Global warming still happening

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are over complicating the equation question. Even if you don't know the answer or the variables, if you change the variables you will change the answer. So in essence we are changing the equation of the climate regardless. "Maybe" its not enough to have an effect but you have to agree in principle that we are changing the equation.

By the way, most of the models are very accurate considering the amount of data infused with them. This myth that they are somehow wrong is merely propaganda. Considering the immense amount of variables in the climate, the models are very accurate. They will never be 100% right because of the nature of the equation but they are pretty damn close. Close enough to be taken seriously. I wouldn't use a politicians graph as any sort of deciding factor if I was you.

I find it interesting how you attack the system or the scientists instead of the ideas and evidence they present. Raw data for many of the studies is out there, the problem is that when reanalyzed the same results are found.

It seems to me that you cannot present evidence of anything to support your position. In fact, from what i'm gathering your position is merely that all the climate scientists are corrupt and in league with the government to help them take more control through regulatory means.

Why are the studies so skewed in favor of climate change EVEN though many different countries are doing the studies? Is it a global takeover by all governments?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-advanced.htm

I get that your skeptical on some of the studies because of the Al Gore BS and some of the other less reputable studies but please realize how irrational you are being in denying so much evidence over such a large period of time. Even if you took half of the studies away that point to man made climate change you will still have a STAGGERING amount of difference between those studies left and the studies that contradict them.

 
Johnson, you can always have a relatively accurate mathematical eqution or set of equations to fit a data set of past events. That's just a case of doing curve fitting with polynomial interpolation using a sufficiently large number of polynomials (variables.) This may or may not accurately describe the actual underlying process and if not, predictions of future data points with that equation will be inaccurate.

Also consider that these AGW folks are stating that very small changes in temperature are important- tenths of a degree K for temperature ranges in the ~300 K range, or less than a 1/10% change. Their models need to be far more accurate than that about of difference in predicting temperature patterns over many years to even be valid. The IPCC hockey stick graph surely isn't anything of the sort.

I most certainly did present examples of the groupthink in scientific fields and a very good reason why this occurs. I think you must not have much of a reply other than the appeal to authority you started the thread off with as a reply. The only real proof will be to wait several decades and see if the AGWists' current models are more accurate than the IPCC hockey stick graph.
 
Again you are trying to obfuscate the simple idea I am presenting. Let me try one last time. The earth normally releases so much CO2 into the atmosphere because of normal processes. Now you have humans adding to this process by unnatural means. We have effectively changed that variable in the equation. I'm not saying that this means the answer to that equation will be climate change. All I'm saying is that we are changing the variables regardless. I am setting a point for further discussion to be based on by reaching an understanding on a simple premise.

You presented examples of groupthink in scientific fields, that is correct. Now you have to prove to me that it has affected the thousands of studies done over the decades on climate change. You can't say they are all victims of groupthink and leave it at that. It would be a completely hollow argument if you did, much like conspiracy theories. Where is the evidence in relation to the studies? How can you prove that all of these studies were falsified? What evidence do you have on the thousands of scientists?

Why are there not more independent studies refuting climate change? There is plenty of people that would fund these studies yet there are hardly any and none of which are credible.

Current models are more accurate. Guess we have real proof then?
 
It certainly seems logical that mankind has some impact on the climate.

Virtually everything produces heat as a by-product: production of energy, mining for materials, manufacturing, construction, shipping, agriculture, transportation, mowing your lawn, treating water, heating your home, cooling your home, even using your computer.

And take a look at ways we're altering the atmospheric humidity level and groundwater levels: watering lawns in the deserts (WTF is up with THAT?), making dams (increases water surface area), agriculture in areas that naturally lack water, reducing water seepage into the ground by highways/cities/homes while diverting stormwater to oceans and lakes (increasing their surface areas).

So yeah, I think we're going to keep seeing a net increase in frequency of extreme weather events, not necessarily in terms of warming or cooling, but in how the atmosphere reacts when enough of its knobs have been messed with.
 

I can't believe you went down the CO2 road when so many studies completely disprove CO2 has any significant impact on the climate. Heck, some will even argue that increased CO2 is GOOD!

Sure, you can argue that it was an example used to further your point of changing equation variables, but you could have at least have chosen something other than CO2.

Acceptable answers would have included; water vapor, polar shifts, and solar irradiance.
 
We cannot stop or reverse it. Every action we take creates heat of some sort. It is not too far of a reach to consider the possibility that the earth may end up going through a number of changes that will be unpleasant to life the biosphere, and those species that can adapt will.
 


There are tons of new technology just for that purpose OMG. They have talked about using reflective material in the poles to help grow them back to previous levels. This is a big one in my opinion because the changing air and water currents that are the result of polar shrinkage are big factors in the climate. Scientists predicted that as the poles shrank the air currents from Canada would dip farther south more frequently. The southern winter apocalypse is an example of this.
 


What studies?

Check this out: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf

"The implication is that global climate sensitivity of 3°C for doubled CO2, although valid for
the idealized Charney definition of climate sensitivity, is a considerable understatement of
expected equilibrium global warming in response to imposed doubled CO2. Additional warming,
due to slow climate feedbacks including loss of ice and spread of flora over the vast high-latitude
land area in the Northern Hemisphere, approximately doubles equilibrium climate sensitivity."
 


Aww, c'mon...you're smarter than that...the information is out there...

So, let's break this down...the below information was taken from multiple sources...Google search key words "global warming facts"

Is the climate changing? Yes. The climate has and always will change.
Is CO2 a "green house gas"? Yes. However, it has a minor effect on global temperature change. Water vapor and methane have a far greater impact on changing global temperatures.
Is CO2 the primary driver of climate change? No. There are at least 22 drivers that can effect temperature change, CO2 is a minor and just one of many climate change drivers, i.e.; volcanoes, the earths rotation, the earth wobble, change in the poles, solar irradiation, plate tectonics, etc...
Has there been a significant increase in the earth's temperature as a result of CO2? No. Accurate temperature readings from satellites and weather balloons show there has been no atmospheric warming since 1958. In contrast, measurements taken with ground based thermostats recorded an increase in surface temperature since 1958. Many believe ground based thermometer readings are bias due to the heat island effect.
Are man-made CO2 emissions the primary source of CO2? No. Over 96% of CO2 emissions are from natural non man-made sources.
Has man-made CO2 emissions increased the earth's temperature? No. There is no evidence to support that man-made CO2 emissions have a significant effect on atmospheric temperatures. There is no man-made warming that can be detected outside of natural systems and known climate variations.
Does CO2 cause the earth's temperature to rise? No. Changes in atmospheric temperature occur before the significant rise in CO2 levels as proven by a NASA study on ice core samples.
Is climate change a settled science? No. Climate change is a non-linear and chaotic process with multiple variables that no known existing computerized climate model can accurately predict.

The equation is too complex to accurately model let alone state that an accurate prediction can be made. In all reality, one significant earthquake or volcanic eruption could immediately invalidate any computer model. As I stated before, I personally take a "better safe than sorry" approach when it comes to climate change. If man is having a significant effect, then we need to mitigate those changes. However, a reasoned approach to the climate change debate and the effects of CO2 are inconclusive at best and some times even contradictory to what is being pushed by global warming alarmists.
 


I'm sorry but the notion of reflective material reminds me of the Simpson's episode "Who Shot Mr. Burns?" where he makes a sun blocking machine to so the people would use more electricity from his nuclear plant. But I digress...

In all seriousness, if CO2 is rising and CO2 is a greenhouse gas, wouldn't putting a reflective material over the poles just cause more of a greenhouse effect by having he reflective material more powerfully deflect the suns energy back into the atmosphere? I'm just saying...

Given the satellite images (as linked by OMG any many other articles prove) show the ice caps are growing and not shrinking; me personally, I chalk the "southern winter apocalypse" up to the fact that the north pole has shifted south into Canada and changes to the east coast jet stream.

 


There are two kinds of ice to look at. Land ice and sea ice. While sea ice may be growing land ice is still receding and that is the most important factor. The best indicator I think is the rise in sea level. Also, the main thing is the temperature of the oceans. If the currents in the ocean are affected by a rise in temperature then we will really start to feel the effects.

 


Its just one idea that I was reading about. There are plenty others that might be more feasible. The sheets of material would be ridiculously expensive.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/30/climate-change-technologies/4041931/

 


At this time there are 26 current models being used to predict the weather. Not a single one has come close to replicating the last 100 years of 'climate change' accurately. The models put into place can account for 'warming' trends but can't account for the cooling pattern in the 70s and 80s.
The models are inaccurate and inconclusive.

Critical thinking requires that one take a side, think it through, and hold steady until proven otherwise. While many can speculate that 'global warming' is man-made, you must also realize the vast majority have switched from the term 'global warmning' to 'climate change' because their models do not accurately, or even remotely, account for the weather changes such as global cooling for roughly 20 years.
Again, the models are inaccurate.

Many people argue that people who do not believe in "man made" global warming/climate change are idiots. The fact is that there is not enough evidence to sway one side or the other. Those who believe it is strictly man made are idiots as science has proven the earth to be on a warming trend for the last 25,000 years. One arguing that it is man made can also be considered an idiot at this time based upon science's current standing. The United States has far more trees present than 200 years ago because man has made an effort to increase trees over removing them.

The accuracy in reading temperature greatly increases from roughly the mid 1980s (computers) to previous years. If you review NASA data, you won't see much of a change from 1900 to 1980, and then a sky rocket in temperature increase. This is strictly due to the increase in technology to accurately report the temperature. Given the last 100 years, we see almost a 1 degree increase in global temperature which I suspect that science can account for a +/- accuracy of 1 degree over a course of 100 years.

I do not argue that man is not creating additional pollutants in the air. I argue that it is not solely man who is responsible for the warming trend. Then again, if you argue that concept against any physicist, they can quickly destroy the concept of global warming as provided by the models currently being used. As the old saying goes, global warming/climate change applies to everything except physics.

At the end of the day it remains an unproven science. Those who deny it are more likely going to be swayed when accurate scientific models are available and dispel non-truths. Until then, it is better to err on the side of a non-believer than to be a believer of an unproven science. Otherwise the world remains flat.
 
An effective argument ... until your last two sentences riser.

Because global warming ... IF it exists ... has such a profound negative effect (potential extinction of the race) on us then we should be committed to its study (funding/ resources) and the reduction of our individual inputs, and those of our industries (via government carbon strategies) ... for the alternative is ... ignorance and death???

Remaining a non believer is fine ... just be committed to its study and reduction of greenhouse gas outputs ... then your safe.

I have kids ... I tend to take a longer term view on life.
 
Two points:

First you say that the models are inaccurate because they cannot predict the weather. This a fallacy of thought as they do not predict weather accurately because they were not made to do this. They predict the change of climate conditions over years. They are pretty accurate, if you actually look at them and not take someone's word for it.

Second and probably more importantly is the fact that with the sea level changing consistently, as predicted by models, we will soon experience a catastrophic event just from the rising sea level. Adding to this issue is the fact that Greenland is now melting. Greenland was always considered the one stable place for glaciers to remain constant. Now they are melting and could lead to a cascading effect for the sea level. It probably wont happen in our lifetimes but the next generation will most certainly feel the effects.

You say it is better to err on the side of a non-believer, normally i think you are right but in this case we are talking about the future of our planet. We should err on the side of caution and do everything in our power to minimize the impact we have on the planet. If climate change science is wrong then that's fine we still limited our impact on the planet and made it better for future generations. If climate science is right then we have saved millions or billions of lives. When looked at with raw logical thought, the answer is quite clear.
 
No way this is a myth this is happening before our eyes now.We have to be aware of what to do if we want our next generation to exist without problems.

 


I would rather stand my ground on the basis that the science is inaccurate until it is proven accurate. Otherwise I would be taking inaccurate information and making decisions on it. Therefore, I would argue that man is not the sole reason for climate change. I'm not saying we should not do our part to prevent excessive measures, but do so within a reasonable and scaled out approach.

