Most of the claims they are 'disproving' seem to be anecdotes quoted from newspapers/magazine articles or pop science books (it's of no consequence to me if the claims of sensationalist journalists appear to be in disagreement with each other), it appears to have very few references to actual scientific journals and so is not relevant to actual scientific discussion.
Given the article repeats one of the most easily refuted myths in it's title (the idea that global warming has slowed/stopped [https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm]) I really can't be bothered to read it further, perhaps you could link works from scientists that show failures in IPCC predictions instead of this trash you've given me.
Oh look a website that immediately brings up a fuck-off massive pop up, yeah I can't even be arsed with that. Although, again judging from the title, it jut seems to be another one of those articles that trot out one of the most common Denialist misrepresentations, I.E cherry pick glaciers that are growing while ignoring the fact that the majority of glaciers across the world are shrinking.
An entire century of false predictions, the proof that the glaciers are growing
Again that isn't relevant to the actual science of the matter.
Let me ask like this: how many of these predictions have turned out to be true so far? I have already provided a list of bullshit predictions, now it's your turn.
Well how much time do you have? it's quite a lot so perhaps it would be best to stick to the big things like Temprature rises [http://web.archive.org/web/20100322194954/http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/models-2/] or Sea level rises [http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_HIGH.pdf].
Did you miss the part where I mentioned that were it not for anthropogenic global warming, we were due for another glacial period to begin? So, changing it means heading towards a greenhouse earth, which is a period where life tends to flourish, and letting it run its course prior to anthropogenic contribution means we have another glacial period, where life tends to get weeded down a bit. Which one of these is better?
Also "try to change that." Lol, if you're talking about stopping the global climate from changing ever, and keeping it right here at it's happy temperature that we like, that's incredibly naive. Maybe, with our best efforts, we get a few thousand years at the current status quo, but it's changing one way or the other, and thinking we can stop it from doing so is like shooting a bb gun at a freight train.
Except that we were not going into glacier period before that. and we so far managed to speed global warming by 100.000 years, so yes, we can do have massive impact.
And as I said, the folks who went out to prove global warming froze stuck. Which, of course, is just another proof that earth is getting warmer to them.
The "climate change" is a hell of a business. As long as gullible people fund their pseudo-research, these "climate experts" will come up with one doomsday scenario after another.
no scientists said that. What scientists said, that if no new reserves were found the oil would run out in 2020. New reserves were found, which prolonged the oil death. However we are past the oil peak (in 2008 or so if i remember correctly) and there is less oil being extracted now. As oil price rises the places like antarctica will become more and more attractive, that wouldnt be profitable before, so it will drag for a but, but oil is definatelly running out.
so i tracebacked the original paper through 3 links from that blogpost. sciencedaily, that not-peer-reviewd site that was known to post falsified "Research" before. but ok, lets look at it.
However, he added that the changes observed in glaciers in East Antarctica needed further investigation against the backdrop of likely increases in both atmospheric and ocean temperatures caused by climate change.
Dr Stokes said: "If the climate is going to warm in the future, our study shows that large parts of the margins of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet are vulnerable to the kinds of changes that are worrying us in Greenland and West Antarctica -- acceleration, thinning and retreat.
"When temperatures warm in the air or ocean, glaciers respond by retreating and this can have knock-on effects further inland, where more and more ice is drawn-down towards the coast.
Yaeh, so maybe next time provide more than something misinterpreted by a blogpost?
Oh, and yeah, getting stuck in polar axes defnatelly proves it wrong. because global warming means instant tropics everywhere. riiiiight.
You do know that everyone in scientific community thinks global warming exists and the only discussion is not if its real but what caused it?
ecoho said:
nuclear power is pretty risky and you need not look farther then japan to see why. As for wind power its a great source of supplemental power but cant sustain the power needs of most cities, I should know we have one of the largest wind farms right outside of town.
Last but not least to your we can kill all life comment, just no its not actually possible. We can only destroy all life as we know it, to quote DR. Malcome from Jurassic park "life will find a way".
No it is not. Nuclear power has had less deaths in its entire history than other power industries have in a year. nuclear power has only had a single real accident in entire history, and that one was caused by intentional human interference removing safety (im talking about chernobyl). Fukushima was outdated reactor that, gasp, didnt actually melt or explode. There are no reactors of that design left. the new reactors are so safe its impossible for them to explode - the fuel they use does not do that. even if people stopped interfering AND all safety would fail the reactors would cement itself in due how its built. Nuclear power is anything but risky.
You are correct that there isnt enough wind power to satisfy our needs, which is why it cannot be there alone.
Well, true, there are some bacterial that live 2 kilometers under the ground and can survive enviroments deadly to everything else. but thats not the kind of life we want to inherit our earth now is it.
HalfTangible said:
Strazdas said:
granted, some food may be found in the desert too, but i doubt you can sustain human population on that.
1) See: Icecaps. If the world warms up it's far more likely we'd flood than we'd turn into a desert world.
2) When was the last time you grew food on a glacier?
3) Ancient Egypt. (granted, nile river, but again, there'd be MORE water in a warmer world if it was still cool enough for the question 'can we survive it' to matter - see 1)
1) as far as i know you cant grow trees in salt water.
2) ive never been on a glacier. food can be grown in multitude ways.
3) ancient egypt relied on its food sources around Nile. they did not grow food in desert. There were animals in steppes, granted. however sachara is actually expanding now dispalcing many inhabitants in that region because their wells dry out and they either move or die of starvation. this has caused some north-ward migration in sachara, causing a lot of disputes of local tribes coming into modern towns and not acting how others want them to act.
