I'm not worried about Global Warming

  • Thread starter Blenton
  • Start date
248
0
Simply said,

1. Recognize what energy is.

2. Develop a responsible mindset toward it.

3. Conserve its presence in nature.

4. Minimize its environmental impact.

5. Generate it only for basic needs.
Thank you!

Global Warming this Global Warming that, the real problem is one of the conflict of human nature and current societies against efficiency and the economy of nature. The global warming debate is a distraction to the real challenge of figuring out how to do what Loren just stated above.
 
Thanks, that has helped me to find some graphs.

Here we have atmospheric CO2, very obviously on the rise:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uc_seallevel_2009r2.png" [Broken]

Here we have global sea level, showing a consistent linear trend over the past 20 years:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/uc_seallevel_2009r2.png" [Broken]

And here we have global temperature levels, which seem a bit more complex, and appear to have about a 4 year period for bouncing up and down, which has stayed roughly consistent over the last 30 years. This is the one that some people seem to be contending. Well it's funny that some people are arguing this downward trend is a sign that the whole thing is a hoax, because from the graph over the past 30 years we expect to see downward trends like this every 4 years or so. While it's "possible" that it's going to keep going down and never come back up, that doesn't seem very logical considering that it has been repeating this cycle before, and the greenhouse gasses which are an underlying cause are obviously still increasing.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2604836403_6b075902b3.jpg"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
4,453
57
And here we have global temperature levels, which seem a bit more complex, and appear to have about a 4 year period for bouncing up and down, which has stayed roughly consistent over the last 30 years. This is the one that some people seem to be contending. Well it's funny that some people are arguing this downward trend is a sign that the whole thing is a hoax, because from the graph over the past 30 years we expect to see downward trends like this every 4 years or so. While it's "possible" that it's going to keep going down and never come back up, that doesn't seem very logical considering that it has been repeating this cycle before, and the greenhouse gasses which are an underlying cause are obviously still increasing.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3169/2604836403_6b075902b3.jpg"
Fair enough, but wasn't the scientific method about testing predictions against reality? How would the old predictions, that triggered the alarms, do nowadays?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Chi Meson

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
1,767
10
Can I save us a few pages here?

"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't"
"Yes it is!"
"No it isn't!"
 

Evo

Mentor
22,860
2,331

Attachments

Evo

Mentor
22,860
2,331
Also here you can see that 2008 has dropped back near 1997 levels globally. The year 2005 was an unusual spike, as you can see from the list.

(Jan-Dec) Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
2005 0.61 1.10
1998 0.58 1.04
2002 0.56 1.01
2003 0.56 1.01
2006 0.55 0.99
2007 0.55 0.99
2004 0.53 0.95
2001 0.49 0.88
2008 0.49 0.88
1997 0.46 0.83

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/ann/global.html [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
well, IMO, i think scaling back how much energy we use, etc, as well as creating better, more efficient technologies is a good idea regardless of whether global warming exists and if it's getting worse.
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
615
well, IMO, i think scaling back how much energy we use, etc, as well as creating better, more efficient technologies is a good idea regardless of whether global warming exists and if it's getting worse.
I totally agree...as long as oil is the lifeblood of our economy, the problems in the Middle East are our problems too :frown:.
 

mgb_phys

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,744
11
I totally agree...as long as oil is the lifeblood of our economy, the problems in the Middle East are our problems too :frown:.
Erm you do know where the US gets most of it's oil from?

ps - please don't spread it around - we don't want to be invaded.
pps - well if you stuck to bringing freedom and democracy to Alberta we wouldn't care too much
 
There is no doubt that humans have contributed to global warming. Unless you believe that 98% of the world's scientists and all of the organizations listed below are part of a vast conspiracy. But then again I guess anythings possible. Big foot might even exist!

The following illustrates the growing consensus of scientific experts that believe climate change over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Organizations that concur:
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies’ statement 2007
Joint science academies’ statement 2005
Joint science academies’ statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
Network of African Science Academies
International Council for Science
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Astronomical Society
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
National Research Council (US)
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
American Quaternary Association
Geological Society of America
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
European Geosciences Union
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences

Organizations with noncommittal statements:
American Association of State Climatologists
American Association of Petroleum Geologists

Dissenting opinion:
Michael Savage
(With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate)
 
Tho to be fair, industry and special interest groups have been devoting resources to a disinformation campaign with individual scientists being payed to take an anti-global warming position. I can see why some people are confused as to what the facts actually are.

definitely.too much confusion. to start, the average joe is not a scientist. the confusion you speak of just adds to it, in a way.
 
Fair enough, but wasn't the scientific method about testing predictions against reality? How would the old predictions, that triggered the alarms, do nowadays?
Well the B and C predictions look pretty darn good to me...although it seems silly to even bother trying to predict the exact curve, like trying to predict the stock market exactly. I would rather see a monte carlo analysis. But I don't know, are these predictions even based on global fluid dynamics? If not, if they are just "charting" predictions, then I would not give them a second thought...

hansenlineartrend.jpg
 

lisab

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,832
615
Erm you do know where the US gets most of it's oil from?

ps - please don't spread it around - we don't want to be invaded.
pps - well if you stuck to bringing freedom and democracy to Alberta we wouldn't care too much
Wow, did you just give us Alberta?!? We're reciprocate by giving you Alabama...we'll throw in Mississippi too, just since your're such good neighbors :smile:!
 
Oh man. Canada can have Alberta. While you're at it, we'll give you everything east of New Mexico and south of Northern Virginia. It's rich plantin' country down there. Never mind the hicks.
 
Not that all Southerners are hicks; I have been privileged to know some well-educated, intelligent Southerners. But they are clearly not in the majority.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,860
2,331
Unless you believe that 98% of the world's scientists and all of the organizations listed below are part of a vast conspiracy.
Do you always blindly buy in to the politically correct "consensus" of the day? Just because people throw their hat into the ring doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

No different from the completely wrong scientific concensus in 1989 vehemently endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences and the Surgeon General that trans fatty acids posed no danger to Americans, that "the levels of trans fatty acids found in a balanced diet are safe". and that the Dutch study claiming that trans fats were harmful was rubish.

Well, we know now that the consensus was wrong.

I don't get sucked in by politically correct "consensus".
 

mgb_phys

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
7,744
11
Wow, did you just give us Alberta?!? We're reciprocate by giving you Alabama...we'll throw in Mississippi too, just since your're such good neighbors :smile:!
I have been informed that I don't have permission to give away provinces (although if you wanted to take Quebec off our hands I'm sure people wouldn't mind too much)

Not sure about Alabama, is Alaska available?

Have you tried giving California back to Mexico? They might not get the WSJ down there and don't know about the deficit
 
Evo, the data on the non-AGW side of things seems awfully deficient compared to the pro-AGW side of things.
 
"Do you always blindly buy in to the politically correct "consensus" of the day?"
Evo

I never claimed that every scientific organization in the world is 100% correct 100% of the time. However, when the entire world's scientific community agrees on something, I would say that that something is very very likely.
Your examples only prove that with a vast scientific community, an error or two may occur.
 

mheslep

Gold Member
255
727
The IPCC? I thought it was agreed that most of the people that created these reports were not actually scientists.

...
Amusingly, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, started out as a Locomotive engineer. He's certainly not a climate scientist.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Evo what guidelines have I violated.
Perhaps you should read them.
"Do you always blindly buy in to the politically correct "consensus" of the day?"
Evo
Personal attacks are allowed? Anyway, lets not get petty.
 

Evo

Mentor
22,860
2,331
Evo, the data on the non-AGW side of things seems awfully deficient compared to the pro-AGW side of things.
That's not what I'm sayiing. It's the fact that scientists have decided that the public is too stupid to understand the real problems of pollution and instead throws out "facts" that aren't facts. They're models, and they are, as has been repeatedly shown, flawed models. That is why we have people driving around in cars all day passing out flyers about polar bears. :eek:

Evo what guidelines have I violated.
You didn't receive a warning.
Perhaps you should read them.
"Do you always blindly buy in to the politically correct "consensus" of the day?"
Evo
Personal attacks are allowed? Anyway, lets not get petty.
Blindly, as in ''without question".
 
Last edited:

mheslep

Gold Member
255
727
Well the B and C predictions look pretty darn good to me...
The Hansen paper shows the results of his '88 model. The model had an input A,B,C and an output A,B,C as models do. The inputs were guesses at the future of man made emissions which has nothing to do with climate physics. B and C were small and no growth emissions scenarios. That didn't happen (even though Hansen though B emissions would). What undeniably happened was A, a large growth in emissions, so Hansen's model predicts outcome A, and as you can see that prediction was substantially wrong.
 
"That is why we have people driving around in cars all day passing out flyers about polar bears."
Evo
I'm confused. So you are saying that the polar bear environment is not diminishing?

"Amusingly, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, started out as a Locomotive engineer. He's certainly not a climate scientist."
First of all the chairman does not decide a consensus. It would be like saying," Bush is incompetent and in charge of the military. The military says that missiles can shoot down planes. Therefore it is questionable if missiles can shoot down planes." However, I will provisionally accept that Rajendra Pachauri is incompetent to decide about global warming and has the power to make that the position of the IPCC.
So you are saying that the following organizations are part of a conspiracy? Or are you saying that all the scientists that belong to these organizations are incompetent?


World Meteorological Organization
American Meteorological Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
American Institute of Physics
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top