Global Warming Real? How Do You Feel About It?

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'm not all that well versed in the subject but i have done some reading and I'm well aware I'm not an expert. Definitely ignorant of many aspects of it. I just want to define what the subject is, and throw some starter-thoughts out there.

Global Warming Defined:

General (fairly slow) global warming, as i understand it IS and HAS BEEN a natural event long before the industrial revolution. Thats not in dispute by any serious science I've read. The argument is that global warming has been increasing dramatically due to man made emissions in recent years at a drastically increased rate. This rise in average temprature will cause lots of various forms of hardships to the planets biosphere, geology, meteorology etc.

"Climate Change" is usually the technical term for man-made "global warming" or cooling or whatever.

"Climate Variation" is usually the term used to describe naturally occurring "global warming" or cooling or whatever.

Critics say various things usually something like Global warming (meaning man-made global warming (aka climate change) is a hoax or BS, because:

"Global warming is just due to the sun, not man particularly."

From what I've read its well documented and accepted that something like 20 to 50% of "global warming" IS due to solar activity and this is factored into global warming models. Not some fact that professional scientists are ignoring. On my cursory studying of such things.

"Global warming is a naturally occurring event, not something we can change ourselves."

Again this one seems weak, as everything I've read from the pro-climate change camp (again which isn't much) includes this as a factor, but points to the acceleration post-industrial revolution. Not denying that its been happening (slowly) naturally.

"Global warming is a conspiracy by liberal scientists who wont give real scientists any airtime."

This one i tend to downplay as well since being a longtime follower of science, scientists are DYING to make a name for themselves and would LOVE to overturn conventional theory and LIKE new ideas, not suppress them. Politics/religion is whats known for suppression, not science.

Global COOLING has actually been happening for X period of years at X time

This one seems weak to me as well, again I've only researched it briefly. But, the argument is that its a TREND not any one particular year or few years here or there and that there is plenty of up and down variation with decades long up or down trends in the short term ad infinitum.

From a cursory reading of these claims, they don't seem to be supported by all but fairly small, not all that strong studies. A key aspect of scientific peer-review to is to have a consensus or at least a loose consensus. The (I'll admit limited) research I've done seems to make all the above claims seem fairly alarmist and nonsensical based on some sort of hatred of science or environmentalism.

I just want to know what the truth is, or at least what the best guess is. Not really making any judgments here, just trying to state what the topic is about, and what its not about.

I'm (me , Troy) trying to remain "open minded" (and always do try to think "What If I'm Wrong?" about EVERYTHING) I don't have any underlying "agenda" for the truth or falsity of global warming. I just want to know (or at least be more informed) about the facts of the subject. So far it always seems like its semi-quacks or heavily politically biased folk that are the nay-sayers. This might be just a mis perception on my part though. I've honestly not studied the subject in depth.

[Pandora]

Have there been steep climate changes in the recent past? Yes, especially in Europe in the 1500s/1600s, there was a mini-ice age.

Do I believe the last 100 years has drastically changed our planet? How could it not? It makes sense that 100 years of cars, land fills, chemical waste and other negative human impact is changing the planet in ways that it may not recover from quickly. That just seems like common sense.

Stronger hurricanes, more frequent earthquakes, stronger tornados, tsunamis, hotter summers, colder winters, El Nino, La Nina, worldwide droughts - these all point to big changes in the future. Though I have not done extensive research into it either.

I try to decrease my environmental footprint in several ways, and even if global warming isn't a major threat today, it makes sense that if we don't change our ways it will be sooner than later.

Newton said it best with his 3rd law: For every action, there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

I'm not all that well versed in the subject but i have done some reading and I'm well aware I'm not an expert. Definitely ignorant of many aspects of it. I just want to define what the subject is, and throw some starter-thoughts out there.

Global Warming Defined:

General (fairly slow) global warming, as i understand it IS and HAS BEEN a natural event long before the industrial revolution. Thats not in dispute by any serious science I've read. The argument is that global warming has been increasing dramatically due to man made emissions in recent years at a drastically increased rate. This rise in average temprature will cause lots of various forms of hardships to the planets biosphere, geology, meteorology etc.

"Climate Change" is usually the technical term for man-made "global warming" or cooling or whatever.

"Climate Variation" is usually the term used to describe naturally occurring "global warming" or cooling or whatever.

Critics say various things usually something like Global warming (meaning man-made global warming (aka climate change) is a hoax or BS, because:

"Global warming is just due to the sun, not man particularly."

From what I've read its well documented and accepted that something like 20 to 50% of "global warming" IS due to solar activity and this is factored into global warming models. Not some fact that professional scientists are ignoring. On my cursory studying of such things.

"Global warming is a naturally occurring event, not something we can change ourselves."

Again this one seems weak, as everything I've read from the pro-climate change camp (again which isn't much) includes this as a factor, but points to the acceleration post-industrial revolution. Not denying that its been happening (slowly) naturally.

"Global warming is a conspiracy by liberal scientists who wont give real scientists any airtime."

This one i tend to downplay as well since being a longtime follower of science, scientists are DYING to make a name for themselves and would LOVE to overturn conventional theory and LIKE new ideas, not suppress them. Politics/religion is whats known for suppression, not science.

Global COOLING has actually been happening for X period of years at X time

This one seems weak to me as well, again I've only researched it briefly. But, the argument is that its a TREND not any one particular year or few years here or there and that there is plenty of up and down variation with decades long up or down trends in the short term ad infinitum.

From a cursory reading of these claims, they don't seem to be supported by all but fairly small, not all that strong studies. A key aspect of scientific peer-review to is to have a consensus or at least a loose consensus. The (I'll admit limited) research I've done seems to make all the above claims seem fairly alarmist and nonsensical based on some sort of hatred of science or environmentalism.

I just want to know what the truth is, or at least what the best guess is. Not really making any judgments here, just trying to state what the topic is about, and what its not about.

I'm (me , Troy) trying to remain "open minded" (and always do try to think "What If I'm Wrong?" about EVERYTHING) I don't have any underlying "agenda" for the truth or falsity of global warming. I just want to know (or at least be more informed) about the facts of the subject. So far it always seems like its semi-quacks or heavily politically biased folk that are the nay-sayers. This might be just a mis perception on my part though. I've honestly not studied the subject in depth.

Troy,

The problem in researching Global Warming is politics. With the politics comes misinformation, over statements and outright lies.

You have Al Gore and his stupid fucking movie. Most people don't know that there are scenes in it that are completely fabricated. Case in point... in the movie we watch a shelf of ice collapse into the Antarctic sea... with Al stating matter of factly that this was caused by global warming. Reality check. That was the opening scene from "The Day After Tomorrow" and was completely created in a Hollywood studio. Gore has addded 600million dollars to his personal bank accounts because of "global warming"

We have the U.N. financing scientific reports from climatologists and then changing the reports to reflect their political positions.

We have many Climatologists who have brought out studies that are counter to the U.N. and Al Gores positions... and they are ignored and discredited rather than taken into account. Jesus Christ, we have the man who created the most accurate computer models to predict global weather out there saying that Global Warming is being over hyped and that his own studies that are cited as proof of global warming are wrong and flawed.

You brought up the Sun. Read back though my posts about Global warming. 6 months ago... maybe a bit longer... if the Sun was brought up in a conversation about Global warming it brought on ridicule and insults. "The Sun does not affect our weather" The original models did not take the Sun into account at all. The admission that the Sun amount to 40-60% of Global warming is new... enough people like me have thrown this into the face of Global Warming zealots that people are finally admitting the truth about the Sun.

While we are on the Sun... The Sun is being weird. Research that. Some thing absolutly huge is changing in the Sun's behavior. Nobody knows why or even what is really going on up there. It fits no known pattern of Solar activity.

Here is something else... Computer models that track Global weather... dont take Clouds or Cloud Formation into thier computations. Clouds cant form without a "rain" of Cosmic rays... Cosmic rays reaching earth is compltly controlled by SOLAR WIND.

Another fact often ignored... It got warmer.. then Carbon levels went up. Not the other way around. That right there is telling us something... looking at the fossil records and ice cores.... Hey, this happened before... infact.. in the Earths history we have had many periods of Global warming.. and in everyone of them... It gets warmer... Carbon levels go up... then a fucking ice age hits.

