Humans causing Global warming - solid evidence

01/12/2010 06:11:15 PM · #401

Originally posted by LoudDog:

The ice age thing was what is called an extreem example.

Given your repeated stance that humans aren't affecting the climate, suggesting any change at all is what is called BUSTED.

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Argue with the daily mail, not me. They quoted him saying 20+ years of cooling.

That excuse only works if I hadn't already posted articles with Latif himself explaining how his data is being misrepresented. Continuing to use a discredited tabloid reference after that is entirely on you. The "reporter" was manipulating facts for sensationalism. Misrepresenting ocean-specific data as a global prediction is only one example. Here's another from the same article:

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 â�� and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this." He's not actually lying, but he might as well be. Cherry picking 2007 as a starting date in the context of a long term trend (climate) is intentionally misleading. The reader is supposed to think, "Wow, a 26% increase is huge, and if 'committed global warming activists do not dispute this,' it must mean they were wrong and the Arctic ice isn't disappearing." The reader is being conned. Here's the data Rose is referring to.

Originally posted by LoudDog:

Prof Anastasios Tsonis, head of the University of Wisconsin Atmospheric Sciences Group, also said it in that article, 'We have such a change now and can therefore expect 20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.â��

Another journalistic con.

Message edited by author 2010-01-12 18:16:00.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/12/2010 07:01:22 PM · #402

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
Argue with the daily mail, not me. They quoted him saying 20+ years of cooling.

That excuse only works if I hadn't already posted articles with Latif himself explaining how his data is being misrepresented. Continuing to use a discredited tabloid reference after that is entirely on you. The "reporter" was manipulating facts for sensationalism. Misrepresenting ocean-specific data as a global prediction is only one example.

Latif responds specifically in relation to the Daily Mail and Telegraph misreporting of his research:

//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/12/2010 07:54:08 PM · #403

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
The ice age thing was what is called an extreem example.

Given your repeated stance that humans aren't affecting the climate, suggesting any change at all is what is called BUSTED.

Hold on cowboy. You may have just misquoted me! I don't think I ever said humans aren't affecting the climate, yet alone repeat it. I'm "skeptical" and I believe I've said that before. Look up the word if needed. You are no better then Rose!

To clarify my position, I think if we are having any effect on the climate it is very minimal. I agree that it has gotten warmer up until 1998, and agree that if you ignore the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age our recent warming is unprecidented.

Furthermore, I'm not so stupid as to assume there is no way I can be wrong. If I'm wrong and our CO2 is having a major impact, and we are foolish enough to think we can control the climate by injecting more crap in the atmosphere, then it is highly likely that we could goof and put the planet in an ice age. In case you still needed an explaination...

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/12/2010 08:35:00 PM · #404

Originally posted by LoudDog:

I don't think I ever said humans aren't affecting the climate, yet alone repeat it... I think if we are having any effect on the climate it is very minimal.

Then the difference in your position is also very minimal. Yeehaw.

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/12/2010 09:21:32 PM · #405

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
I don't think I ever said humans aren't affecting the climate, yet alone repeat it... I think if we are having any effect on the climate it is very minimal.

Then the difference in your position is also very minimal. Yeehaw.

So then it's okay. Got it.

01/13/2010 07:07:32 AM · #406

Originally posted by LoudDog:

To clarify my position, I think if we are having any effect on the climate it is very minimal. I agree that it has gotten warmer up until 1998, and agree that if you ignore the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age our recent warming is unprecidented.

Furthermore, I'm not so stupid as to assume there is no way I can be wrong. If I'm wrong and our CO2 is having a major impact, and we are foolish enough to think we can control the climate by injecting more crap in the atmosphere, then it is highly likely that we could goof and put the planet in an ice age. In case you still needed an explaination...

I don't think that you need to ignore the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in your conclusion - as I understand it these were localised events that didn't represent quick or significant changes to global temperatures. The current rate of change is unprecedented and there is only one factor that appears to be different to historical climate variation: humans and the accelerating industrial revolution.

Back to my question, I have a further observation.

It seems a bit odd to argue that the whole impact of uncontrolled humanity is marginal, but oppose relatively modest but targetted attempts to regulate global temperatures (using mechanisms that mimic natural phenomena) by arguing that this deliberate, controlled and reversible interference is somehow a greater risk.

I must admit, I had anticipated evoking responses showing that skeptics were more opposed to carbon dioxide regulation than opposed to the concept that humans might be responsible for climate change.

Based on your response, maybe the skeptical opposition is a more general resistance to the idea of change (either to fix global warming through large scale action or to fix it through cheaper and more realistic mechanisms).

citymars

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/13/2010 09:54:50 AM · #407

Originally posted by Matthew:

Latif responds specifically in relation to the Daily Mail and Telegraph misreporting of his research:
//www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

I'm sure "the evil Fox site" (to quote Flash) and other news sources will be printing their apology soon.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

01/13/2010 10:17:20 AM · #408

Originally posted by citymars:

I'm sure "the evil Fox site" (to quote Flash) and other news sources will be printing their apology soon.

Don't hold your breath... although it would reduce CO2. ;-)

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

01/13/2010 10:19:14 AM · #409

Originally posted by Matthew:

Back to my question, I have a further observation.

It seems a bit odd to argue that the whole impact of uncontrolled humanity is marginal, but oppose relatively modest but targetted attempts to regulate global temperatures (using mechanisms that mimic natural phenomena) by arguing that this deliberate, controlled and reversible interference is somehow a greater risk.

I must admit, I had anticipated evoking responses showing that skeptics were more opposed to carbon dioxide regulation than opposed to the concept that humans might be responsible for climate change.

Based on your response, maybe the skeptical opposition is a more general resistance to the idea of change (either to fix global warming through large scale action or to fix it through cheaper and more realistic mechanisms).

So there are numerous examples of humans trying to fix something while messing with mother nature, and most end badly. Off the top of my head, africanized bees in the US is a good example. They make more honey, why not bring them to the US? Well, they took over the bee population in much of the US and they kill people. Or, in the 1970's when the coming ice age was all the rage some people that seemed smart at the time suggested painting the ice caps black in an effort to melt them. Good thing they didn't! There are numerous other examples where we introduced a plant, bug or animal to an area to fix a problem and the results were devistating. So if you want to mess with mother nature to fix something, I beg you to please be very sure of what you are doing.

vtruan

Nikon D5100

Tamron AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 Aspherical for Nikon

01/21/2010 10:57:07 AM · #410

see this

Another misleading liar?

01/25/2010 12:00:25 PM · #411

Just in case there was any doubt, 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record and the global warming trend is continuing unabated.

//www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

pawdrix

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

01/25/2010 02:53:05 PM · #412

I'm trying to figure out why it took me a whole day to get a sunburn back in the 60's and 70's and now it takes 20-30 minutes.

01/25/2010 05:33:12 PM · #413

Originally posted by pawdrix:

I'm trying to figure out why it took me a whole day to get a sunburn back in the 60's and 70's and now it takes 20-30 minutes.

You are getting weaker in your old age, Steve...

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/26/2010 09:52:05 PM · #414

Originally posted by pawdrix:

I'm trying to figure out why it took me a whole day to get a sunburn back in the 60's and 70's and now it takes 20-30 minutes.

Probably due to the fact that you are getting older and your skin is much thinner now than it was when you were younger.

Ray

02/10/2010 01:01:57 PM · #415

commentary

citymars

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/10/2010 09:22:14 PM · #416

Apparently conservatives are incapable of understanding global warming science, since they are now touting these blizzards as proof of "Gore's" folly. Jeebus Aitch.

02/11/2010 10:03:57 AM · #417

Originally posted by citymars:

Apparently conservatives are incapable of understanding global warming science, since they are now touting these blizzards as proof of "Gore's" folly. Jeebus Aitch.

Not only do I understand your point - I actually agree with it. However - you have to admit that on the surface, the term "warming" associated with the term "catastrophe" is a bit of a contradiction to what folks are seeing in their daily activities. It may be true that cooling and winter blizzards and massive snow storms with 3 feet of snow is evidence of Global Warming (man made of course), but it does kind of make one scratch their head when they are digging their vehicle out of a snow bank.

02/11/2010 11:17:10 AM · #418

Originally posted by Flash:

It may be true that cooling and winter blizzards and massive snow storms with 3 feet of snow is evidence of Global Warming (man made of course), but it does kind of make one scratch their head when they are digging their vehicle out of a snow bank.

That's weather, not climate. A blizzard in Maryland doesn't mean polar bears can stop treading water. It's currently warmer in Anchorage, AK than Asheville, NC.

citymars

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/11/2010 12:18:41 PM · #419

As one of the more liberal pundits said yesterday, it's disheartening to think that the future of our life on the planet may rest on semantics; because the term "global warming" was popularized instead of the term "climate change."

Yesterday an 80-year old neighbor of a friend stuck her head out the window and shouted "I'd like to show Al Gore all this snow!" :-/

02/11/2010 01:57:15 PM · #420

Originally posted by citymars:

And then we have this commentary from John Lott regarding how fewer weather stations collecting data can skew the results of the data. Ultimately resulting in flawed conclusions. With information like this out there and what some folks see as plain common sense (ie the 80 year old above), it is no wonder that a portion of the population is scratching their heads is disbelief of the GW hysteria.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

02/11/2010 02:33:08 PM · #421

Originally posted by Flash:

... With information like this out there and what some folks see as plain common sense (ie the 80 year old above), it is no wonder that a portion of the population is scratching their heads is disbelief of the GW hysteria.

Unfortunately, that is a very poor example of common sense. While climactic oddities occur, they do so over extended periods of time and most folks aren't old enough to have experienced them the first time around.

Examples like this one remind me of the time my dear mom (at the age of 90)told me that people were not as healthy as they used to be. Her comments to me were: "An awful lot of my friends and acquaintances are dropping off like flies"... I wonder why that was.

Ray

FireBird

02/11/2010 07:06:39 PM · #422

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
It may be true that cooling and winter blizzards and massive snow storms with 3 feet of snow is evidence of Global Warming (man made of course), but it does kind of make one scratch their head when they are digging their vehicle out of a snow bank.

That's weather, not climate. A blizzard in Maryland doesn't mean polar bears can stop treading water. It's currently warmer in Anchorage, AK than Asheville, NC.

I've got some swampland I'd like to sell you in NC Scally boy.

02/11/2010 08:22:17 PM · #423

Originally posted by RayEthier:

While climactic oddities occur, they do so over extended periods of time and most folks aren't old enough to have experienced them the first time around.

A person can't experience "climate" because it's a global measure. Only local weather phenomena are apparent to a person, hence the misunderstanding.

02/11/2010 08:24:37 PM · #424

Originally posted by FireBird:

Originally posted by scalvert:
That's weather, not climate. A blizzard in Maryland doesn't mean polar bears can stop treading water. It's currently warmer in Anchorage, AK than Asheville, NC.

I've got some swampland I'd like to sell you in NC Scally boy.

? At the time of my post, it was 28 in Anchorange, and 25 in Asheville. Point being, that someone in Asheville who experiences "cooling" lacks the perspective to understand what's happening globally.

ETA- fixed quotes

Message edited by author 2010-02-11 22:22:58.