AgedGrunt said:
I think a lot more people would be on board with this settled science if projects and proposals were for things that would protect against these doomsday scenarios like defense again chaotic weather, alternative agriculture and overhauling infrastructure rather than running rackets such as carbon offsets, subsidies for failed solar companies and requiring ethanol to be in US vehicles, burning our food supply and further exhausting freshwater aquifers to fuel polluting cars.
Or, you know, if all of these smart scientists who see it coming would tell us these people are doing everything wrong and should be put in jail for endangering the planet. That might be a bit more encouraging than complacency and responsibility science seems comfortable leaving on the table.
Ever heard of Project Venus. it has a lot of amazing proposals for agriculture change. is anyone listening? of course not. and "Defence agaisnt weather" wont work unless we all go live deep in udnerground caves and find ways to stop earthquakes from happening - aka not gona happen.
Carbon taxing is good. it has pushed companies to create filtering systems that allow them to burn as much and waste less. and less waste was the whole point. I do agree with you about ethanol and water supplies problem. Ethanol wont work in cars anyway (that is, they can drive on it, i mean its too dangerous to have it around).
Oh, and there are plenty of people who do state that people killing the planet should stop doing it (or be stopped), but as long as politicians are in the pockets of the polluters and not the scientists its not going anywhere.
No, actually; it has no publicity. As with politics people focus on the problems, not solutions. Solutions can be rejected, but when you focus on the diagnosis you can prescribe whatever you want.
Strazdas said:
Carbon taxing is good. it has pushed companies to create filtering systems that allow them to burn as much and waste less. and less waste was the whole point.
Waste is not the whole point; the whole point is humans are blamed for rising temperatures and, supposing we do nothing, we'll all be in a Hollywood doomsday film.
There's no serious global commitment to taxing and reducing emissions because taxing is bad. Pretty sure Europe and Australia are pulling back on the stick. Economies are not doing well and would still be hurting even without the burden of complying with future environmental regs.
Meanwhile some of the biggest polluters in the world make the US and Europe look like an Apple store; they don't meet basic health standards. Their economies would be destroyed if they had to meet the stiff requirements necessary to allegedly combat CC.
No, actually; it has no publicity. As with politics people focus on the problems, not solutions. Solutions can be rejected, but when you focus on the diagnosis you can prescribe whatever you want.
Waste is not the whole point; the whole point is humans are blamed for rising temperatures and, supposing we do nothing, we'll all be in a Hollywood doomsday film.
There's no serious global commitment to taxing and reducing emissions because taxing is bad. Pretty sure Europe and Australia are pulling back on the stick. Economies are not doing well and would still be hurting even without the burden of complying with future environmental regs.
Meanwhile some of the biggest polluters in the world make the US and Europe look like an Apple store; they don't meet basic health standards. Their economies would be destroyed if they had to meet the stiff requirements necessary to allegedly combat CC.
yeah, hence why we need publicity for these things.
Taxing is not bad. You just have to be consistent and stop being corrupt for it to work. you know, like not allow them to trade their emission rights for one (who thought that was a good idea). poluttion taxing is such a small margin of all taxes that its effects on economy can be easily ignored. if you want taxes affecting economy VAT is your main target. Economies are doing well though. well, except US economy. the crysis is over. stop using it as excuse.
It makes us look like an apple store? so overpriced junk produced by child labour? i beg to differ. BUt i do agree that the effort needs to be united and not from few countries. Which is why we need to change UN with something that actually has a power to enforce policies, something like EU.
Oh, and boho about their economies. if they created economy based on polution then its a bad economy to begin with.
seriously if anyone here in Chicago still doubts global climate change despite the fact we had winter well in to March I will beat them with a waffle maker >:[
Gandalf: "So do all who live to see such times, but that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us."
What??
We have nowhere near the climatological data to even begin to make claims like that with any confidence.
Historic observations for the globe only date back some 60-70 years (some countries took observations before that, but upper-air analysis and "global" collaborative soundings didn't really begin until the 1950s).
It sounds like a UN scare tactic, but one that has some logic.
Namely, that by the time we do have enough global observations (another 30 years will give us a confidence interval that isn't "skeptical") the potential damage we've done will be even more severe.
So, it depends on what school of logic you subscribe to.
Do you assume we aren't front-loading the atmosphere so much that it's increasing the magnitude of weather events (at all scales) and scare?
Or do you wait for the facts? "Hard" objective science suggests the latter, but the fact is we are only just now becoming aware of the nature of these larger issues (meteorology and climatology as a science has scarcely existed for a century now).
While there is irrefutable evidence that mankind can and has altered weather patterns before (Urban Heat Island being the most obvious example) how far does the phenomenon go? What time scale does it work at? Is it irreversible? Are there external contributing sources (sun activity can influence our weather in ENORMOUS ways)?
FYI: I am a meteorologist approaching grad school, so these are questions I have to ask myself.
What I do know, is that the UN official has no scientific proof for his claim; or if he does, I don't know (based on what I know, he would have to be a time traveler since we don't have enough data yet).
Climate Change is happening, and there are many reasonable hypothesis based on trends, but hard proof and real understanding does not yet exist.
inu-kun said:
I don't really believe global warming, not because of idealogy, but rather I don't trust scientists who only stand to gain from panic, with research grants and publicity, with pretty much every bizzare weather being claimed as global warming.
Depends on which branch of the field you're in.
Operational meteorologists (currently like what I do) do not benefit at ALL from public panic; in fact, it's an uphill struggle to remain objective and present forecasts in a manner that retains the public trust AND ensures their safety.
Stochastic methods require some assumption for error, but most of the public does not seem to recognize this (or it does with a degree of cynicism).
What is certain is that we need to investigate this.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