Yes, I think we all need to cut emmisions. Not to fight Global warming but becaue I want my grand kids to be able to breathe.

I am not so egotistical to think that the Universe is centered around the human ass. We cant stop Climate Change. We can only learn to live with it. Thats our strong point. Adaption.

[ttogreh]

Yes, I think we all need to cut emmisions. Not to fight Global warming but becaue I want my grand kids to be able to breathe.

I am not so egotistical to think that the Universe is centered around the human ass. We cant stop Climate Change. We can only learn to live with it. Thats our strong point. Adaption.

Simply put, cutting emissions is the one thing that NO ONE should disagree with.

[Oh_My_Goth]

Whatever.....

Nothing lasts forever.....

[the eternal]

Why is it that everytime I read about this issue I find myself more confused than before?

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Whatever.....

Nothing lasts forever.....

Factually, untrue. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed.

[torn asunder]

Factually, untrue. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed.

you ever studied zero-point energy, or quantum flux? amtter and energy are popping into and out of existence all the time!!

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Your talking Quantum mechanics. Quantum physics has different laws than the real world. What do you think drove Einstein batty till he died. What do you think every physicist has been looking for since? A unified field theory that explains why the laws of the very very small are different from the very very large.

Besides, zero point energy is just a way of saying that a given object is at it's lowest state of energy. The energy is still there.

Taken from wikipedia

Because zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a system can have, this energy cannot be removed from the system. A related term is zero-point field, which is the lowest energy state of a field, i.e. its ground state, which is non-zero

The big contraversy associated with it is... Where is the energy coming from or is it being created. Most scienteist think it is already there and cant be measured except under the right condition. It's all based on the energy state of the vacum of space... which, from everything I have read is 1 or maybe as high as 2 but no less than 0. It's the Cosmological constant. Or... \Omega_{\Lamda} \simeg 0.7 Everything points at it as being 1.

Quantum flux appears to violate the conservation of energy, but only for a small amount of time... and only on the quantum level. Sub-atomic.

In short. Energy is forever and matter is just a state of energy.

[Oh_My_Goth]

Factually, untrue. Energy can neither be created or destroyed. It can only be transformed.

.....Entropy.....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Oh I love that word! It's just sounds so cool.

Entropy, does not break the law of Conservation of Energy. It is mearly the yard stick we use to measure the useless energy in a given system.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

I'd be careful invoking common sense as an argument particularly. Its good for quick-judgment and immediate, in-your-face type things. Such as say, avoiding the oncoming truck, or escaping the sabre tooth tiger. But for more "big" issues, that we don't see, and didn't evolve to see, we need other tools. (Meant as a response as Pandora)

Thanks to Gaf for taking the time to respond to the topic fully. =) I'm still unconvinced, but i seriously appreciate the effort to type all that out. I think it IS politics that causes the controversy more than the science, but as to the direction you point, I'll have to do more homework.

The secondary discussion about the law of conservation of matter/energy is interesting. The laws of thermodynamics are called laws , because the theories are so solid that they stand up to massive scrutiny. Unfortunately, until we have a grand theory of everything, we need a common frame of reference when we are talking. In the "real" world of classical sizes, time and speed (the one we for practical discussion, "live in") pretty much makes the laws of thermodynamics lock-down facts, in that context.

There is no clear link between the quantum and the classical and the high-speed-time-dilated "universes" as yet. String Theory promises it, but as yet is totally unproven. Relativity(strongly proven) and/or QM (strongly proven) do screw up classical ideas, but when talking about things on the "real world" size/time/mass scale we have to assume i classical laws of physics for practicality sake. Such as when talking about global warming.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Have there been steep climate changes in the recent past? Yes, especially in Europe in the 1500s/1600s, there was a mini-ice age.

I just wanted to point out that the "mini-ice age" affected teh whole world. Not just Europe.

Stronger hurricanes, more frequent earthquakes, stronger tornados, tsunamis, hotter summers, colder winters, El Nino, La Nina, worldwide droughts - these all point to big changes in the future. Though I have not done extensive research into it either.

First off... Explain to me how Climate change is affecting tectonic activity. That part of the statement right there... Wow.

