Why it's too late to stop global warming

[Skyhunter]

An Inconvenient Truth

Has anyone here seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?

I saw it, and highly recommend it. It is funny entertaining and above all informative. A much better source of facts than what some are trying to present in this thread.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

It's late, so I'm making this short, for now...

Mk- We agree on all counts, I may have inadvertently mis-worded my "essays" in some of the areas.

Skyhunter- I intend to answer all of you challenges, but for now, let me just say that "peer reviewed" scientific papers are NOT the main information source for the average person, the main-stream media is. And by the way, I intend to watch Al Gore's movie so that I may take notes on the "evidence" watchers of this movie will use.

P.S.
I don't consider myself an "amateur on a physics forum," this forum is filled with intelligent people, and any person can be properly informed on current issues, INCLUDING this one. I will talk with as much authority as I choose to.

Until tomorrow then...

 

[Skyhunter]

Skyhunter- I intend to answer all of you challenges, but for now, let me just say that "peer reviewed" scientific papers are NOT the main information source for the average person, the main-stream media is.

I agree, the media is the primary source of information for the "average person". However you should clarify what you mean by the term "main-stream".

It is not a challenge, just a request for something more than your opinion. Unless you are a credentialed climatologist your opinion is no better than the "average person"

And by the way, I intend to watch Al Gore's movie so that I may take notes on the "evidence" watchers of this movie will use.

Really?

You have not even seen the movie?

Yet you are such an expert.

By the way, the supposed "documentary" coming out with Al Gore called "An Inconvenient Truth" is just a huge load of scary pictures, cherry-picked data, and propoganda. It is not real science, it is instead a huge implementation of scare tactics.

Hmmm? Do you really think you are going to watch it with an open mind?

P.S.
I don't consider myself an "amateur on a physics forum," this forum is filled with intelligent people, and any person can be properly informed on current issues, INCLUDING this one. I will talk with as much authority as I choose to.

Until tomorrow then...

This is a science forum. The rules are simple. If you make claims, provide sources to support and validate those claims.

I am eager to see the sources of such claims as:

Global temperature changes seem to be largely INdependent of atmospheric CO2. There are examples of the temperature rising with no change in CO2 (pre-1940), and examples where CO2 levels rise while temperatures go into a cooling trend (1970-1980 I think, I'll look up the sources).

First and foremost, ALL of the supposed "data" that "proves" global warming is cherry-picked like crazy, and there are most likely equal amounts of data that refute GW theories.

I look forward to seeing those "most likely" amounts of data.

 

[vanesch]

Wow, this thread got some airtime since yesterday!
What periods, namely?

Have a look at:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5518/870

for instance.

A (non-peer review, but hopefully reliable) site is here:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

It indicates in fact that we are in a rather "cool" period as compared to most other periods. That, by itself, doesn't say anything about any possible human causes or not of the *slope*, but definitely, average Earth temperatures HAVE been higher in previous geological times (as they have sometimes been cooler too).

 

[Skyhunter]

Wish I had an extra $139.00 to subscribe Vanesch. I would like to learn more about the Earth's prehistoric history.

 

[vanesch]

Wish I had an extra $139.00 to subscribe Vanesch. I would like to learn more about the Earth's prehistoric history.

Oops, sorry, I didn't realize that. On my computer it displays without problem or any special login, but that must be because at my place there's an automatic subscription. Sorry, I thought it was freely accessible...

In fact, in the article the second website is cited as illustrative material (the scotese site). So I think it is reliable (in the sense that it is not some crackpot or opinion site).

 

[Mk]

I find it laughable that a bunch of amateurs on a physics forum can speak with such authority.

Ahh, we meet again. Skyhunter, for the first time you have succeeded in angering me a bit. Aside from the fact that we actually do have experts here on climatology, physics is the art and science of describing interactions between matter and energy—this expands to every science.

For the second part of your comment regarding our authority: you do not need authority to know. You do not need authority to think. I admit I have absolutely no authority in paleoclimatology, although I sure do damn know a lot more than a lot of people. I have no credentials in physics, although I can tell you about M- and string theory, I can explain to you the mechanics of photovoltaics, and I can read and write technical writing concerning nuclear engineering.

Has anyone here seen Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth"?

I saw it, and highly recommend it.

As with all propaganda, whether on my side or the other, I believe we should avoid it. I hate heavily biased media!

Mk- We agree on all counts, I may have inadvertently mis-worded my "essays" in some of the areas.

I realized that— just adding on what I thought you didn't say.

Skyhunter- I intend to answer all of you challenges, but for now, let me just say that "peer reviewed" scientific papers are NOT the main information source for the average person, the main-stream media is. And by the way, I intend to watch Al Gore's movie so that I may take notes on the "evidence" watchers of this movie will use.

Make sure you check the works cited list.

I don't consider myself an "amateur on a physics forum," this forum is filled with intelligent people, and any person can be properly informed on current issues, INCLUDING this one. I will talk with as much authority as I choose to.

Fight the power!

It is not a challenge, just a request for something more than your opinion. Unless you are a credentialed climatologist your opinion is no better than the "average person"
NO! It is WHAT YOU KNOW that matters, not what credentials you have, not what degrees and what colleges you have attended. Those only bring you up, having a lack of them does not bring you down. And in the Earth forum it is easy to tell if somebody is "claiming" or "making an opinion." Claiming involves hypothesis, fact, truth, science. Opinion involves what you believe. A scientific claim can be that humans are burning fossil fuels which increase CO₂ concentration in the troposphere, and that may now to be causing a global warming of the atmosphere, land, ice, and oceans. Making an opinion is like "God is exists." They can both be backed up, and both me hit hard upon. But one is an opinion and one is a conjecture, hypothesis, or theory.

I look forward to seeing those "most likely" amounts of data.

Skyhunter, if you've ever browsed through the threads of the Earth section, you know that about half of us believe in the AGW, half of us don't, and a few seemingly linger in the middle. Data, charts, articles, studies have been presented in the Earth forum for years proving this.

You have not even seen the movie?

I guess not, since he said he didn't

Hmmm? Do you really think you are going to watch it with an open mind?

Same to you. Science is different from persuasion, demagoguery, and their brothers. In science you work with results, facts, data, and search for the truth. It is not a war, or a debate. It is a search for the truth.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Very well then, it's time for round two. I have finished with work for a bit, collected my thoughts a bit. Shall we begin?

I agree, the media is the primary source of information for the "average person". However you should clarify what you mean by the term "main-stream".

Ok, very well then. "Main Stream" should be defined as the media a large portion of the U.S. population have easy access to, whether on T.V. (ABC, NBC, CNN, etc.) or magazine publications (such as Time, etc.). There, are we done mucking through simple semantics then?

It is not a challenge, just a request for something more than your opinion. Unless you are a credentialed climatologist your opinion is no better than the "average person"

What about your questioning of my supposed "expertise" on the subject?

This is a science forum. The rules are simple. If you make claims, provide sources to support and validate those claims.

I am eager to see the sources of such claims as:

"Global temperature changes seem to be largely INdependent of atmospheric CO2. There are examples of the temperature rising with no change in CO2 (pre-1940), and examples where CO2 levels rise while temperatures go into a cooling trend (1970-1980 I think, I'll look up the sources)."

I look forward to seeing those "most likely" amounts of data.

Let's tone down on the condescension there, Skyhunter. I don't remember hearing any of your credentials on the subject. This is just a conversation on a forum, credentials are unimportant in my opinion. I am more interested in keeping the conversation friendly, and I am more open to discussing opinions we have heard, data we have seen, etc.

Really?

You have not even seen the movie?

Yet you are such an expert.

Hmmm? Do you really think you are going to watch it with an open mind?

I wonder, is Al Gore's movie peer-reviewed? You put a large amount of faith in peer-reviewed articles or papers (as well you should, but WHAT do those reviews say, if they exist?) I think my point is clear here.

Make sure you check the works cited list.

First and foremost, watching Al Gore's movie sure as heck isn't going to make me an expert. Second, I am going to keep an eye out for sources and logical arguments, as well as calls to emotion and ad-hominem arguments (some of which you have fallen to yourself in this very conversation.) Do you really think that Al Gore MADE this movie with an open mind? Did YOU watch it with an open mind? Any one going into the movie will go in with certain pre-conceived notions, and that's the way it is.

Now then, to the data I promised you. I need to slightly revise my statements, here they are:

1) Much of temperature increases in the last century were before 1940, when CO2 could not have been a dominant factor.

2) CO2 levels seem largely INdependent of global temperature, as shown by the fact that CO2 levels increased from 1940 to 1970, but there was a mean cooling trend recorded.

Very well then, where can this be verified? Quite simple if you look around. This data has been published by NASA, and a quick search for CO2 levels and a temperature history will confirm my claims, both in the fact that about one-half of the warming occurred pre-1940, and that CO2 levels rose while temperature did not. These are powerful arguments used in "State of Fear," with sources clearly cited in the book.

Now then, one other thing:

So if you know of other peer reviewed scientific papers that disagree with the consensus position, please reference them and supply links. Otherwise your just blowing hot air and contributing to global warming.

WOAH, simmer down there. First, all it takes is a little searching and the opinions are easy to find. I would like to point you to a powerful online paper that will help you in your blind search for internet links (although it is important to note that most papers are not available in link form on the internet.)

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

It's kind of a long read, but brings up a lot of good points.

Additionally, you might consider looking at this website:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260

It mentions all of the arguments against global warming covered in "State of Fear" and and says where these arguments are backed up by data.

Finally, there is a good list of scientific articles on the subject here, take a look if you have time.

http://www.globalwarming.org/science.php

Additionally, it would seem you are having trouble finding arguments against global warming. You might consider searching this very forum, I'm sure the intelligent people here have produced some convincing arguments for and against the topic, in previous threads.

There, I feel much better now.

 

[Amp1]

The info I would like to have has to do with glacier meltings/dissappearings
It is reported that glaciers are disappearing at an astonishing rate. For instance, Glacier National Park will have to be renamed soon.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/07/19/tech/main515653.shtml

http://www.terradaily.com/news/arctic-05i.html

http://www.china.org.cn/english/2002/Jun/33719.htm [/URL]

[PLAIN] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0821_020821_wireglaciers.html [/URL]

[PLAIN] http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/13/tech/main1391827.shtml [/URL]

This global loss of glaciers is probably one of the most compelling reasons to consider GW is happening and likely increasing. There is, I do not doubt, a threshold point where the temps could get chaotic/erractic and global thermal systems will go haywire.

 

[iansmith]

This thread has turn into a political subject rather than science. If you wish to continiue the thread go to P&WA forum