quote:

I think this is quite valid in this case seeing as the climate models we use to predict the earths temperature are only 50% accurate.

Lol, doesn't that mean the model is as accurate as tossing a coin?

quote:

GOBAL WARMING IS AN THREAT TO THE MANKIND.WE NEED TO AN URGENT SOLUTION OR LESE EVERYTHING WILL GET DESTORYED.

Easy there chicken little.

Omkar, welcome to YN!

Please try not to post all in caps. It's much easier on everyone's eyes!

GOBAL WARMING IS AN THREAT TO THE MANKIND.WE NEED TO AN URGENT SOLUTION OR LESE EVERYTHING WILL GET DESTORYED.

Humans do infact contribute to CO2, again i will state that i do not deny this. However, most of what is affecting the temperature change is infact NOT us but water vapor and there is much evidence to prove this. We know VERY little about what water vapor is and how it interacts with our climate, however we do know that some clouds, sirus clouds in particular, reflect up to 75 watts per square meter of the suns heat as oppose to CO2 which reflects 2 watts per square meter. Cloud cover contribute largely to the traping of heat inside the earths atmosphere thus cause an increase in tempurature, not to mention the sun is getting hotter which would obviously make the earth warmer. tThe point is, there are many variables that we do not understand in climate change so how can we make such irrational predictions.

quote:

No, I did not believe Al Gore.

quote:

As for Al Gore, I've watched An Inconvienent Truth, and I can say that 95% of what he says in there is good science

quote:

If you think about it, you're probably all for spending billions of dollars on thigns that we know nothing about. If we never spent money on the unknown, we'd never figure out what that unknown was.

I stated that spending money to solve a solution that we don't even know IS the solution or if it will even help is waste of money. I never said spending money on research is bad.

quote:

Firstly, the "how little we know" arguement is based on science a decade old. We're refining things all the time. A decade of research can tell you a lot.

I think this is quite valid in this case seeing as the climate models we use to predict the earths temperature are only 50% accurate. Unforunately it's the best we have currently but it doesn't mean it's right. This is a quote by a leading climate change skeptic, Richard S. Lizden, proffessor of meterology MIT, on our current cliamte models for global warming: "Not surprisingly, those models are unable to calculate correctly either the present average temperature of the Earth or the temperature ranges from the equator to the poles. Rather, the models are adjusted or "tuned" to get those quantities approximately right." It's true, my fiance hates to admit it but it is true. Every time she runs her hurricaine model based off of previous data she is off by a few dozen hurricaines or so, but the research and the data set she is using is the best we have out of anyone in the entire scientific community and the research she is conducting has never been done before. Why do we have so much trouble with climate models? Water vapor, it is not properly treated in our models today and cannot because we understand the physics yet.

quote:

Oh yeah, aside from the current position on Global Warming in this administration, as well as independent college and oil company funding, there's NO MONEY WHATSOEVER for warming skeptics. Yeah right.

never said they didn't get funding. They don't get publicity, not because people don't believe them, it's just not what people want to hear. Bad news sells. It took months for Richard S. Lizden's article on global warming skepticism to be published and respected. Both parties have presented arguements to the senate and fortunately the media has no influence on the governments decision on GW and they find that global warming is not the threat that some scientists say it is, how can it be? If we have trouble predicting the weather 5 days out, how can we predict CO2 levels 100 years from now, it's just not accurate enough yet.

quote:

You don't see opposition because they are shunned by the media and scientific community for political and funding reasons. Convince the government that global warming is caused by humans and will go out of control shortly and guess what? Big pay check!

Oh yeah, aside from the current position on Global Warming in this administration, as well as independent college and oil company funding, there's NO MONEY WHATSOEVER for warming skeptics. Yeah right.

quote:

My fiance is working on her first publication because she just started her PHd at GA Tech which is a major leader in the states on hurricaine research. Global warming histeria is politically modivated just like the global cooling hysteria just 40 years ago was politically modivated.

We're not arguing the hysteria here, we're argueing about some of the points that you brought up.

quote:

Anyone who believes a politician (proffessional liars) really needs to rethink his/hers source of information. In most cases when a polotician wants to argue a point and this is true for media, they find a small minority of people that hold extreme views and base their all arguement off of their theories. This is done in order to attract popularity. No body would believe a crazy scientist but everyone will believe a polotician who gets his information from a wacko scientist. It's called propoganda.

No, I did not believe Al Gore. Rather, I watched An Inconveient Truth from a skeptical point of veiw but found that what he presented, data and science wise, was mostly correct. I was expecting some foaming at the mouth "the sky is falling" documentary. But it wasn't that.

quote:

I never said humans do not contribute to CO2. You are correct we do contribute, but we do not know for sure how much because we know so little about climate change in general. One discovery could blow everything we already know out the window.

We've been measuring a sharp and continuing increase in atmosphereic CO2 concentrations ever since we started burning hydrocarbon fuels en masse.