Second... you better turn off that TV and start doing some research. You are being brainwashed by the morons in the media. El Nino and La Nina.. have always existed. They are natural trends in oceanic weather patterns. They are not new, the media has just not always talked about them. Also, hurricanes and tornadoes get stronger and more frequent.. during cooling.. not warming. On top of that, neither are stronger or more frequent than in the past.

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Thanks to Gaf for taking the time to respond to the topic fully. =) I'm still unconvinced, but i seriously appreciate the effort to type all that out. I think it IS politics that causes the controversy more than the science, but as to the direction you point, I'll have to do more homework.

I'm not sure... but I think you missed my point. We agree on the politics part. I would really like the politics out of the subject and real unbiased data to get to the public. If that were to happen, most of teh "fever over Climate Change would go away.

[phee]

I'm not sure... but I think you missed my point. We agree on the politics part. I would really like the politics out of the subject and real unbiased data to get to the public. If that were to happen, most of teh "fever over Climate Change would go away.

+1

[torn asunder]

what do i think!?

i think once we have several thousand years' worth of data with which to form an actual trend chart, i might buy into the fact that humans are the majority factor in this. we have less than two hundred years, if i recall correctly (possibly less) and on a global time scale, that's a drop in the proverbial bucket. i mean, when was the last ice age? how long did it last? how long before that was the previous one? until you have that kind of long-term data, stfu about it!

of course, i do support people doing their best to reduce their impact on the environment! i just think it's irresponsible to lay the blame on us, when we don't have anywhere near enough data to prove it...

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

We do have enough data to prove that it's a natural cycle... but that does not fit into the alarmists view.. so it's discounted.

[Oh_My_Goth]

Oh I love that word! It's just sounds so cool.

Entropy, does not break the law of Conservation of Energy. It is mearly the yard stick we use to measure the useless energy in a given system.

I guess I must have read the definition wrong.....

I was under the impression that it was 'lost' energy.....

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Even so... lost is not the same as destroyed. Lost would mearly mean it was transformed or transfered.

[Oh_My_Goth]

True.....

I am wrong sometimes.....

I still say nothing lasts forever (in general).....

I was not trying to be all scientific about it, but it did turn into an interesting discussion from there.....

[Homicidalheathen]

I would be surprised if humanity lasts longer than the dinosaur era

Could you see a dinosaur today? Prob mutated with 18 legs or some shit and two heads like some frogs now

[Gaf The Horse With Tears]

Well, we have a very long time to wait to see if we do... Dinasaurs were around for about 180 million years. We have been around about 3million.

[Pandora]

I'd be careful invoking common sense as an argument particularly. Its good for quick-judgment and immediate, in-your-face type things. Such as say, avoiding the oncoming truck, or escaping the sabre tooth tiger. But for more "big" issues, that we don't see, and didn't evolve to see, we need other tools. (Meant as a response as Pandora)

You're right, I meant only as common sense to me personally. Humans affect the planet on a grand scale, that cannot be denied. Weather systems and patterns are part of the planet we inhabit and therefore affect.

[Troy Spiral (13)]

True.....

I am wrong sometimes.....

I still say nothing lasts forever (in general).....

I was not trying to be all scientific about it, but it did turn into an interesting discussion from there.....

From a lets call it "common language" sense your correct in that "structures" dont last forever. Which is how i guess you meant it. Not sure that makes global warming an unimportant issue thought does it? We all probably will die.. but that doesnt mean we should just throw in the towel on any and all issues since we wont last forever. Right?

I would be surprised if humanity lasts longer than the dinosaur era

Could you see a dinosaur today? Prob mutated with 18 legs or some shit and two heads like some frogs now

If we can get off this rock and become a multi-planet species before we blow the place up we should be ok. Depends on how fast we think its going to be before we blow ourselves up vs how fast planetary colonization is going to happen.

You're right, I meant only as common sense to me personally. Humans affect the planet on a grand scale, that cannot be denied. Weather systems and patterns are part of the planet we inhabit and therefore affect.

Yeah its common sense from the perspective of "I believe fully that humans have had a huge impact on the global temperature due to our impact on the environment". Unfortunately that seems not to be all that obvious to many. Even to me. I tend to "assume" that global warming , that is, man-made global warming is probably a fact, but I've not really done my homework enough still to make a serious probability statement. I suck. lol