Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Global what ?

RazorbackRazorback Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 5,253

http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=60868

Want to talk about 1c temp rises as proof of global warming...

Well explain that and stay fashionable.

The climate is variable folks....

Repeat after me variable !

Not stable

Not predictable

variable !

+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
image
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon

«13456

Comments

  • JADEDRAG0NJADEDRAG0N Member Posts: 733
    Originally posted by Razorback


    http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=60868
    Want to talk about 1c temp rises as proof of global warming...
    Well explain that and stay fashionable.
    The climate is variable folks....
    Repeat after me variable !
    Not stable
    Not predictable
    variable !

     You do realise global warming will probably case More rainfall and colder weather.

  • RazorbackRazorback Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 5,253
    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N


     probably

    The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!

    +-+-+-+-+-+
    "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
    http://purepwnage.com
    image
    -+-+-+-+-+-+
    "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon

  • JADEDRAG0NJADEDRAG0N Member Posts: 733
    Originally posted by Razorback

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N


     probably

    The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!

    Well i wont argue with that type of thinking it would just be a wast of time.

  • RazorbackRazorback Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 5,253

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by Razorback

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N


     probably

    The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!

    Well i wont argue with that type of thinking it would just be a wast of time.

    Yup when your convinced your convinced right ?

    Link me to what convinced you. I offer that challenge to everyone I debate, I have yet to see a link that didnt include the words "probably", "if", maybe or "likleyhood" and the most liberal use of those terms was in the IPCC report.

    To call GW theory an inexact science is a tremendous compliment.

    +-+-+-+-+-+
    "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
    http://purepwnage.com
    image
    -+-+-+-+-+-+
    "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon

  • JADEDRAG0NJADEDRAG0N Member Posts: 733

    Try living in the UK right now with its strange weather over the past few years...its weter

  • RazorbackRazorback Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 5,253
    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N


    Try living in the UK right now with its strange weather over the past few years...its weter



    Well Im convinced....

    +-+-+-+-+-+
    "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
    http://purepwnage.com
    image
    -+-+-+-+-+-+
    "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon

  • JayBirdzJayBirdz Member Posts: 1,017

       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?

     

  • JADEDRAG0NJADEDRAG0N Member Posts: 733
    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

  • JADEDRAG0NJADEDRAG0N Member Posts: 733

    And  note that Razorback hasant replied to the Video post perhaps he is re-evaluating his thoughts on this matter.

  • JayBirdzJayBirdz Member Posts: 1,017
    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

    It is tho isn't it.     . I actually first saw that video on these forums under an Al Gore thread or some crap..... posted by another person.

     

    And no he's familiar with it I am sure. I believe he is the one who started the AL Gore thread. I might be wrong.   I think hes going after those who over-react  and say GW is fact when theres so little to support it still.

  • JADEDRAG0NJADEDRAG0N Member Posts: 733

    My view is that while global waring isant fact its still too important a problem to ignore. And that video expressed my core views on this subject very well.

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810

    Originally posted by Razorback


    http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=60868
    Want to talk about 1c temp rises as proof of global warming...
    Well explain that and stay fashionable.
    The climate is variable folks....
    Repeat after me variable !
    Not stable
    Not predictable
    variable !

     

     

    Weather is variable

     

    Climate (the statistics of weather) is both predictible and under normal circumstances changes very little variability in a human lifetime.   
  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810
    Originally posted by JayBirdz

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

    It is tho isn't it.     . I actually first saw that video on these forums under an Al Gore thread or some crap..... posted by another person.

     

    And no he's familiar with it I am sure. I believe he is the one who started the AL Gore thread. I might be wrong.   I think hes going after those who over-react  and say GW is fact when theres so little to support it still.

     

    The idea that there is little support is pure fiction. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published in the world’s top scientific journals saying global warming is happening and it is caused by humans.  The number of papers that take the opposite view can be counted on your fingers and the only one of any significance in the last five years turned out to an instrument calibration error.  
  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

    Actually, I'd say that by his "worst that can happen" logic, we'd be better off doing nothing. If we're putting worst case scenarios in his 4 boxes, the chart should read:

  • sidebustersidebuster Member UncommonPosts: 1,712

    Wouldn't the box for yes/true also be equally as bad as yes but we just took percautions?
    I get what he was saying.

    I would choose column B. Why? Because if it becomes true, I think this world needs a good kick in the pants to fix itself and if global warming is really happening, do you think there would be any chance to stop it? People need to remember we are not gods, we are animals just like your dog and cat friends. This might be earths way of saying. "damn it stop screwing like bunnies and over populating me jerks!"

    Anyways from what I understand that the world is warming but it is due to the sun, not humans.

  • hazmatshazmats Member Posts: 1,081

    Just remember, RFK Jr. said that if you don't believe in global warming you should be considered a traitor.

    Their religion has gotten so strong that you should be shot for denying it.

  • Cabe2323Cabe2323 Member Posts: 2,939
    Originally posted by sidebuster


    Wouldn't the box for yes/true also be equally as bad as yes but we just took percautions?

    I get what he was saying.
    I would choose column B. Why? Because if it becomes true, I think this world needs a good kick in the pants to fix itself and if global warming is really happening, do you think there would be any chance to stop it? People need to remember we are not gods, we are animals just like your dog and cat friends. This might be earths way of saying. "damn it stop screwing like bunnies and over populating me jerks!"
    Anyways from what I understand that the world is warming but it is due to the sun, not humans.



    The Earth isn't overpopulated.  Have you ever been to Montana?

    Currently playing:
    LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)

    Looking Foward too:
    Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810
    Originally posted by sidebuster


    Wouldn't the box for yes/true also be equally as bad as yes but we just took percautions?

    I get what he was saying.
    I would choose column B. Why? Because if it becomes true, I think this world needs a good kick in the pants to fix itself and if global warming is really happening, do you think there would be any chance to stop it? People need to remember we are not gods, we are animals just like your dog and cat friends. This might be earths way of saying. "damn it stop screwing like bunnies and over populating me jerks!"
    Anyways from what I understand that the world is warming but it is due to the sun, not humans.

     

    There is evidence that there was a small increase in solar intensity from the 1800’s to about 1950. Most papers place forcing due to changes in solar intensity at less then 0.5 W/M^2 with values below 0.3 W/M^2 being more typical.  Forcing due to CO2 emissions is normally placed at ~2.5 W/M^2, more then 5X greater.

     

    More significantly, we have been able to measure solar output with satellites for nearly 40 years over which time there has been no trend to increased solar output. This covers the time when we have seen the most rapid warming, so it excludes increased solar intensity from playing any role in the very rapid warming of the last 30 years.  

     
  • JayBirdzJayBirdz Member Posts: 1,017

    Originally posted by EggFtegg


     
    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

    Actually, I'd say that by his "worst that can happen" logic, we'd be better off doing nothing. If we're putting worst case scenarios in his 4 boxes, the chart should read:

     

    Fair enough , I think i get what your saying.  I interpreted the video a bit differently than you. It is a Pandora's box.   It was just some media that I recalled of the top of my head that was pretty close with out a fowl cry of wolf.  The safest option is accept GW is plausable and Humanity Influences it. Then take the best messures possable to counter what we think  are bad Human influences. And never know wether if in fact GW was nothing more than a myth or truth. Because like you said,   by the time it takes to have the Scientific Data available (probably a few generations).  chances are it is indeed to late if it turns out to be fact.

    It is a good media piece tho to get people thinking on the subject a bit differently. Even if it has some not so obvious flaws in its logic.

     

  • EggFteggEggFtegg Member Posts: 1,141
    Originally posted by Razorback

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N


     probably

    The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!

    I thought we'd already established that science is almost never definite. Words like "probably" and "highly likely" are how scientists usually refer to scientific theory.

  • JayBirdzJayBirdz Member Posts: 1,017
    Originally posted by lomiller

    Originally posted by JayBirdz

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

    It is tho isn't it.     . I actually first saw that video on these forums under an Al Gore thread or some crap..... posted by another person.

     

    And no he's familiar with it I am sure. I believe he is the one who started the AL Gore thread. I might be wrong.   I think hes going after those who over-react  and say GW is fact when theres so little to support it still.

     

    The idea that there is little support is pure fiction. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published in the world’s top scientific journals saying global warming is happening and it is caused by humans.  The number of papers that take the opposite view can be counted on your fingers and the only one of any significance in the last five years turned out to an instrument calibration error.  

    I was being modest. Trying to be "tactfull " if you will.   Since I did not want to get into a debate, and have to scower the web for data to back up any claims I made.  

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810
    Originally posted by EggFtegg

    Originally posted by Razorback

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N


     probably

    The most used word in global warming theory, second only it IF!

    I thought we'd already established that science is almost never definite. Words like "probably" and "highly likely" are how scientists usually refer to scientific theory.

     

    Exactly. If you see a large group of scientists using phrases like “highly likely” or “almost certainly” then in layman’s terms it’s a fact.  
  • MadAceMadAce Member Posts: 2,461

    It's not that hard to find info on what the scientific community largely thinks. Here for example.

     

    There have even been studies to find out what the scientific concencus is. One of them can be found here.

     

    Frankly I think we hav" more pressing priorities. Cheaper ones too. Feeding the whole world and providing medical care and education for everyone would be really cheap. And this would also provide the poorer countries in the world with the means to combat global warming.

  • lomillerlomiller Member Posts: 1,810
    Originally posted by JayBirdz

    Originally posted by lomiller

    Originally posted by JayBirdz

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

    It is tho isn't it.     . I actually first saw that video on these forums under an Al Gore thread or some crap..... posted by another person.

     

    And no he's familiar with it I am sure. I believe he is the one who started the AL Gore thread. I might be wrong.   I think hes going after those who over-react  and say GW is fact when theres so little to support it still.

     

    The idea that there is little support is pure fiction. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published in the world’s top scientific journals saying global warming is happening and it is caused by humans.  The number of papers that take the opposite view can be counted on your fingers and the only one of any significance in the last five years turned out to an instrument calibration error.  

    I was being modest. Trying to be "tactfull " if you will.   Since I did not want to get into a debate, and have to scower the web for data to back up any claims I made.  

     

    In 2004 There was a paper published that examined the papers on climate change that have appeared in the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) journal “Science” from 1993 – 2003.  The review paper was itself published and peer reviewed. Here is a summary of its finding:

     


     

    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

     

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

     

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

  • JayBirdzJayBirdz Member Posts: 1,017

     

    Originally posted by lomiller

    Originally posted by JayBirdz

    Originally posted by lomiller

    Originally posted by JayBirdz

    Originally posted by JADEDRAG0N

    Originally posted by JayBirdz


       I am glad people like you seem to be slowly shrinking to  the minority.   Humans do have a large impact on Earth .  The question is whether that impact is harmfull.  Whats the worst that could happen?
     

    That was actually a really good way of arguing this topic im impressed by how simple it was done and how clear the result was.

    It is tho isn't it.     . I actually first saw that video on these forums under an Al Gore thread or some crap..... posted by another person.

     

    And no he's familiar with it I am sure. I believe he is the one who started the AL Gore thread. I might be wrong.   I think hes going after those who over-react  and say GW is fact when theres so little to support it still.

     

    The idea that there is little support is pure fiction. There are literally thousands of peer reviewed papers published in the world’s top scientific journals saying global warming is happening and it is caused by humans.  The number of papers that take the opposite view can be counted on your fingers and the only one of any significance in the last five years turned out to an instrument calibration error.  

    I was being modest. Trying to be "tactfull " if you will.   Since I did not want to get into a debate, and have to scower the web for data to back up any claims I made.  

     

    In 2004 There was a paper published that examined the papers on climate change that have appeared in the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) journal “Science” from 1993 – 2003.  The review paper was itself published and peer reviewed. Here is a summary of its finding:

     


     

    The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

     

    The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

     

    Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

    I'll try to remember that link next time and post it along with the clip.   I honestly wasn't aware of the link. I'll definately read more into it when I am camping /waiting for Dyna's to respawn.  

     

        Just to be clear. Not sure what influenced you to post that directly at me.  I am not someone saying that Global Wwarming is false or a myth. In fact I do believe that humans have influenced climate change for the worse or will so in the future if steps are not taken to prevent it.

      If someone understands elementary school Science behind cause and effect. Then I don't see how someone would deny Humanity has no Influence on climate.  Now if someone can accept that Humanity does have influence on climate.  Look at all the devastion , pollution , and destruction mankind has caused to Earth.  With all that in mind, at this point its kinda hard to deny that any effect mankind has had is anything other than a  bad one. 

      When I post on certain topics I try to stay open and/or not damning other peoples views who are the oposite of what my own are.     So at times i guess i can see why it makes me look like I am taking a stance that seems to opose my personal views and come across wrong to others.  

     

    Taking into context why I used the term little support.  I recalled a huge and heated debate in that Al Gore thread where people were  either strongly for or against Global Warming.  like I said I did not want to debate.   So I used the term " little support". I did not want to come off like i am pushing my views onto someone who views Global Warming as a Myth. Generally this works fairly effectively for opening up someone to new opinions alittle better than saying "hey dumbass" heres a stack of Scientific pappers that support the stance of Global Warming.    Not to mention I wasn't aware of the link to said pappers or i would have tossed them in with that short clip.

Sign In or Register to comment.