Now, we have:

Sharp CO2 increase
Sharp increse in carbon based fuel use
Warming
Historical correlation of CO2 concentrations and warming.

Now it's POSSIBLE that this extra CO2 is coming from some mystery source. However, the likely culperate is the millions upon billions of pounds of carbon dioxide, as well as methane and NO2, that WE'RE contributing.

quote:

I do not think that we can start pointing fingers with how LITTLE we know. This is the viewpoint that most scientists hold: "Global warming IS occuring but we don't know exacatly who is causing it."

Firstly, the "how little we know" arguement is based on science a decade old. We're refining things all the time. A decade of research can tell you a lot.

Second, Most scientists will not say "We don't know who's causing it". They will say "Humans are having a signifigant impact on the CO2 levels, and therefore likely the temperature and climate. We do not know the exact extent of this, however it is likely signifigant".

There's also a fairly wide difference between long term climate research and meterology.

quote:

What i disagree with is things like the kyoto protocol and other means of spending billions of dollars on a problem that we have little knowledge about.

If you think about it, you're probably all for spending billions of dollars on thigns that we know nothing about. If we never spent money on the unknown, we'd never figure out what that unknown was.

As for Kyoto, it's a piece of junk in my opinion. It's not all encompassing.

try Dr. Richard S. Lizden, Proffessor of meteorology MIT.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm

You don't see opposition because they are shunned by the media and scientific community for political and funding reasons. Convince the government that global warming is caused by humans and will go out of control shortly and guess what? Big pay check!

My fiance is working on her first publication because she just started her PHd at GA Tech which is a major leader in the states on hurricaine research. Global warming histeria is politically modivated just like the global cooling hysteria just 40 years ago was politically modivated.

quote:

As for Al Gore, I've watched An Inconvienent Truth, and I can say that 95% of what he says in there is good science, and presented fairly accurately. He just fails to prove why it will be catastrophic. But that probably because it won't be catastrophic. Probably.

Anyone who believes a politician (proffessional liars) really needs to rethink his/hers source of information. In most cases when a polotician wants to argue a point and this is true for media, they find a small minority of people that hold extreme views and base their all arguement off of their theories. This is done in order to attract popularity. No body would believe a crazy scientist but everyone will believe a polotician who gets his information from a wacko scientist. It's called propoganda.

I never said humans do not contribute to CO2. You are correct we do contribute, but we do not know for sure how much because we know so little about climate change in general. One discovery could blow everything we already know out the window.

I agree with your viewpoint on global climate change, however, I do not think that we can start pointing fingers with how LITTLE we know. This is the viewpoint that most scientists hold: "Global warming IS occuring but we don't know exacatly who is causing it." What i disagree with is things like the kyoto protocol and other means of spending billions of dollars on a problem that we have little knowledge about.

*Rides into thread on a white stallion*

quote:

Originally posted by Torin2482:
You might wanna try reading the whole post. I sense you have trouble seeing the whole picture, as you have failed to do so in many replies that you have shoveled out to me and others as well. Try reading things twice it really helps. The haox is the the how the media portrays Global warming, theres a difference in opinions when someone agrees with climate change but not "global warming" (in the medias eyes). Wasting my time trying to explain things that are clearly stated in my earlier post is rediculous, try attacking the issue at hand next time, thanks.

The media "hoax" is nothing more than the media blowing a threat out of proportion like they do for everything.

As for Al Gore, I've watched An Inconvienent Truth, and I can say that 95% of what he says in there is good science, and presented fairly accurately. He just fails to prove why it will be catastrophic. But that probably because it won't be catastrophic. Probably.

quote:

Humans contribute to the greenhouse gas carbondioxide which constitutes about 20 percent of ALL greenhouse gases and what we contribute to that 20 percent is a much smaller fraction in comparison to other variables.

Well, we also contribute to methane and NO2, other huge GHGs. But, we' don't contribute a "small fraction" to the CO2 component. We contribute a very, very large portion of it. Go look up the parts per million CO2 over the past hundred years or so.

It's foolish to try and say that it's not humans putting the CO2 into the atomosphere. Because we simply are. We're on our way to doubling the CO2 concentrations. This will have measureable consequences.

quote:

My Fiance is a climatologist and she is utterly disgusted by people like Al Gore and the scientists that back him because the MAJORITY of scientitst globally disagree with most of the assumptions that are being made about global warming and human connection.

Please point me to some papers she's published then. Because I'm a soon to be geologist who's got a few PhD friends that agree with the science, just disagree with the rabid nature of it.

quote:

because the MAJORITY of scientitst globally disagree with most of the assumptions that are being made about global warming and human connection.

Really? The MAJORITY? In capital letters? Because I attended the annual GSA conference and they're pretty much in agreement that our CO2 production is signifigantly driving the observed climate change.

