale, and if something other than greenhouse gas emissions is responsible, we better find out in a hurry.

Humanity will, of course, survive being flooded and having overall warmer weather. Some portions of humanity will be inconvenienced and impoverished, of course, but the species is too clever to die off that easily.

[Nonamer]

As I said I don't debate it. I have niether the interest nor care to bother with something I consider "a closed and shut case". Same as you no doubt. We will never convert one another, merely get mad at the end.

To sum it up as I see it, People have been saying the exact same thing you've been saying for decades,a nd saying something had to be done ASAP or we all be dead. Yet here we all are. Before we had GW we had Global freezing which IIRC implored some of the same greenhouse gases that are now supposed to be warming up the planet. Thier is evidence that the Earth has warmed up slightly over the past 50-100 years, but none that man is to blame, or that this trend will continue until we all perish. Except in computer sims. You point to melting iceburgs and rising sea levels. You see Global warming, I see the Earth going through a warm period. Time will tell who is right. I'm just as confident that I'll be as you are that you'll be.

Only difference is that I have very strong evidence of my claims and you don't. Like I said, your position is either that of ignorance or stupidity, and I'm not kidding. The debate has really moved to that point where there is absolutely no meaningful debate left. Like JMS said, we are at that 90% confidence interval now and that's pretty conservative.

Believe it or not, your position is very similar to a creationist in the creationism vs. evolution, as in it's full of misinformation, strawmen, and non-scientific claims. For instance, you claim that the position of a GW believer is that the world will surely end. This is a major misrepresentation of facts, as no serious GW believer believes that. The biggest problem would be that of climate change and impact on weather such as drought, flooding, etc. Low lying countries will be the only places effected by rising sea levels in the short term, with eventual danger to other places over the next few centuries (that's still tens of millions in the short term). More here

The other attacks, like why nothing's happened yet, is totally silly. It has happened already. Like I said, sea levels are rising, glaciers are melting and the climate has shifted in numerous places right now. It's not yet at the point where a majority of the world's population have felt it yet.

And attacks regarding "Global freezing" is retarded. It's an attack on science itself and not global warming, and is the penultimate strawman at least where science is concerned.

So perhaps I'll leave you with this: Despite claims to the contrary modern Democracies tend to fairly intelligent as systems of governments usually go. There will be action by most of the world's nations in light of powerful scientific evidence, especially if it threatens the safety and well-being of its citizens. In other words, whether you believe it or not, the rest of world will, and it will take appropriate action in that extent. Just something to consider for your own sake.

[AnonymousRedShirtEnsign]

Give it a rest, as he said you are unlikely to sway each others' opinions. As for the sea level rising thing, the graph showed a linear rise of 20cm over a century so I think I've got a few dozen millennia before I need to move to higher ground.

[sonofccn]

As I said Nonamer you won't sway me. It's a waste of time and energy for both of us. I say we agree to disagree and simply wait it out to see who's right.

Now to a non technicaly GW point. How is it an attack on science itself to refrence that A. there was a global freezing movment, and B. it implored the same gases that global warming does, or C. IIRC many became GW advocates later. Any debate on the subject should entail a look at it's trackrecord. I'm not saying it should be end all be all but it should be factored in.

[Nonamer]

As I said Nonamer you won't sway me. It's a waste of time and energy for both of us. I say we agree to disagree and simply wait it out to see who's right.

Fine by me. Trying to tell a creationist is wrong is not easy either. The facts themselves are obvious and the reasons why a person is in denial are dogmatic in nature and can be very difficult to uproot.

Now to a non technicaly GW point. How is it an attack on science itself to refrence that A. there was a global freezing movment, and B. it implored the same gases that global warming does, or C. IIRC many became GW advocates later. Any debate on the subject should entail a look at it's trackrecord. I'm not saying it should be end all be all but it should be factored in.

Creationism was actually a valid scientific position at one time too. Doesn't mean evolution is wrong. The reason is that science is wrong from time to time, and the beauty of science is that it fixes itself rather than stick with any dogmatic position. The fact that you can dig up times when science was wrong is proof of it's validity, not the other way around. You've also greatly exaggerated the scope and size of the Global Freezing movement. It's a fringe movement at best that occurred before understanding of climate was as good as today, and it did successfully describe a short period of cooling in mid-century.

[Nonamer]

Give it a rest, as he said you are unlikely to sway each others' opinions. As for the sea level rising thing, the graph showed a linear rise of 20cm over a century so I think I've got a few dozen millennia before I need to move to higher ground.

Over the previous century. The problem is that the melting of all the glaciers have double in speed in the last decade or so, a trend likely to acceleration further.

[sonofccn]

Creationism was actually a valid scientific position at one time too. Doesn't mean evolution is wrong.

True. Then again I never said because there was a GF there can never ever be a GW. I just think one can't simply ignore it.

The fact that you can dig up times when science was wrong is proof of it's validity, not the other way around.

Proof that science will ultimatly be correct? I whole heartily agree. GF being proved wrong doesn't help the GW case however.

You've also greatly exaggerated the scope and size of the Global Freezing movement.

I don't see how. I've stated it existed, which it did, and that some members became GW later, which I belive happened as well. I never stated numbers or anything. Looking at it from the 21th century it looks just like GW movment.

It's a fringe movement at best that occurred before understanding of climate was as good as today

Well since I was born far to late to ever see it, I can't judge on if it was a fringe movment are not.

and it did successfully describe a short period of cooling in mid-century.

Which they thought would send us back to an ice age. Funny that.

[Jedi Master Spock]

Actually, creationism (in the generalized form suggested usually bandied about today) is not and was not a scientific hypothesis in and of itself as we understand such. Simply put, it is not a falsifiable conjecture. That is to say, no experiment can be devised which could demonstrate that the general case of creationism is false.

Specific accounts of creationism may, of course, be attacked on the basis of qualitative judgements about God inherent to a particular theological system combined with select information about the world, but this is neither conclusive in most cases (theological systems are generally quite a bit more flexible than they appear at first glance) nor can it be applied to the general case of intelligent design.

This is not the case with climate change or some early climatologists' suggestion that the Earth was about to enter another ice age. The assertion of a general global cooling trend was falsifiable, and in fact has been falsified.

[Nonamer]

True. Then again I never said because there was a GF there can never ever be a GW. I just think one can't simply ignore it.

Like JMS has said, it has been falsified. As to how it relates to global warming, it can be more or less ignored.

Proof that science will ultimatly be correct? I whole heartily agree. GF being proved wrong doesn't help the GW case however.

GW is quickly becoming one of those keystone scientific subjects. For GW by human activities to be wrong would imply a complete reverse of all climate research in the last few decades, if not an outright rewrite of the laws of physics. Simply put, we have desperately tried to explain GW by some way other than human activities, and we have massively failed at that. On the other hand, evidence supporting GW by human activities is already enormous and growing.

I don't see how. I've stated it existed, which it did, and that some members became GW later, which I belive happened as well. I never stated numbers or anything. Looking at it from the 21th century it looks just like GW movment.

For starters there was no "Global freezing" movement, but a Global cooling as it was actually called. It was based on the fact that global temperatures suffered a significant drop from a few decades. However, none of this was supported by understanding of climate that we have now. And it was not a bunch of fanatics that believed either but scientists who look carefully at the evidence before making any decisions. There is little relationship between GC and GW other than that they are in the same field of research.

Well since I was born far to late to ever see it, I can't judge on if it was a fringe movment are not.

It never caught on and had poor levels of research. It was more speculation than hard science, but it was overblown by the media.

Which they thought would send us back to an ice age. Funny that.

Actually a major disruption of the thermohaline cycle can cause a mini-ice age in some places like Europe. There is historical precedent of this during the younger Dryas period. The whole thing is overblown again by the deniers as a generalized attack against GW even though all parts of it are well-founded.