Global warming? True or false
- Thread starter penemy159
- Start date
Great Britian disagrees with you.
"It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years."
If by "lost over the last 50 years", they mean expanded over the last 50 years, then you'd be right. but unfortunately, no you're wrong again like you are in most of your posts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
"It is thought that over 13,000 sq km of sea ice in the Antarctic Peninsula has been lost over the last 50 years."
If by "lost over the last 50 years", they mean expanded over the last 50 years, then you'd be right. but unfortunately, no you're wrong again like you are in most of your posts.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4228411.stm
leckett1
Active member
alright you know what i give up. nobody attempts to read what i have to say about global warming so fuck it. ive done plenty of research on multiple accounts and i know what to believe and im going to stick with it. if you say denying global warming is retarded, your going against every science skeptic out there. there are skeptics for a reason you know. i cant help that im a skeptic its just the way i am and you dont have to call me retarded for that.
leckett1
Active member
cant help myself. one more thing
look at the temps of antarctica:
notice a pattern? its like a sine graph. just like the global temperature. you cant assume that at the far right, the temp is just going to keep going up when it went down between 1940 and 1970...ironically the same year the global mean temperature had its decline.
im not denything the fact that we are effecting the weather or climate because i know were. but if any of you bothered to read anything i said, i believe that with the uncertainty or weather and climate, its absurd to even say the world will be significantly warmer 100 years from now.
look at the temps of antarctica:
notice a pattern? its like a sine graph. just like the global temperature. you cant assume that at the far right, the temp is just going to keep going up when it went down between 1940 and 1970...ironically the same year the global mean temperature had its decline.
im not denything the fact that we are effecting the weather or climate because i know were. but if any of you bothered to read anything i said, i believe that with the uncertainty or weather and climate, its absurd to even say the world will be significantly warmer 100 years from now.
I ask you one thing kyle.
You live in the city, you see the pollution and shit coming ou of cars on the freeway and factory smoke stacks. How can you think we aren't contributing to the atmosphere on a level that can change the temperature? The earth isnt that vast that our contributions to the atmosphere go unnoticed.
They used to think it was fine to dump shit in the oceans because they were so vast it would never catch up either...well that doesnt work anymore now eh?
Just a matter of time...
You live in the city, you see the pollution and shit coming ou of cars on the freeway and factory smoke stacks. How can you think we aren't contributing to the atmosphere on a level that can change the temperature? The earth isnt that vast that our contributions to the atmosphere go unnoticed.
They used to think it was fine to dump shit in the oceans because they were so vast it would never catch up either...well that doesnt work anymore now eh?
Just a matter of time...
weenox
Active member
"your saying predicting the weather (which temperature is a part of) is completely different from predicting the temperature 100 years from now"
that, in fact, is exactly what i'm saying. there is a HUGE difference between predicting a weather forecast for next week and predicting climate change 100 years from now. the data is COMPLETELY different. global warming is not weather. it is climate change. theres a difference.
say that for the past 1000 years the average temperature in Alaska was 48 degrees. using a global warming model based on predicted greenhouse gas emissions and an evaluation of the greenhouse gases already in our atmosphere, scientists predict that in 100 years the average temperature will be 50 degrees.
this is how global climate change modeling works. how would this in ANY WAY contribute to weather predicting on a day to day basis?
yes, scientists are saying that global warming is contributing to more and more powerful hurricanes because hurricanes become stronger in warmer water. global warming = warmer ocean water.
we don't use climate change modeling to predict the weather because:
1) it doesn't deal with anything but temperature
2) it would be retarded to use something that is based on the long term prediction of climate change for the short-term prediction of temperature on a single day it doesn't take into account weather fronts, jet streams, cloud coverage, etc.
that, in fact, is exactly what i'm saying. there is a HUGE difference between predicting a weather forecast for next week and predicting climate change 100 years from now. the data is COMPLETELY different. global warming is not weather. it is climate change. theres a difference.
say that for the past 1000 years the average temperature in Alaska was 48 degrees. using a global warming model based on predicted greenhouse gas emissions and an evaluation of the greenhouse gases already in our atmosphere, scientists predict that in 100 years the average temperature will be 50 degrees.
this is how global climate change modeling works. how would this in ANY WAY contribute to weather predicting on a day to day basis?
yes, scientists are saying that global warming is contributing to more and more powerful hurricanes because hurricanes become stronger in warmer water. global warming = warmer ocean water.
we don't use climate change modeling to predict the weather because:
1) it doesn't deal with anything but temperature
2) it would be retarded to use something that is based on the long term prediction of climate change for the short-term prediction of temperature on a single day it doesn't take into account weather fronts, jet streams, cloud coverage, etc.