You did seem rather arrogant in your replies, so excuse me. It seems we started out on the wrong foot, but I would like to continue debating.

quote:

I tried not to be hostile, but apparently you took a simple attack on your opinions the wrong way because you started accusing me of not doing my research, being a tool of the media, and simply being too young to know anything.

whoa whoa, first of all, i never said you were too young to know anything, i compared your age and experience to people who are much more experienced on the subject matter. Second of all, semantic slants are typical strategies in debating they are not meant to be insults. Try not taking it so personally, if you would rather me not debate anymore topics with you thats fine, just let me know.

Whatever. I disagreed with you because of what you said. I tried not to be hostile, but apparently you took a simple attack on your opinions the wrong way because you started accusing me of not doing my research, being a tool of the media, and simply being too young to know anything.

Tell me how that was justified. You know, it is possible to debate without insulting one another. I do it all the time. Well, not on YN. My opponents are way too opinionated to debate civilly. You're turning out no different.

quote:

Perhaps I don't feel your opinion is stronger than mine. I'm not here to quibble, either, but you're the one who first demeaned me, not the other way around.

you mean the first to dissagree, i never told you off or said anything to the degree of: I eat pieces of $hit like you for breakfast. I might add that I was also the first to agree with you.

quote:

Originally posted by Torin2482:
In order to be a strong debator you have to have supreme confindence in your opinions but also be open to other opinions if you feel they are stonger than yours, so far you haven't proven so.

Perhaps I don't feel your opinion is stronger than mine. I'm not here to quibble, either, but you're the one who first demeaned me, not the other way around.

quote:

Originally posted by Shade:
Speaking of ocan currents, is there any truth to the day after tomorrow theory?

I'm not an expert, but I do know that messing with the Gulf Stream can seriously mess up the weather in the entire northern hemisphere. I don't know if drastic changes would occur within a day or two, but they would come on rather quickly. Also, I doubt the ocean currents could be disrupted so easily. But as I said, I'm no expert.

quote:

But don't completely discount the human factor. A single drop of water can make a bucket overflow. The tiny amount of damage humans do can change the natural flow of climate change just as easily.

...one drop of overflowing....holy crap

I actually did pass chemistry and i am well aware of what 1 degree does to the climate but i never said anything about 1 degree having to do with humans did i? No i didn't.

quote:

It's nicer when you stop assuming the "whole picture" is your opinion. I specialize in taking people like you down a notch. Deal with it.

haha, what are you some "youthnoise" hero? I am here to debate not to fight like two dogs over who's territory is whos. You've been here a while, thats nice but it doesn't mean i'm gonna agree with you all the time. In order to be a strong debator you have to have supreme confindence in your opinions but also be open to other opinions if you feel they are stonger than yours, so far you haven't proven so. So I suggest you get used to it

Speaking of ocan currents, is there any truth to the day after tomorrow theory?

quote:

Didn't they have record cold temps in New England last year too?

We are having record warm temperatures in New England. They are breaking temperatures set last year.

quote:

I sense you have trouble seeing the whole picture, as you have failed to do so in many replies that you have shoveled out to me and others as well.

It's nicer when you stop assuming the "whole picture" is your opinion. I specialize in taking people like you down a notch. Deal with it.

quote:

How come here in Seattle we're having record cold temperatures? And record snows?

Climate change screws everything over. Things don't necessarily need to get warm, even if the Earth's temperature is rising. It all has to do with ocean currents, I do believe.

quote:

1 whole degree...

Which can make a world of difference. You may be military intelligence, but you clearly failed high school chemistry (see? I can do the unfounded insults, too). What's the difference between 32 degrees and 33 degrees Fahrenheit? Not just one degree. At 33 degrees Fahrenheit, ice melts. At 32, it doesn't. That's a bit simplified, but it shows how a single degree change in temperature can cause major changes.

Now, I won't disagree with you that some people misrepresent climate change as something caused solely by humans and I will agree that that view is wrong. But don't completely discount the human factor. A single drop of water can make a bucket overflow. The tiny amount of damage humans do can change the natural flow of climate change just as easily.

It's because the earth isn't warming nearly to the degrees that the media states. So far it has been found the the earth has warmed 1 degree in the last 150 years according to borehole studies. 1 whole degree...

We're having a really cold autumn in Oregon, too (not winter, since technically it just started). I mean, it snowed last week. It never snows here, and ice almost every day? Not the rain we're used to. Though I am aware these could be caused by other things, like no clouds at night (but almost all autumn?)

Okay, only thing. I'm just wondering. If global warming is so real: Why in Russia and Asia last year did they have one of the roughest winter's on record? (Don't try to tell me that the press played that up or something. My brother lives in Russia)

How come here in Seattle we're having record cold temperatures? And record snows?

How come they had such a cold winter in the Midwest last year? (My grandmother lives in Michigan and she's lived in Michigan or Illinois for all her life, and she says she doesn't remember a colder winter)

Didn't they have record cold temps in New England last year too?

Just asking.