My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[goku]

You'll have to be more specific. I'm not sure what you're referring to here.

 

if you look on a US dollar you'll see the words "In God We Trust"

 

scientists say there is no God so people who know God have a tendency to reject anything else scientists say.

 

the sun burning for billions of years :phones: i'd like to take a poke at that.

[goku]

The Earth is about 4.5-5 billion YO

How come you don't believe this?

 

and i would believe this because....................

i think the methods for determining the age of the earth are flawed.

[InfiniteNow]

and i would believe this because....................

i think the methods for determining the age of the earth are flawed.

 

You being the big expert in how they calculuate it, eh? What's the opposite of a well-informed opinion? Hmmm... Blind faith, I think. :phones:

 

 

 

All the logic and reason in the world won't change the mind of someone who has closed their eyes and plugged their ears to the evidence which is contrary to their world view.

 

 

 

No offense intended, but you sound very foolish and silly, goku.

[Biochemist]

There is a concerted effort by right wing conservatives, many of whom are deeply religious, to perpetuate the notion that global warming is nothing but hype....They don't provide any alternate theories for the rapid increase in the mean global temperature over the last several decades. ... What is actually at stake if they were to acknowledge the validity of the science?...

 

I tried to scan this (long) thread. I am not sure I succeeded. I could not find the main counterargument (although I might have missed it).

 

The critique of the fact base for CO2-caused warming is not right-wing conservatives. This is the "bogey-man" argument. (e.g., "we are only in Iraq because of DICK CHENEY!!!" or "This is just like ENRON!!").

 

The core critique is (I think) that the correlation between CO2 change and climate change is weak. It looks like (based on current data) that the correlation between solar activity and temperature change is stronger. Ergo, the argument is not whether CO2 is rising (it is) or whether we have warmed between 1960 and 1990 (we did), this issue is causality.

 

And I think that improved data capture is further weakening the CO2 causality argument.

 

I have wagered several scotch bottles (with several different folks) that we will be worrying more about global cooling than global warming by 2020.

[goku]

I tried to scan this (long) thread. I am not sure I succeeded. I could not find the main counterargument (although I might have missed it).

 

The critique of the fact base for CO2-caused warming is not right-wing conservatives. This is the "bogey-man" argument. (e.g., "we are only in Iraq because of DICK CHENEY!!!" or "This is just like ENRON!!").

 

The core critique is (I think) that the correlation between CO2 change and climate change is weak. It looks like (based on current data) that the correlation between solar activity and temperature change is stronger. Ergo, the argument is not whether CO2 is rising (it is) or whether we have warmed between 1960 and 1990 (we did), this issue is causality.

 

And I think that improved data capture is further weakening the CO2 causality argument.

 

I have several scotch bottles bet with folks that we will be worrying more about global cooling than global warming by 2020.

 

that is mostly what i've been saying.

if earth is warming abnormaly for a life sustaining planet that is "billions of years old" then the cause most likely has something to do with the distance from a giant ball of fire :phones:

[goku]

You being the big expert in how they calculuate it, eh?

 

no,

but i did stay at a holiday inn express last night :doh:

[InfiniteNow]

I have wagered several scotch bottles (with several different folks) that we will be worrying more about global cooling than global warming by 2020.

 

Global warming is a tired old moniker which was popularized in the 80s. Most anyone who knows their elbow from their bung hole recognizes that it's about climate change, and more extreme climatic events. Global yearly average temperatures have been trending upward, and I've yet to see evidence which debunks that trend, nor evidence which debunks the influence of anthropogenic increases of atmospheric CO₂ concentrations on global climate.

 

 

So, what kind of scotch will you be giving me? I do like my scotch. :doh:

[freeztar]

The critique of the fact base for CO2-caused warming is not right-wing conservatives.

 

Not entirely, no, but take a look at Senator Inhofe. Typically, and very generally speaking, liberal Democrats tend to favor climate initiatives whereas conservative Republicans do not.

The core critique is (I think) that the correlation between CO2 change and climate change is weak.

 

How so?

 

It looks like (based on current data) that the correlation between solar activity and temperature change is stronger.

 

There is no doubt that the sun is the major driver of temperature change on Earth. These cycles are well known and are accounted for in climate models. Discounting CO2's contributions, on this premise, paints an incomplete picture.

 

Ergo, the argument is not whether CO2 is rising (it is) or whether we have warmed between 1960 and 1990 (we did), this issue is causality.

If you mean causality as I think you mean it (increased CO2 has resulted in the warming from 1960 to 1990), then you are correct. We can not say with any certainty that CO2 alone is responsible for the recent warming. What is compelling is that this trend is seen in ice core samples all around the world. We also know that CO2 reacts differently to light depending on the frequency. In other words, it permits UV rays, but traps IR. So it's not really as far fetched as some would have you believe to correlate increased CO2 levels with increased warming.

And I think that improved data capture is further weakening the CO2 causality argument.

What data are you referring to?

 

I have wagered several scotch bottles (with several different folks) that we will be worrying more about global cooling than global warming by 2020.

 

I think we're already worried about global cooling as in "How do we cool this thing down?". :doh:

Personally, I'd rather just see us stop mucking about with the atmosphere so we can stop the blame game and just focus on the science while Earth does its thing. As far as action on climate change, we should prepare for it regardless because it *will* happen eventually if history is to be trusted.

[InfiniteNow]

There is no doubt that the sun is the major driver of temperature change on Earth. These cycles are well known and are accounted for in climate models. Discounting CO2's contributions, on this premise, paints an incomplete picture.

Speaking of pictures, these two speak a thousand words:

 

 

 

 

 

 

It seems based on this that assigning solar as the primary forcing factor would be in err.

[REASON]

There is a concerted effort by right wing conservatives, many of whom are deeply religious, to perpetuate the notion that global warming is nothing but hype. I hear this constantly on conservative talk radio, one of the primary means by which disinformation is disseminated nationally by talk show hosts that are not experts in climatology, nor even readily familiar with the work of scientists.

 

It's been a mystery to me as to why it is so important for them to continually cast doubt on the science, which is all they actually do in regards to this issue. They don't provide any alternate theories for the rapid increase in the mean global temperature over the last several decades. They talk about how cold it's been in places this winter and then scoff at the notion of global warming, which only demonstrates their ignorance. They claim that the real motivation of science is nothing but protectionism of government grants. They don't provide any alternate explanation for the rapid disappearance of glacial and polar ice. They don't reference qualified experts in the field of study. They don't attempt to refute the actual data that has been compiled by climatology consortiums such as the IPCC. They do link it to the liberal wacko Al Gore, in an effort to generate a negative emotional appeal to those they seek to influence.

 

The critique of the fact base for CO2-caused warming is not right-wing conservatives. This is the "bogey-man" argument.

 

My quote above is a less edited version than what you had posted. Attempting to discredit my perfectly legitimate stance regarding right wing conservatives and radio talk show hosts, as a "bogey-man" argument, means you either don't listen to consevative talk radio (on several local AM stations virtually all day and night), or you're being disingenuous. As far as I know, every major conservative talk radio host including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Mark Levin, Bill Cunningham, Glen Beck, and Neal Boortz, regularly deny global warming as a complete hoax (or at least not anthropogenic), perpetuated by (Nobel Prize winning) environmentalist wackos.

 

Are we seriously to believe that it is just a mere coincidence that all these prominent daily perveyors of conservative Republican diatribe are joined at the hip in their rejection of climate change science? I think not.

 

But they all have four primary things in common with regard to this issue:

 

1) They all either deny global warming is occurring, or that it is anthropogenic.

2) None of them are climate scientists, yet choose to align their position with a significant minority position among actual climate scientists.

3) They are protectionists of corporate interests, and resist any type of government regulation.

