Quote :

"Sorry, not trying to have a tone. I'm just sick at home today and grumpy I guess. B/c it makes sense. BTW, I don't believe the poles are getting warm. I'm just going off of the assumptions of the others on the global warming bandwagon."

Just because you think it makes sense doesn't mean that's the reality.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/04/09/climate-dynamics-local-and-planet-wide

Quote :

"These two papers emphasize how factors that might, from a human perspective, seem minor or inconsequential, can have significant, even planet-wide consequences. They provide further evidence that science can provide a better perspective when common sense might otherwise lead us astray."

4/10/2007 1:48:27 AM

Aristotle, how can the same humans who are so clueless and incompetent when it comes to dealing with climate change, be so knowledgable of the subject in the first place? Cause your whole point of view is basically that we know everything thats going on beyond a shadow of a doubt...we're smart enough to know all that through research...we're just so dumb we have no idea what to do and have no solutions on how to fix it

4/10/2007 10:25:33 AM

^ It's one thing to identify the problem, and it's another to figure out how to solve it. It's also much easier to condemn, criticize, and complain than it is to offer a constructive assessment of a difficult situation. You have offered a lot of rhetoric, talking points, and anecdotal evidence, but nothing of real substance.

This quote of yours exemplifies why I and others take offense to or outright ignore your posts. Your contention is that scientists claim to understand GW, but don't have solutions to fix it? Seriously, TKE-Teg and I already laid out several measures that would significantly help the problem. I somehow suspect they've been mentioned on national and international levels. These measures however are facing considerable political opposition and progress has subsequently stalled.


I realize the quality of debate on TWW sucks, but you take it to a whole new level...


the gutter...

4/10/2007 12:29:00 PM

thanks but I asked Aristotle that question

he's a big boy, why don't you let him answer it himself

Quote :

"It's one thing to identify the problem, and it's another to figure out how to solve it"

let alone its one thing to speculate about a problem, and its another to figure out if its an actual problem

Quote :

"It's also much easier to condemn, criticize, and complain than it is to offer a constructive assessment of a difficult situation"

It's also much easier to accept global warming as absolute fact than it is to even debate the subject

4/10/2007 12:30:45 PM

so where's the other list of scholars that is skeptical?

4/10/2007 12:34:09 PM

there are dozens and dozens listed just on wikipedia for example

let alone anybody with half a lick of sense about science should see this



(evidence that the earth's temperature has fluctuated wildly before humans were ever here to burn fossil fuels)

and have some bit of skepticism that humans are causing all these "unnatural" changes

course it depends what mentality you have...do you have the "global warming is true because this guy on the news said its true" mentality or the "well common sense would tell me this isnt as clear cut as some of these politicians would lead me to believe"

4/10/2007 12:42:19 PM

Quote :

"lol at posting montly temperatures for the united states in a GLOBAL CLIMATE change discussion. LOfrigginL ^yes without a reliable climate agriculture would have never started. without agriculture man would have continued to live nomadicly chasing animals."

Two things. First, he was just playing devils advocate to the alarmists who are like OMG heat wave, must be global warming!!! If thats not obvious then these words I type are also wasted. And 2nd, what about the Vikings that settled Greenland for hundreds of years and then had to leave after the last warm period ended? Or how about the ancient vineyards of England that produced fantastic wine during the last warm period. Entreprenuers are actually starting to look at developing vineyards in England again.

4/10/2007 1:08:32 PM

Quote :

"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png"

This strengthens the pro-climate change case, to me.

The first thing that is notable is that the temperature delta there is relatively small, but representing notable changes in the Earth's climate.

The second is that the temperature changes there are over the course of thousands of years, where as the temperature change climate change people are talking about is over several decades, on the same scale as what is noted for the thousands of years there.

4/10/2007 9:27:10 PM

^nobody in here is really saying that the climate isn't changing though.

4/10/2007 9:29:36 PM

^ The "pro anthropogenic climate change" is how you should have read that.

4/10/2007 9:32:43 PM

Somebody in this thread has denied that earth is getting warmer. Ive said all along, Regardless if its natural, human caused or green aliens causing t the facts are facts. Earth is warming up and ice is melting.

The graphs treetwista posted stop short of recent history and if you superimposed the recent years onto the end of that graph you would see vast peaks that obviously don't come close match resemblance with the previous fluxations.

^^^^and sure i've already said there are some good things that will come of global warming. Countries like Canada are salivating. They have an almost unlimited fresh water supply, low populaton, low density and economic power and are going to have tundra turning into arable land.

Complete opposite of Bangladesh.

When i said unusual weather I didn't necessarily mean "extreme"(although many things point towards that as well) weather. I just mean things that aren't wthin the climatological standard of what people in certain areas have dealt with in "recent" years.

Population factors are the key in this whole thing. In the past if there was any kind of geological or climatic change people could easily move or relocate but today population has grown so out of control (and continues to grow exponentially) that it would cause a major political problem. We saw how bad it was with just thousands of "rich" people in new orleans in a rich country that is a thousand times better equipped for this kind of thing than almost every other country.

Understanding that most people on this planet are dirt poor and live near the coast is key to understanding whats at stake.

The fresh water situation is definately the most important the most critical. Sure there enough water and food to feed everyone but unless the world falls under one big communist regime that type of efficient allocation just won't be politically possible. People are starving right now and things aren't even bad.

Another population note is that the 8 rich nations of the world (minus the us), which will all be fine are all declining in population. Amount of children in a family is inversely proportional to wealth.

Although we aren't going to run out of water keep note that a good amount of our aquifers, the ogallala aquifer for example which has been key to southern farming are being used 100% faster than they are being replaced. Worldwide reduction of groundwater could further enhance the glacial river crisis.

[Edited on April 11, 2007 at 1:52 AM. Reason : yo yo yo dog]

4/11/2007 1:51:28 AM

March 2007 was the 2nd warmest in recorded history for the contiguous US
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/mar/national.html

Global analysis should be out tomorrow

4/11/2007 10:30:40 AM

and it looks like April will be one of the coldest we have had... holy shit!

4/11/2007 10:42:00 AM

Quote :

"The graphs treetwista posted stop short of recent history and if you superimposed the recent years onto the end of that graph you would see vast peaks that obviously don't come close match resemblance with the previous fluxations"

thats completely insignificant, let alone false

i didnt read anything into the graph...i didnt assume anything and try to draw any conclusions...that graph simply shows everyone that temperatures have been fluctuating on earth for hundreds of thousands of years...that earth's temperatures have fluctuated over 10 degrees multiple times...you cant deny that because all you have to do is read the graph...but instead you want to make it seem like we're on some one way path thats completely out of the ordinary for earth...which its not as anyone can see from the graph

look at the EPICA (blue) line on that graph at around 140,000 years ago...within roughly 1,000 years the Earth's average temperature increased by about 15 degrees celsius...thats almost 60 degrees fahrenheit...a 60 degree temperature change that humans had nothing to do with...yet we are supposed to believe that a couple degree increase over the last 100 years is something we are causing, or even something we can change? If we were alive 140,000 years ago and emitting CO2 back then, and we completely stopped emitting CO2, it seems to me the temps would still have increased ~60 degrees

Quote :

"you would see vast peaks that obviously don't come close match resemblance with the previous fluxations"

so in recent history you would see temperature increases of 60 degrees? o rly?

4/11/2007 10:55:59 AM