To take an inaccurate science and start making drastic changes is idiotic. While this may appear very selfish, what we do now may benefit many people at the cost of much worse conditions for far more people. The question is something like this: Do we lower our standard of living drastically while not improving anyone else's standard of living in hopes of, at best, maintaining the status quo with or without action? If you look at what is being asked and demanded of people to meet the 'green' needs, it isn't beneficial. I would rather people stop trying to move 'forward' and start thinking about real solutions. This is a business deal. Stop, think, gather support, and implement. Instead, we create panic with misinformation or inaccurate information, hope enough people panic to buy the secret sauce, all the while someone else somewhere is reaping some unknown benefit.

I'll end with this. Simply look at who is getting rich if we jump on the band wagon of climate change is man made. That should be more than enough evidence to realize this is a significant hoax.
 
There is no global warming in Australia ... the topic has been banned by govt who have sacked all environmentalists, defunded the CSIRO and even replaced the Science Minister with a "Minister for Silly Walks".
 
I actually looked at the federal government's Web 2.0 disaster of a "paper" that the NYT article linked to as the source. I also looked at the supporting data appendices. No actual research paper I've EVER read looked or sounded like that and I've read thousands and thousands of them. There was fairly little for actual data and there was a lot of extremely definite-sounding commentary strewn around in the entire "paper." There was only one graph that even acknowledged that climate may have existed before the late 1800s and all that showed was CO2 levels and not temperatures. Nearly all of the graphs in the "paper" started either at 1900 or 1960-1970. Could that be because the 1960s-70s were at the bottom of the well-known ~60-year cyclical temperature variation and the 1990s-early 2000s were at the peak, which "proves" short-term warming? There was very, very little talk about confounding factors other than to dismiss them. This "paper" looked everything like a vendor advertisement rather than an actual academic report. If it were in another field such as medicine it would have been laughed at and rejected from publication as absolute garbage instead of pushed as gospel.
 
You should look at the climate science supplement under the appendices for better data. This report is more of a grouping of different workshops and studies. For more detailed data you need to look at the individual studies.

Most of the developed world is in agreement that we are affecting the climate. There is much more evidence than just this paper but people refuse to learn about it because some politicians decided that they know better than the people who study it for a living. Not only that but now you have people attacking the entire scientific process because it is the only option left besides the truth.

When did forced ignorance become acceptable in America?
 
Global warming isn't very good science due to the nature of what it is and how it has to be studied. The scientific method is that you make a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, and most importantly, have others challenge your findings by repeating the experiments. Global warming completely misses one part of the scientific method and has very low-quality studies for another. There are lots of hypotheses such as CO2-mediated warming, that's not an issue. Testing hypotheses using a high-quality study is impossible as there's no way to do a controlled experiment on the entire Earth itself. You're left with unmatched retrospective observational analysis, as in "we see that CO2 has been increasing along with temperature and there appears to be some sort of relation between the two." This kind of analysis is absolutely fraught with confounders both known and unknown and the magnitude of the changes being investigated are very small. In the medical field these types of studies are typically only used for hypothesis generation. You would follow it up with at the very least a matched prospective cohort trial if not a full-on randomized controlled trial or several. That's simply not possible for global warming due to the nature of what it is. The best that can be done is an unmatched prospective observational study, which in this case is to sit around and wait and see if the global warming that was predicted to happen actually did or not. Experiments are also certainly not repeatable either.

So to hear people talk about "settled science" in something with such low-quality (by nature of the issue being studied) study designs is laughable. The opposition to global warming often comes from that findings from low-quality study designs with known and unknown confounders are being used to push something that has huge, known political and economic ramificaitions. The fact that there are a considerable amount of peer-reviewed papers casting doubt on many different things with climate change simply adds more weight to the skeptics' null hypothesis.
 
How hard it is to test the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere? Not very hard. How hard is it to test the temperature of the ocean in many different places? Not very hard. How hard is it to determine conditions present many years ago? Not very hard with ice core samples among other evidence.

Why does the entire earth have to be a controlled experiment when it can be broken up into multiple experiments? Even if you don't believe the process is up to par, certainly you have to consider the empirical evidence to be pointing in a certain direction?

The fact that you just said that all that is behind the CO2 experiments is a perceived relation to temperature shows me that you haven't looked at the studies in depth. I guess its safe to say that you believe in the propaganda that the models are inaccurate?

Reminds me of the people who use to say lead naturally occurred in the environment and didn't harm us at all.
 

I knew Monty Python was onto something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom