Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?

Page 2 of 18 [ 282 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18 Next

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

26 May 2007, 4:13 pm

So the fact that Mars is experiencing global warming at the exact same time Earth is, is just a coincidence??? Sorry, I don't buy it.

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

ascan
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 22 Feb 2005
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,194
Location: Taunton/Aberdeen

26 May 2007, 4:42 pm

Xenon wrote:

So the fact that Mars is experiencing global warming at the exact same time Earth is, is just a coincidence??? Sorry, I don't buy it.

There are many factors that influence climate and most of them here are independent of the ones on Mars. It most likely is just a coincidence, but that's not to say that man is the only cause of the alleged warming here.

Elemental
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

26 May 2007, 5:26 pm

KRIZDA88 wrote:

Yep and back before that there was another global warming scare, and a few decades before that warming scare there was another cooling scare. But scientists who are out to make a name for themselves rarely look back in history to see if anything like this has ever happened before. They also like to completely ignore the evidence for a mini ice age back in 14th century Europe which many believe was part of the cause for the mass starvation going on at that time. We can learn a lot from History if we take the time to look at it.

Back to the IPCC again. Those scientists who are out to make a name for themselves and ignore evidence? Yes, they've already considered your points.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/070.htm

Xenon wrote:

So the fact that Mars is experiencing global warming at the exact same time Earth is, is just a coincidence??? Sorry, I don't buy it.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/ ... rming.html has an interesting discussion of this. I find it hard to believe that the causes could be the same thing, bearing in mind the great differences that Mars has (no magnetosphere, sparser atmosphere, a solid interior) from Earth. Also, it would be a great coincidence if of all the known planets, two of them were not experiencing environmental trends in the same direction.

Both of those are what I've been talking about--the sceptics always seem to get hold of one talking point, or one factor that was considered and dismissed, and proclaim it as a revolutionary new discovery that overthrows the Vaguely Defined Environmental Conspiracy. Consider this--at the moment, the scientific consensus is that global warming is a reality. So sticking with the crowd is hardly "sensational" or "publicity-seeking", is it?

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

26 May 2007, 6:11 pm

Anubis wrote:

Fact. The climate is getting warmer naturally, and the high CO2 outputs are to blame for that . Not because of natural breathing, but because of high emissions from fossil fuel power stations, hydrocarbon engines, and factories. It's undeniable.

gotta do better than that. all those sources you cited ammount to roughtly +/- 0.02% of the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere. the majority comes from volcanos, decomposition, and the ocean. tie it in how that small percent is affecting our climate.

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

26 May 2007, 6:16 pm

Elemental wrote:

Both of those are what I've been talking about--the sceptics always seem to get hold of one talking point, or one factor that was considered and dismissed, and proclaim it as a revolutionary new discovery that overthrows the Vaguely Defined Environmental Conspiracy. Consider this--at the moment, the scientific consensus is that global warming is a reality. So sticking with the crowd is hardly "sensational" or "publicity-seeking", is it?

I do not dispute that the Earth is getting warmer. However, I remain unconvinced that it is caused by human activity. The Earth has always gone through cycles of warming and cooling -- how do we know that this is not just the "warming" part of the cycle? How can we tell the difference between warming induced by human activity and warming based on natural climatological cycles? Answer: we can't.

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

KRIZDA88
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 198
Location: Peoria, IL

26 May 2007, 6:46 pm

I'm sorry but science is about as unbiased as the politicians in Washington. It's a nice fantasy to believe that science works how it's supposed to but it doesn't. There are numerous examples of scientists trying to go against the popular scientific consensus of the time and they have been shunned and written off as nutcases...only to be proven right years later. It has been happening since the time of Aristotle when some crazy guy proposed that matter was composed of little indestructible spheres called atoms and was written off because the great Aristotle couldn't possibly be wrong. So, just because the majority agrees on something doesn’t mean the majority is right…

_________________
Krista

-Bigfoot IS blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographer?s
fault. He's a large, out-of-focus monster, and that's extra scary to me.

-If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to see it, do the other trees make fun of it?

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

26 May 2007, 6:54 pm

KRIZDA88 wrote:

uh...wrong.

eventually the math works out or it doesn' and something is proven right or wrong. people can have however much politics they want in their science but eventually it's proven.

Elemental
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

26 May 2007, 7:10 pm

Xenon wrote:

Actually, we can. Read the IPCC report, they address the issues of natural cycles caused by solar radiation, vulcanism, etc. It's telling that you refer to your personal convictions rather than peer-reviewed research.

KRIZDA88 wrote:

The mavericks who turned out to be right are memorable precisely because they're rare. What is less memorable are the many scientists who proposed a bold new theory that flew in the face of conventional wisdom....and turn out to completely wrong. In recent years, we've had the MMR vaccine scare, and cold fusion, for example.

I blame Hollywood. How many films do we have that romanticise the unpopular radical whose ideas are scorned?

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

26 May 2007, 7:16 pm

Elemental wrote:

Xenon wrote:

How can we tell the difference between warming induced by human activity and warming based on natural climatological cycles? Answer: we can't.

Actually, I have read the report. (Well, okay, the summary of the report.) The IPCC has a political bias, and I can not discount the possibility that they determined the outcome of their findings first then found research to back it up. Other peer-reviewed researchers have come to conclusions that are incompatible with those of the IPCC. The end result? We still don't know.

EDIT: Thirty years ago the scientific consensus was that we could quite possibly be heading into the next Ice Age.

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

kt-64
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 767
Location: Who cares?

26 May 2007, 8:01 pm

guys aparently we are in a period of high solar activity.

Ypheus
Raven
Raven

Joined: 16 May 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 101
Location: Texas

26 May 2007, 8:16 pm

kt-64 wrote:

guys aparently we are in a period of high solar activity.

There was a German/Swedish study that showed exactly that

_________________
In every aspie there is an air of incorrigible innocence, which seems to conceal a diabolical cunning.

The problem with any unwritten law is that you don't know where to go to erase it.

Elemental
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

27 May 2007, 4:28 am

Xenon wrote:

And I suppose we should all take your world for this? The IPCC is often accused of understatement. "Does not agree with what I think." does not equal "Biased." And I can't really see why a political bias would lead someone to promote potentially unpopular environmental policies--wouldn't it be more politically sound to just tell people that everything is fine and they don't need to spend money or change anything?

Xenon wrote:

EDIT: Thirty years ago the scientific consensus was that we could quite possibly be heading into the next Ice Age.

As I've already pointed out, no it wasn't. The media latched onto the idea, but it never had much credibility in scientific circles. The link was http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ in case anyone missed it first time round.

Xenon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Feb 2006
Age: 63
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,476
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

27 May 2007, 8:46 am

Elemental wrote:

I can't really see why a political bias would lead someone to promote potentially unpopular environmental policies--wouldn't it be more politically sound to just tell people that everything is fine and they don't need to spend money or change anything?

One might think so, but politicians have done better doing exactly the opposite. Fear makes for good politics.

_________________
"Some mornings it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps." -- Emo Philips

Elemental
Pileated woodpecker

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

27 May 2007, 2:34 pm

kt-64 wrote:

guys aparently we are in a period of high solar activity.

A debunking of the solar activity explanation.

Xenon wrote:

One might think so, but politicians have done better doing exactly the opposite. Fear makes for good politics.

That's undoubtedly right. Every cause (education, crime, national security, healthcare, etc) is the subject of exaggerations for political capital, and environmentalism is no exception (every side has crazy and wrong-headed people). But more so than any of the others? I doubt it--there are other things for a politician to champion that won't attract such heated opposition and invite unpopularity with constituents and funders.

Also, the presence of sensationalist claims does not mean there is not a real problem. To use a metaphor, an unhealthy diet may not be likely to cause someone to die of a heart attack within one month, but that doesn't mean it won't produce more insidious, long-term damage that should be pre-empted and reversed. (again, this is why I'm not happy with the options of the poll)

codarac
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Oct 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 780
Location: UK

28 May 2007, 5:53 pm

Xenon wrote:

Is the global climate on Earth getting warmer? Yes.
Are humans responsible? No.

Is the global climate on Mars getting warmer? Yes. (The Martian polar icecaps are shrinking.)
Are humans responsible? No.

If you believe humans are responsible for global warming on Earth, you better have a good explanation as to why humans are responsible for global warming on Mars too.

Xenon, that’s interesting info. I hadn’t heard about the ice caps on Mars melting before I saw your post.
It reminds me of something else I read recently, a theory suggesting that the Earth is getting warmer simply because the Sun’s getting warmer.

I’ve also heard it suggested that the reason there’s a correlation between high atmospheric CO2 and high temperatures is that high temperatures lead to high atmospheric CO2 rather than the other way round.
Does anyone know why this should be?
Presumably people who propose this theory don’t completely deny the greenhouse effect? In which case wouldn’t there be a feedback loop? High temperatures lead to high CO2 lead to high temperatures lead to high CO2 etc. I suppose there’s only so much CO2 the Earth can produce.

Anyway, here’s a couple of links about the Mars thing and the Sun thing:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... wsun18.xml

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003 ... thpole.htm

Last edited by codarac on 29 May 2007, 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

ghostgurl
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Nov 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,328
Location: Orange County, CA

28 May 2007, 6:04 pm

It's here. Those who don't think it is are blind to the proof.

_________________
Currently Reading: Survival by Juliet E. Czerneda
http://dazed-girl.livejournal.com/
Vote Kalister 2008

Page 2 of 18 [ 282 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 18 Next

Jump to:

Global Warming. Fact or Fiction? Post Reply New Topic

Global Warming. Fact or Fiction?