SteezePatrol
Active member
that's global warming in a nutshell
slowly rising pattern with ups and downs
the ups will continue to get higher and the lows will continue to get higher aswell
slowly rising pattern with ups and downs
the ups will continue to get higher and the lows will continue to get higher aswell
leckett1
Active member
i never said i dont believe in it. i believe that predicting the climate change and temperature 100 years from now is impossible because of the uncertainty of nature and climate. simply put those are my beliefs. if you dont agree with me thats your opinion and your not as much of a skeptic as i am. all of you seem to think im alone in my opinion...
Shpadoinkle
Active member
i like how on mtv they show people asking "is global warming an issue?" and the people answer "yes, definitely." but they are wearing a down jacket with the hood up and have some serious earmuffs sticking out of them.
Ignorance is believing that pumping millions of tons of chemicals into our atmosphere wont effect our Earths climate.
Also, strange how there is such a clash between the two sides. 90% of scientific research shows that we are contributing to the problem, but some of the loudest voices of 'fakers!' are from politicians and lawmakers who regulate pollution and oil.
Also, strange how there is such a clash between the two sides. 90% of scientific research shows that we are contributing to the problem, but some of the loudest voices of 'fakers!' are from politicians and lawmakers who regulate pollution and oil.
almostaskier
Active member
hahahaha lol lol they completely contradicted themselves in saying that global warming is a problem in winter, lol, LOL!!!!!
god you're retarded.
god you're retarded.
Quinn
Active member
That is NOT true. From a 2nd grade perspective on how to measure temperature long before we were recording it. Cut an old tree open. Look at the rings. Big rings=hot, warm climate. Small rings=cold, shitty.
And obviously thats pretty elementary, but you can analyze glaciers and shit with the same principle, and look at all the layers and how they differ.
And obviously thats pretty elementary, but you can analyze glaciers and shit with the same principle, and look at all the layers and how they differ.
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
Exactly, fear of global warming has replaced fear of terrorism, and look what was done in the name of preventing terrorism.
Quinn
Active member
If you think Al Gore is only raising awareness about global warming to make money. Honestly, you are fucking retarded. Sorry, but its true. Cause i'm sure he is getting paid a whole lot to go to local colleges and workshops all over the world to give his presentation. HE DOESN'T NEED MONEY. And most of the money he is making goes directly into research and other programs to raise awareness.
weenox
Active member
96% of Antarctica isn't melting because the average surface temperature of Antarctica is -37 degrees celcius. as the average temperature is already significantly below freezing, global warming hasn't yet caused the majority of the continent to melt. but, the 4% of the continent where temperatures rise above freezing for about 2 months of the year, is melting at a significant rate.
michael crichton should stick to dinosaurs.
michael crichton should stick to dinosaurs.
Shpadoinkle
Active member
it's kinda like when al gore held the anti-global warming meeting in new york a few years ago and it was the coldest day of the year on record.
thecoyote
Active member
A few things man, i read most of your posts here.....you seem to be the only person against GW that is intelligent, but you also seem misguided. I think that we need people like you to make us defend our position and make sure it's the right one......but unfortunatly the world of science is against you, and it's only going to get worse.
Can you find me one peer-reviewed, scientific paper published in a journal in the past ten years that provides evidence against climate change? In the academic world, there is no debate. In the media world, there is debate because people watch it! An aid in the white house admitted two years ago to editing scientific reports in an attempt to add ambiguity to the climate change debate.
Two years ago I read a SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED report, that stated in the five years previous to that particular report, out of the 100 SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED papers published on the issue of climate change, 100 stated that the earth's temporal change was accelerating. ZERO denied an accelerated change.
As for your weather in a week vs 100 years. It's actually easier to predict long term trends. It is for this reason. Say you want to measure your average speed in a car by using the time it takes you to travel a certain distance over hilly terrain. Are you going to time yourself over 100m of your 100km journey, or for maybe 10km? Which average speed will prove to be more accurate? The longer one. So when predicting weather for next week you are looking at the weather in the last couple days and where it.s going, but for the next 100 years you are looking at trends over the last 30 years! Trends in temperature are easier to predict over long term because yes the temperature will flucuate and may get hotter than ever for a week, or colder than ever for a week, but the trend is still upwards. Basically for weather you are looking at all the airmasses in your area, and trying to predict where the wind is taking them. But for climate change you are looking at ALL THE AIR ON THE PLANET, and you are seeing its temperature rising...what is there to cool it down? nothing. If you local area get's really hot, what's there to cool it down? Wind from the arctic, or somewhere else. Local weather is different from GLOBAL weather is my point.
Your graphs that you posted, prove you wrong! Yes the value change is not that great, but those are MEAN temperatures. a 2 degree change is HUGE....right now at whistler it's minus 2, if it gets two degrees warmer its going to be raining half the season. For long-term predictions we are looking at TRENDS, which your graphs show to be increasing.
As for Antarctica, you guys are arguing about two different things. "thickening" is different from losing area's off the edges. The antarctic could be thickening but it is shrinking in area, and when its up against the ocean, it doesnt really matter how thick it is. It's the change in sea temperature thats melting it and causing it to drift off.
I read creighton too, and i do appreciate his work, but in the end, he
is seiruosly a writer, trying to sell books. Stir up controversy?
Probably doubled his sales. Does that make him wrong? Not neccesarily.
But he researches with a topic already in mind. His work is not
reviewed by scientist's or anything. Can you imagine a scientist reading it after he's done and saying, "hey you need to change this and this." He isn't going to listen, cause it's a work of art, to sell, not to educate. He just qoutes what he wants. Is
his book based on science? Sometimes, yes. But in the end he always
streches the truth. Jurrassic Park (I know you don't like this example,
but that's for the reason it doesn't help you out) could it in theory
be possible to make dinosaurs? We might be able to get close, but the
answer is no. He reasearches to a point and then takes it further with
his own ideas and stories. NEVER TRUST FICTION, I don't care what
happens, he has liscense to change anything in that book to whatever he
wants because in the end, IT"S FICTION.....just look at Dan Brown, in
the beginning of his book it states anti-matter is real, all this is
science, blah blah blah, but in the end he contains it in some silly
contraption that wouldnt actually work, and the science falls apart
beacuse it's fiction!
Anyways I enjoy a good debate, but find me that paper I asked for up there. If you do, I'll read it. When hundreds of scientists get together (with no money on the line) and state that this is serious, it probably is, because they have done far more reasearch than you and I could ever read.
The media is the biggest source of misinformation. A good story always has two sides debating on the truth. That's what people watch. A one sided argument is no fun. Think of this thread, if you weren't arguing against it, this thread would have died long ago and we would be reading some other thread about 'billy's cousin that totally just discovered weed and it's too bad he's emo, pat's suck and check out this hot girl thread'.
Global Warming was not blamed for Katrina, that's what the media said. Global warming will contribute to the increased frequency of events LIKE Katrina. Hurricanes are fueled by warm water. You get them over land, they die out, get them into cold waters, they die out. Warmer oceans = more huricanes that are more violent. Basically in your graph up there, the individual spikes are getting higher or lower (higher difference in extremes) while the overall graph is still going up. Supports both increase in extreme weather and mean temperatures rising.
Kyoto might not be the answer, maybe its too hard a goal to set, but the point is SOMETHING SERIOUS must be done, and Kyoto is the only thing we have going that some countries are agreeing on. But the end result is we have to live cleaner. I love skiing man, like we all do. And right now, climate change means bc is slightly warmer, which means we get more precip, which means more snow. But its still cold enough to snow. But eventually it will be more and more rain and the day I have to travel to Alaska to see powder will be painful.
Anyways there are so many facets to this argument, and so many variables to consider. I am a skeptic also, and at first I was skeptical like you. How could us little people be changing so much? But to put it in perspective if someone farts in a room (I know ha ha) it's a miniscule amount of gas, but god damnit if you don't cover your mouth.
Can you find me one peer-reviewed, scientific paper published in a journal in the past ten years that provides evidence against climate change? In the academic world, there is no debate. In the media world, there is debate because people watch it! An aid in the white house admitted two years ago to editing scientific reports in an attempt to add ambiguity to the climate change debate.
Two years ago I read a SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED report, that stated in the five years previous to that particular report, out of the 100 SCIENTIFIC, PEER REVIEWED papers published on the issue of climate change, 100 stated that the earth's temporal change was accelerating. ZERO denied an accelerated change.
As for your weather in a week vs 100 years. It's actually easier to predict long term trends. It is for this reason. Say you want to measure your average speed in a car by using the time it takes you to travel a certain distance over hilly terrain. Are you going to time yourself over 100m of your 100km journey, or for maybe 10km? Which average speed will prove to be more accurate? The longer one. So when predicting weather for next week you are looking at the weather in the last couple days and where it.s going, but for the next 100 years you are looking at trends over the last 30 years! Trends in temperature are easier to predict over long term because yes the temperature will flucuate and may get hotter than ever for a week, or colder than ever for a week, but the trend is still upwards. Basically for weather you are looking at all the airmasses in your area, and trying to predict where the wind is taking them. But for climate change you are looking at ALL THE AIR ON THE PLANET, and you are seeing its temperature rising...what is there to cool it down? nothing. If you local area get's really hot, what's there to cool it down? Wind from the arctic, or somewhere else. Local weather is different from GLOBAL weather is my point.
Your graphs that you posted, prove you wrong! Yes the value change is not that great, but those are MEAN temperatures. a 2 degree change is HUGE....right now at whistler it's minus 2, if it gets two degrees warmer its going to be raining half the season. For long-term predictions we are looking at TRENDS, which your graphs show to be increasing.
As for Antarctica, you guys are arguing about two different things. "thickening" is different from losing area's off the edges. The antarctic could be thickening but it is shrinking in area, and when its up against the ocean, it doesnt really matter how thick it is. It's the change in sea temperature thats melting it and causing it to drift off.
I read creighton too, and i do appreciate his work, but in the end, he
is seiruosly a writer, trying to sell books. Stir up controversy?
Probably doubled his sales. Does that make him wrong? Not neccesarily.
But he researches with a topic already in mind. His work is not
reviewed by scientist's or anything. Can you imagine a scientist reading it after he's done and saying, "hey you need to change this and this." He isn't going to listen, cause it's a work of art, to sell, not to educate. He just qoutes what he wants. Is
his book based on science? Sometimes, yes. But in the end he always
streches the truth. Jurrassic Park (I know you don't like this example,
but that's for the reason it doesn't help you out) could it in theory
be possible to make dinosaurs? We might be able to get close, but the
answer is no. He reasearches to a point and then takes it further with
his own ideas and stories. NEVER TRUST FICTION, I don't care what
happens, he has liscense to change anything in that book to whatever he
wants because in the end, IT"S FICTION.....just look at Dan Brown, in
the beginning of his book it states anti-matter is real, all this is
science, blah blah blah, but in the end he contains it in some silly
contraption that wouldnt actually work, and the science falls apart
beacuse it's fiction!
Anyways I enjoy a good debate, but find me that paper I asked for up there. If you do, I'll read it. When hundreds of scientists get together (with no money on the line) and state that this is serious, it probably is, because they have done far more reasearch than you and I could ever read.
The media is the biggest source of misinformation. A good story always has two sides debating on the truth. That's what people watch. A one sided argument is no fun. Think of this thread, if you weren't arguing against it, this thread would have died long ago and we would be reading some other thread about 'billy's cousin that totally just discovered weed and it's too bad he's emo, pat's suck and check out this hot girl thread'.
Global Warming was not blamed for Katrina, that's what the media said. Global warming will contribute to the increased frequency of events LIKE Katrina. Hurricanes are fueled by warm water. You get them over land, they die out, get them into cold waters, they die out. Warmer oceans = more huricanes that are more violent. Basically in your graph up there, the individual spikes are getting higher or lower (higher difference in extremes) while the overall graph is still going up. Supports both increase in extreme weather and mean temperatures rising.
Kyoto might not be the answer, maybe its too hard a goal to set, but the point is SOMETHING SERIOUS must be done, and Kyoto is the only thing we have going that some countries are agreeing on. But the end result is we have to live cleaner. I love skiing man, like we all do. And right now, climate change means bc is slightly warmer, which means we get more precip, which means more snow. But its still cold enough to snow. But eventually it will be more and more rain and the day I have to travel to Alaska to see powder will be painful.
Anyways there are so many facets to this argument, and so many variables to consider. I am a skeptic also, and at first I was skeptical like you. How could us little people be changing so much? But to put it in perspective if someone farts in a room (I know ha ha) it's a miniscule amount of gas, but god damnit if you don't cover your mouth.
thecoyote
Active member
fuck i always see these threads and say 'i'm not going to reply to this one, its just like all the others' and then i see something someone says thats totally wrong, and I have to chip in......
Big picture kids, keep skiing, enjoy the outdoors and observe and learn what you can. With experience comes appreciation, and with appreciation comes respect.
Big picture kids, keep skiing, enjoy the outdoors and observe and learn what you can. With experience comes appreciation, and with appreciation comes respect.
ill start this with: ive been drinkin jack... but ill do my best.
thank you for putting what i tried to say at somepoint in clearer and more digestable form. i dont know how people can keep denying the reports given... it seems like hubris... no one wants to leave behind the comfortable lifestyle weve all become accostomed to... but even many economists agree that our generation has some rough stuff to look forward to and work on... theres a massive change in wealth coming and a major need for new technologies to keep us going... but for every report there is to this effect, there are billions of people going to mcdonalds in their range rovers, enjoying what weve created for ourselves. but it doesnt work like that. coyote's got it down. i also love skiing, and it pains me to see what we're doing. i feel personally trapped by it, i dont know hoe to lead a productive and comfortable life without contributinbg to it. i had to drive from vancouver to portland last week, through seattle... and we were stuck in traffic from everett to olympia pretty much... 3.5 hours... it felt awful, to think that this was the norm for everyone around me. it just doesnt work. the way we live isnt acceptable. i emplore all of you, please, for all of our sakes... change something, anything.
thank you for putting what i tried to say at somepoint in clearer and more digestable form. i dont know how people can keep denying the reports given... it seems like hubris... no one wants to leave behind the comfortable lifestyle weve all become accostomed to... but even many economists agree that our generation has some rough stuff to look forward to and work on... theres a massive change in wealth coming and a major need for new technologies to keep us going... but for every report there is to this effect, there are billions of people going to mcdonalds in their range rovers, enjoying what weve created for ourselves. but it doesnt work like that. coyote's got it down. i also love skiing, and it pains me to see what we're doing. i feel personally trapped by it, i dont know hoe to lead a productive and comfortable life without contributinbg to it. i had to drive from vancouver to portland last week, through seattle... and we were stuck in traffic from everett to olympia pretty much... 3.5 hours... it felt awful, to think that this was the norm for everyone around me. it just doesnt work. the way we live isnt acceptable. i emplore all of you, please, for all of our sakes... change something, anything.
thecoyote
Active member
thanks prophet
and i just came across this website
http://www.fixedearth.com/
which shows you that SOME people will ALWAYS dispute proven science. And simple observational science. (note the paypal link on the page) it made me laugh
and i just came across this website
http://www.fixedearth.com/
which shows you that SOME people will ALWAYS dispute proven science. And simple observational science. (note the paypal link on the page) it made me laugh
almostaskier
Active member
thanks man, nice post.