The Global Warming Can of Worms...

#1
rjd970

rjd970

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 19, 2007
Messages
24,291
Likes
24,279
#1
These discussions are always fun....

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Here is the heart of the debate IMO....

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Click to expand...

It seems to me the blue statement is quantitative fact. The red is qualitative speculation.

It would also be interesting to see what exactly they mean by "significant contributing factor". For all we know, that could be anywhere between 10-90% of the total cause.
 
Last edited:
#2
#2
I would add the 3rd component (TT help me out if I get this one wrong).

1. temperatures have been rising (strongest evidence - fact for the most part)
2. human activity is a significant contributing factor (strong evidence - speculation but strong evidence)

3. degree of impact of #2 and temperature projections (most amount of speculation/uncertainty)
 
#3
#3
rjd970 said:
These discussions are always fun....

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

Here is the heart of the debate IMO....



It seems to me the blue statement is quantitative fact. The red is qualitative speculation.

It would also be interesting to see what exactly they mean by "significant contributing factor". For all we know, that could be anywhere between 10-90% of the total cause.
Click to expand...

what is left off of this is the fact that this is a cyclical event, the earth goes through periods of warming and cooling, during the revolutionary war we were going through a mini-ice age as it was refered. what about the great "dust bowl" in the midwest, im pretty sure the climate conditions were much worse then than they are now
 
#4
#4
volinbham said:
I would add the 3rd component (TT help me out if I get this one wrong).

1. temperatures have been rising (strongest evidence - fact for the most part)
2. human activity is a significant contributing factor (strong evidence - speculation but strong evidence)

3. degree of impact of #2 and temperature projections (most amount of speculation/uncertainty)
Click to expand...

:good!:
 
#5
#5
Where the hell is global warming when you need it? I'm sitting here freezing. But then again, I guess summer is the time when most complain about global warming.
 
#6
#6
volinbham said:
I would add the 3rd component (TT help me out if I get this one wrong).

1. temperatures have been rising (strongest evidence - fact for the most part)
2. human activity is a significant contributing factor (strong evidence - speculation but strong evidence)

3. degree of impact of #2 and temperature projections (most amount of speculation/uncertainty)
Click to expand...

Over the long term yes, but there has also been a recent drop in those temperature trends.

They real debate here is, as you said, to what extent is man responsible? Does it warrant a significant change in the way we live as humans? This is what the division in opinions really boils down to.
 
#7
#7
A few niggles about the study and story.

1. People who don't agree are called "doubters" but people that do are not called "believers".

2. The sample is a bit misleading - the respondents are "scientists" but they come from across the natural sciences. Also, they all appear to be university scientists - nothing wrong with that but it's sub sample. In short, it is really asking for opinion rather than direct knowledge. Is a geologist really an expert on Global Warming? Maybe yes if he/she has specifically studied the issue; no if they are just going on what they've heard about the issue.
 
#8
#8
KB5252 said:
They real debate here is, as you said, to what extent is man responsible? Does it warrant a significant change in the way we live as humans? This is what the division in opinions really boils down to.
Click to expand...

Another question. Does it warrant significant change immediately? We'll eventually create cleaner power. Is the situation so dire that we need to radically adjust the way we use our current source until an alternative is viable?
 
#9
#9
KB5252 said:
Over the long term yes, but there has also been a recent drop in those temperature trends.
Click to expand...

Long term takes priority in the analysis. Especially if we are talking trends, averages, and regressions. The more data you are working with, the more accurate the results, typically. For instance, if we have data going back 500 years that demonstrates cooling, than the warming of the last 200 years is only a warmer subset of the overall cooling.

I would say that the short term temperature drop is only a short cooling period of the overall increase in warming average we are experiencing. Until the cooling lasts for a sustained period of time, the data we have now regressed into the future shows warming.
 
#10
#10
rjd970 said:
Long term takes priority in the analysis. Especially if we are talking trends, averages, and regressions. The more data you are working with, the more accurate the results, typically. For instance, if we have data going back 500 years that demonstrates cooling, than the warming of the last 200 years is only a warmer subset of the overall cooling.

I would say that the short term temperature drop is only a short cooling period of the overall increase in warming average we are experiencing. Until the cooling lasts for a sustained period of time, the data we have now regressed into the future shows warming.
Click to expand...

Well we do know that the temperature has fluctuated up and down over the past 1,000 years or so. It seems to spike and then drop, how do we know we are not at one of the spikes and on the way to cooler temperatures?

It warmed up enough in parts of northern Europe enough for them to grow grapes and make wine. Then the cooler temperatures returned and they reverted back to making beer because the temp would not allow cultivation of grapes. My point is there is evidence to support these changes are natural, cyclical by nature.
 
#11
#11
rjd970 said:
The more data you are working with, the more accurate the results, typically. For instance, if we have data going back 500 years that demonstrates cooling, than the warming of the last 200 years is only a warmer subset of the overall cooling.
Click to expand...

An important point. Some of the data brought forth in the global warming debate has a particular starting point that affects what sort of trend you see. West Point, for instance, if you look at 1930-2000 you see a cooling trend. From 1900-2000 you see a warming trend. From 1820-2000 you see no change. And of course each side of the argument will select the time frame that best supports their theory.
 
#12
#12
And then of course there's always things like this that come up:

Facts debunk global warming alarmism | The Australian

And stuff like this about negative feedback throwing in questions (science geekiness warning!):

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&file=i1520-0442-21-21-5624.pdf

Then there's little things like NASA's GISS being the playground of dyed-in-the-wool AGW zealot James Hansen. (no conflict of interest there) Throw in the nakedly immense amounts of money and political power being bandied about on the AGW front and I get really antsy about all of it. I started not liking being told not to question when my parents first uncorked "because I said so" on me. I mean, doubting these people can get you, literally, accused of "crimes against humanity" and compared to holocost deniers.

I remain, at least for the moment, very skeptical of the science of the science that "proves" AGW and wholly reject, with malice, the way AGW is presented by the major media outlets.
 
#13
#13
i read in an article earlier this week that said that global warming had peaked in 98. it also that the earth was cooling. they took samples from sibera and apparently it was considerably colder. i wish i could find the article.
 
#16
#16
My thermometer goes up & down....every flippin' day. What gives? Is the sky falling? Is Al Gore coming over? If it gets really hot do the dinosaurs come back? Someone should do a study.

Geesh, get over it. We're in 100 times more danger from a dude in a turban than we are cars & cow farts making the climate go up .5 degrees over 450 years.
 
#18
#18
joevol320 said:
i read in an article earlier this week that said that global warming had peaked in 98. it also that the earth was cooling. they took samples from sibera and apparently it was considerably colder. i wish i could find the article.
Click to expand...

Not sure if this is the same article but it does cite the things you mention:

It's time to pray for global warming, says Flint Journal columnist John Tomlinson - Flint, Michigan Columns, Letters & Opinion - The Flint Journal – MLive.com
 
#19
#19
KB5252 said:
Well we do know that the temperature has fluctuated up and down over the past 1,000 years or so. It seems to spike and then drop, how do we know we are not at one of the spikes and on the way to cooler temperatures?
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. We very well may be in the midst of one of the downward spikes. But that is not indicitive of the overall long term trend. Again, taking the whole data has a set, the foward regression is still positive.

If have steady average cooling over the next 200 years then you have a point, but the data from the previous 200 years, or whatever, doesn't support that is happening.

An important point. Some of the data brought forth in the global warming debate has a particular starting point that affects what sort of trend you see. West Point, for instance, if you look at 1930-2000 you see a cooling trend. From 1900-2000 you see a warming trend. From 1820-2000 you see no change. And of course each side of the argument will select the time frame that best supports their theory.
Click to expand...

Very good point. But West Point is a finite data set. What are the trends worldwide? More data is always, I mean ALWAYS, the better indicator. I think both sides are cherrypicking there data. Everything I have seen from worldwide historical data shows it is all very cyclical, and we just happen to be in the midst of an exceptional warming trend.
 
#20
#20
rjd970 said:
Very good point. But West Point is a finite data set. What are the trends worldwide? More data is always, I mean ALWAYS, the better indicator. I think both sides are cherrypicking there data. Everything I have seen from worldwide historical data shows it is all very cyclical, and we just happen to be in the midst of an exceptional warming trend.
Click to expand...

I agree, but not completely. I don't think temperatures from huge cities should even be considered. The urban island heat effect isn't pertinent to global trends. I understand what you mean about more data but you don't want to include a bunch of irrelevant, misleading data either.
 
#21
#21
kptvol said:
I agree, but not completely. I don't think temperatures from huge cities should even be considered. The urban island heat effect isn't pertinent to global trends. I understand what you mean about more data but you don't want to include a bunch of irrelevant, misleading data either.
Click to expand...

True, but you have to keep in mind with any sort of climate data there is going to be some contamination in the data that cause fluctuations on both ends. Anything 3 sigma out of the mean can be written off as noise.
 
#22
#22
kptvol said:
I agree, but not completely. I don't think temperatures from huge cities should even be considered. The urban island heat effect isn't pertinent to global trends. I understand what you mean about more data but you don't want to include a bunch of irrelevant, misleading data either.
Click to expand...

I've started to put more stock in sat info than ground based for that very reason. (that and I just don't trust GISS with Hansen at the helm)
 
#23
#23
volinbham said:
I would add the 3rd component (TT help me out if I get this one wrong).

1. temperatures have been rising (strongest evidence - fact for the most part)
2. human activity is a significant contributing factor (strong evidence - speculation but strong evidence)

3. degree of impact of #2 and temperature projections (most amount of speculation/uncertainty)
Click to expand...

That's a fair addition; however number 2 and 3 are highly coupled because a popular way to extract man's impact is to do retro-modeling using the same climate models that forecast temperature predictions. The difference is that number 2 allows for greater input of known model parameters (fewer assumptions and less uncertainty in initial conditions) than number 3, which as you note means less certainty in number 3 than number 2.
 
Last edited:
#24
#24
considering they can't even get an accurate forecast w/in a 7 day time period, why should i believe them about global warming. seems pretty dang cold down in alabama
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top