Welcome to PatsFans.com

Scientific Authority on Global Warming

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by All_Around_Brown, Feb 9, 2007.

  1. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    As the last threads have devolved into misinformation, I have had trouble keeping up with all the garbage thrown about. So, here goes another thread on Global Warming, based on my watching 2 hours of C-SPAN coverage of the IPCC testimonials (working group 1) in front of the House science committee.

    First, I encourage anyone still unclear about what the concensus is on climate change to go here . Its obvious that many here are still misinformed. I admit, I was less convinced of the warming argument until recently, but like many of the other skeptics in the room (mostly R), I am fully convinced now.

    What a coincidence that many of the skeptics claims were clearly and concisely debunked by the scientific panel on the very day we were bantering it about here.

    The conclusions, in summary are:

    This was by far the most informative hearing I've ever witnessed our Congress holding! Personally, I also found the answers to several questions I posed to skeptics here, over the past few weeks of this debate. Specifically:

    1) the US per capita CO2 output is 10 times :eek: that of China
    2) the "hockey stick" analogy applies well to CO2; that is, current CO2 concentrations are unprecedented in 650,000 years of earths history
    3) CO2 is the #1 greenhouse gas; oddly, no mention of 'water vapor' as a greenhouse gas
    4) Methane is a huge contributor and New Zealand is a major culprit (with their sheep) and they are working on feedstocks that reduce methane output
    5) There was no scientific consensus in the 70s that the earth was, in fact, cooling, in spite of what some here have claimed. It was in the press, but the scientific community never came to this conclusion as evidenced by the NAS(This was pointed out by a Republican, FWIW)


    But the most interesting finding yesterday was this: Republican Dana Rorhabacher (sp.?) from CA is an absolute nutjob, looked like he spent the night before binge drinking, and threw all the same flimsy arguments at these scientists as many here do. I wonder what % of contributions he takes from petro lobby.

    Sensenbrenner is going to die soon as is obvious from his apparent high blood pressure- his head almost exploded as he was witness to scientific facts. He almost lost it...then, simply left. (Good boy, get out of the way and let the adults handle this)

    ..and finally, those many Republicans that stayed for the entire hearing all said they came away with the same opinion- they were convinced. They made their opinions clear and were open to bipartisanship. They were great.

    My takeaway was very encouraging. Now, any misinformed skeptics still want to debate this? Fire away. :D
     
  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12

    I don't recall you being a Global Warming sceptic at any point during the time I have been on this forum.
     
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Splitting hairs...

    I have specifically stated that I wasn't certain there was consensus on "warming" vs "cooling" vs "extreme flux". The evidence is in that it is, in fact, warming. I was skeptical that "global warming" was the consensus as opposed to "climate change". I addressed Patters on this, but a brief search didn't return the thread.

    I have never been skeptical of the fact that CO2 data is overwhelmingly showing that we have a new atmospheric composition and that the results are hard to predict.
     
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12

    The climate is alway schanging. We are in an interglacial period the Globe has been warming for the past 10,000+ years.
     
  5. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    17
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -0

    I'm not sure one way or another. But I still don't buy the link between CO2 and global warming. The theory sounds plausible, but do we know for sure? How do we know the Earth isn't warming up like it does every tens of thousands of years?
     
  6. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Read the report. The data show that the not only is the temp increasing, but that the rate of change is increasing, particulalry in the last few decades and that these values are far greater than any background natural variation. It also clearly shows that solar irradiance is not a significant contributing factor as Pujo pointed out.

    But riddle me this. Does it seem counterintuitive to you that carbon that has been locked in the earth over millions of years, then extracted and emmitted into the atmosphere over 200 years, and a corresponding spike in global temps, is nothing more than the natural background variation??

    The detailed report is here, summarized: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

     
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12

    Does the UN report mention that the strength of the Sun's magnetic field had DOUBLED in the last 100 years?

    I'll bet it doesn't. BTW is this the version of the report written by the scientist of the version written by the bureaucrats (You do realize there are 2 versions right?)?

    The summary is written by the bureaucrats. Scientist who did the research claim that their conclusion were misrepresented.

    I will provide links later.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2007
  8. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,421
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -11

    Great info, AAB. What I find especially frustrating about the skeptics is that in the worst case, we clean up our air, develop new energy-efficient technologies, and learn a great deal more about our atmosphere. I don't really see why even the skeptics would be against this, unless their sole interest is in, e.g., Exxon shareholders.

    One issue we haven't discussed, which appears to be equally contentious is the cost/benefit of Kyoto.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Cost-benefit_analysis
     
  9. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I am as of now removing Kyoto from further discussion. This is what these people use to muddy the waters. Solutions will be discussed in the working group 3 hearings which are forthcoming.

    I cant wait until they report.
     
  10. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I thought you were going to claim that the solar irradiance has caused this. The magnetic field has doubled...wow. That in itself is meaningless unless the effect is a correlating increase in solar irradiance, which there isn't. So what are you trying to say? That this science is biased?

    The summary may be written by bureaucrats, but the science is concensus data compiled by over 100 participating nations top earth scientists.

    I look forward to your links for these misinformative claims.
     
  11. The Gr8est

    The Gr8est In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    2,771
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +12 / 1 / -0

    http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_snow_011206-1.html

    "In the other study, led by Michael C. Malin, features at the south pole were observed to retreat by up to 10 feet (3 meters) from one Martian year to the next.

    The odd shapes -- circular pits, ridges and mounds -- were first photographed in 1999. Since then, the features have eroded away by up to 50 percent. "

    Man-made global warming is so serious that it has even reached Mars.

    Debate is over i guess.... ;)
     
  12. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Can I chalk you up as a moonbat?A re you speaking from personal experience from your time there? ;)

    I don't think its relevant or economical to investigate why other planets may be warming when we still have so much to learn about this planet. It seems like more obfuscation of the most pressing issue.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,334
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +657 / 7 / -2

    You just don't get it do you. If it were as simple as "cleaning the air so why not", EVERYONE would be for it. It's not remotely that simple which is why there is a debate. Plus, Kyoto isn't worth the peice of paper it's written on. It's a politcal treaty aimed at socializing the worlds economies.

    I'm at work and can't really get into reading the link AAB, but I will should my day free up, if not tonight. That kind of reading requires a little more comprehension than a normal article would. I'm interested in the report at any rate.
     
  14. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,334
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +657 / 7 / -2

    Why isn't it relevent?
     
  15. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12


    If all the other bodies in the Solar system are warming. Why would somebody be a moonbat for wondering if the same mechanisms are warming this planet also?
     
  16. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,421
    Likes Received:
    226
    Ratings:
    +351 / 15 / -11

    What did you think I was talking about? That's it's simply a matter of waving a magic wand? Get real. It's a big project, but at least some cost benefit analyses show that it wouldn't cost much at all, and would certainly cost much less than doing nothing. How much would you pay for a program that resolved the dangers of global warming? You're not fully convinced whether global warming is real or not, but are you convinced to spend anything on it? How much would you spend a year to get rid of the possible danger of global warming? Would $10/month be too much?
     
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,334
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +657 / 7 / -2

    *Sigh* If the cost were insignificant, the senate wouldn't have voted against it 95-0. One of the major reasons why it was unanimously defeated, including environmentalist extrordinare, John Kerry's vote, was because it would have crippled our economy. Why? Cuz it cost to much.
     
  18. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,334
    Likes Received:
    255
    Ratings:
    +657 / 7 / -2


    First, I'd have to be certain that Global Warming, which I BELIEVE IS TAKING PLACE, is a danger. If I beleived it to be a danger, then I'd want to know what said dangers were, what the major causes are, if it is man made, or mostly our fault, could we do anything to curb it, if so, what. My position isn't complicated. See, you are convinced that man is the absolute enabler of Global Warming, and therefore we should make drastic changes just to be safe. I'm not quite there yet.

    So you want me to pay $10 a month for Global Warming? Sure, take $20, so long as you deport illegals, seal the border, and curb government waste by 10%. Do that, and you can have $20 a month. :D
     
  19. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12

    From the National Post in Canada:

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=edae9952-3c3e-47ba-913f-7359a5c7f723&k=0


    Note that the oceans waters are starting to cool.
     
  20. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    25,172
    Likes Received:
    121
    Ratings:
    +306 / 9 / -12

    More on the Sun and Global climate:

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=fee9a01f-3627-4b01-9222-bf60aa332f1f&k=0


    I recommned the rest of the article.
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>