4) They influence millions of listeners.

 

 

I have wagered several scotch bottles (with several different folks) that we will be worrying more about global cooling than global warming by 2020.

 

I prefer Bourbon. Got any bottles of Wild Turkey on the shelf? :doh:

 

Actually, while I don't know a lot about Thermohaline Circulation (The Global Conveyor), my understanding is that the influx of fresh water from the melting of Arctic ice could restrict the sinking of the cold, denser salt water, and essentially shut down the conveyor, triggering a period of cooling. I am unaware of whether any theorized cooling period would be enough to override the overall warming that is occurring, particularly if we do not change our behavior with regard to greenhouse gases and deforestation.

[Turtle]

... I am unaware of whether any theorized cooling period would be enough to override the overall warming that is occurring, particularly if we do not change our behavior with regard to greenhouse gases and deforestation.

 

I think the argument (theory?) goes like this: global warming will cause larger & longer storms which in Winter results in snowfalls that don't melt over the following Summer, more is added the next Winter, albedo increases and Earth cools. Good luck finding a link. :eek2: :snow:

 

PS The thermo-haline conveyor stopping is mostly about cooling Europe, which is kept warm by the Gulf Stream.

[freeztar]

PS The thermo-haline conveyor stopping is mostly about cooling Europe, which is kept warm by the Gulf Stream.

 

And the Gulf Stream has no connection to the thermo-haline conductivity...

 

:eek2:

[Turtle]

And the Gulf Stream has no connection to the thermo-haline conductivity...

 

:snow:

 

? :eek2: Huh? They are part & parcel of the same circuit. Conductivity? Huh?

Thermohaline circulation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The chief concern is too much fresh water from melting ice in Greenland might shut down the circuit and no Gulf Stream = cold Europe. Speaking of melting ice in Greenland, let's not forget we now know it's not all from surface warming. :snow: >> Heat From Earth's Magma Contributing To Melting Of Greenland Ice

 

...“The behavior of the great ice sheets is an important barometer of global climate change,” said Ralph von Frese, leader of the project and a professor of earth sciences at Ohio State University. “However, to effectively separate and quantify human impacts on climate change, we must understand the natural impacts, too.

 

“Crustal heat flow is still one of the unknowns -- and it's a fairly significant one, according to our preliminary results.” ...

[freeztar]

? :hihi: Huh? They are part & parcel of the same circuit. Conductivity? Huh?

 

It was meant as a sarcastic remark. Re-reading it now, I'm not sure the point I was trying to make. :hihi: :camera:

 

But yes, you are correct. :camera:

[Turtle]

It was meant as a sarcastic remark. Re-reading it now, I'm not sure the point I was trying to make. :hihi: :camera:

 

But yes, you are correct. :(

 

Rats! I suspected it was a joke on me, but I wasn't sure. :lol: You darn kids! :hihi: Once you find out how to put one over on the old man, you're relentless. I'll wait to get my due until I got you camped in the Cascade mountains huntin' Sasquatchees. :camera:

[freeztar]

I'll wait to get my due until I got you camped in the Cascade mountains huntin' Sasquatchees. :hihi:

 

Fair enough, but I say we should look for DB Cooper's stash instead. Did you hear that they may have found his parachute? :hihi:

[Turtle]

Fair enough, but I say we should look for DB Cooper's stash instead. Did you hear that they may have found his parachute? :camera:

 

:camera: Note my current location and nomination. :lol: I could spit on Amboy from my chair. Speaking of Amboy, roadcuts, Coopers, and global warming, if not shakiness of belief, there is a magnificant 40 to 60 foot high varve just East of Amboy on a roadcut. The individual layers measure no more than 2 or 3 mm if I recall. Not sure what formal analysis on it is around, but I visited it on a geology course field trip. Might hold some info on past climate in the area. I'll get back to y'all on it; maybe even do a field trip. :hihi: :hihi: