Is the Public Perception of Global Warming Reaching a Tipping Point?

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
180 replies · 24K views
to support a foregone conclusion.

Clearly, chroot, you too are an individual that makes arguments to support foregone conclusions.

Again, can you provide additional data to support your argument on CO2? Your "piece of evidence" is questionable, and certainly not sufficient.

Again, do you have a "scientific opinion" on the EPICA data?

Any "scientific opinion" on the data provided by Andre?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
:smile: How is it questionable? Look up Royer's work, and read it yourself. You've got to be kidding me -- it's questionable? Certainly not sufficient? How was your little paragraph about the last 650,000 years not questionable and insufficient?

Ask any climate researcher -- ANY of them -- and they will freely admit that CO2 levels have been upwards of 17 times higher in the past than they are now.

The more you talk, the more obvious is your ignorance.

- Warren
 
You include a link to wikipedia, which displays only a graph, based upon data which is not clear, from an associate professor of an obscure university, and you expect people to believe your argument? :smile:

Please explain the methodology of that data; a link, perhaps.

That's not a point, jimmie. That's an ad hominem.

That was a point, chroot. How can any individual make a "scientific opinion" that excludes all possible empirical evidence known or not known?
 
Last edited:
I read a book from Asimov where he described how high the CO2 levels are as compared to the past and this was in 1970. Clearly, they are much higher now.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past and that was one of the things Asimov described. The only difference is that the environments were different and that the CO2 levels didn't rise this quickly as it is now.

I agree with "chroot". Make your footpring on the environment smaller. It's not that hard.

Do we really need an environmental crisis to change this? Like come on guys. We should be trying to more efficient each day and so far we are getting worse.

Humans will overcome this? Are you kidding me? This attitude make people worry about nothing. Haven't you heard about those who say "I will overcome this heart problem" and died the next day? It's the same attitude. Stay healthy from day one. Common sense guys.

Note: Not a "scientific" post like you are all describing, but you both seem to be arguing for no reason because no one is going to go searching through respected journals for reference for this silly argument.
 
Last edited:
Mk said:
Who is the skeptic? You must be. Who is the person you trust most? Yourself. Now go out and learn so you can rightfully trust yourself.

I know this is general discussion and all, but let's not rush to any conclusions that I'm not already pursuing a physics education.

Let's also not assume that I really care about pursuing an atmosphere/climatic education.
 
JasonRox said:
I read a book from Asimov where he described how high the CO2 levels are as compared to the past and this was in 1970. Clearly, they are much higher now.

CO2 levels have been higher in the past and that was one of the things Asimov described. The only difference is that the environments were different and that the CO2 levels didn't rise this quickly as it is now.

I agree with "chroot". Make your footpring on the environment smaller. It's not that hard.

Do we really need an environmental crisis to change this? Like come on guys. We should be trying to more efficient each day and so far we are getting worse.

Humans will overcome this? Are you kidding me? This attitude make people worry about nothing. Haven't you heard about those who say "I will overcome this heart problem" and died the next day? It's the same attitude. Stay healthy from day one. Common sense guys.

Note: Not a "scientific" post like you are all describing, but you both seem to be arguing for no reason because no one is going to go searching through respected journals for reference for this silly argument.

I don't know who you're addressing, but I'm not arguing, I'm discussing, and I actually did look through journals. The Geophysical Research Letters that chroot's wiki article refferenced. (I work at a research library, these things are easy to get my hands on).

The statitistics and atmospheric jargon are above my head, so I wouldn't try an argue right or wrong. I'm here to learn (mostly about scientific method in this case), which doesn't get done by nodding and smiling.
 
Pengwuino said:
Not everyone has a swimming pool or can take a 6 hour long shower.I tried... oh boy did i try to take hte biggest shower last night but it didnt work too well.

Here it Edmonton the temperature has reached upwards of 55C in the sun (130F), yet I've been comfortable with no AC simply because I don't insist on wearing a wool sweater and long johns in the peak of summer. Dress for the conditions and you'll be fine. For me that is boot-cut jeans, sandals with no socks, and a button up shirt with the top 2 buttons left open. If you're really hard core you can wear shorts instead of jeans.


Has anybody considered the possibility that global warming is not caused by CO2 but by a lack of plant and animal life? I'm thinking of trees in particular. Trees don't add or remove water from the system, but they move a lot of water. Some trees have so much water passing through them you can hear it using a stethoscope. Those of you who have lived in a desert or by a lake/ocean would understand how much of a role water plays in regulating air temperature.
It's just something to think about.
 
Last edited:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-06/yu-dsa062205.php

The data indicates that between 45 - 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 - 25 million years ago

Granted, with the sun getting increasly hotter with about 10% per billion years, the sun was 0,34% fainter 34 million years ago, the milankovitch insolation variation is much bigger, meaning that solar power in the Milankovitch minimums today was less than average then, 34 million years ago. Never mind, the difference is negliglible; yet, climate conditions were not much different then from nowadays. Yet five times more CO2 is around 1500-1800 ppmv whereas nowadays we are discussing 280 ppmv (preindustrual) - 378ppmv now and 500 ppmv projected for the second half of the century.

Now did anybody do some thinking about how those Tera joules of extra warmth did get into the oceans in my last post?

So how do you transfer heat, conduction, convection, radiation. What is the most effective? How about differences in infrared radiation and visible light radiation and penetration depth into water?
 
Has the hot thread turned cold?

Anyway, I'd like to ponder a bit about that heat in the ocean, especially the deeper levels.

First of all, the ocean floors are usually around 273K/32F/0C There is very little temperature gradient going up until the last -upper- few hunderd meters. So it appears that geothermal heat and volcanoes are not relevant in heating the oceans. It must come from above. So how about the mechanism to accomplish that?

Conduction? The heat capacity of oceans is formidable. The heat capacity of air is negliglible compared to that. Consequently the role of conduction is mostly the water giving off heat to the atmosphere not the other way around. When we add convection into the equation, we see very little in the oceans with a very stable layering. The convection cells in the atmosphere take the heat up, not down, helping to cool the oceans. And then this effect only counts for the upper layers of water. Exchange of heat further down via conduction is very slow. Hence there is very little water heating going on this way. Also, think about the time it takes to boil water in a hot air convection stove. It's not meant for that.

Consequently a mere 0,6 degrees of air temperature rise in the atmosphere due to whatever factor is not going to change the ocean temperatures that easily. This idea is sustained by the observation that the land atmospheric temperatures have seen a higher rising trend than the oceanic air temperatures.

Apparently we have to go for the radiation to heat the oceans and then we have the visible light radiation and the infra-red. The latter is supposed to have increased due to greenhouse gas, whereas the solar radiation is thought to have been much more constant.

So which kind of radiation is most likely to heat the water effectively?

Obviously the outcome of this question could either prove or falsify the theory of anthropogenic global warming due to increased infrared radiation due to increased greenhouse gas concentrations.
 
Last edited:
I'm an orthodox Christian who believes that global warming is obvious. I watched a program on the science channel last night about global warming which confirmed the obvious.

I have a question for this forum: Why do many political Christians deny global warming?
 
Because the physical truth is not identical to the opinion of anybody, be it evil or good, be the majority or the minority. If you are right, you're right and if you're wrong, you're wrong. Science progresses by finding out why we are wrong all the time. That time has now come for the "anthropogenic" (human caused) part of the global warming
 
Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place. :-p

- Warren
 
chroot said:
Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place. :-p

- Warren

The Science Channel is actually not too bad (except for the evolutionary bias, though that's way I watch it). I do like DR.Kaku and believe that he is a very true physicist with the motive of discovering something truthful that goes beyond biasness. He is an evolutionist, be if he continues the research he's been doing he'll soon discover the Creator! I do truly admire his passion to seek the answers...that is very rare.
 
Origen:

Let me make something clear. Your introduction of religion to this discussion is unwelcome. Any further posts you make that involve religion will be deleted, and you will be warned.

- Warren
 
chroot said:
Origen:

Let me make something clear. Your introduction of religion to this discussion is unwelcome. Any further posts you make that involve religion will be deleted, and you will be warned.

- Warren

Origen said:
Ok, let me get this right.
edit:by Evo Origen, you have been warned repeatedly, religious posts are forbidden on this forum. If you want to make religious posts, you are free to find another forum that allows them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
chroot said:
I wasn't aware that there was any consensus among climate scientists that global warming is both real, and anthropogenic. It fact, I thought it was only recently that it became a consesus among climate scientists that global warming was happening at all, without regard to whether or not it's anthropogenic.

I am only repeating what scientists who hold significant research positions are saying when interviewed.

You know I'm not going to take your word for it.

I really don't care.

You've already made it rather clear that you're an alarmist on the issue, yet you're not a climate researcher, and presumably have a very weak intellectual grasp of the enormouse body of (often-conflicting) climate data. I don't mean to be offensive, but really, why should anyone believe you? Or Al Gore?

First of all, you completely misrepresent my position on this. I am not an alarmist. I am evaluating the odds based on what leading scientists are reporting. I don't proclaim expertise where I have none, as you frequently do. I repeat what I hear and read from reputable sources who usually are leaders in the field - such as the head of NOAA etc, who for one was recently on Charley Rose.

Now you may see it as reasonable to take your lead from internet sources, and draw conclusions from your own expetise in climatology as an electrical engineer, and rely on papers taken in isolation and probably out of context, but I choose to put my trust in the experts who report to the public the consensus opinion from their point of view. I did not set out to prove anything here.

If you have evidence -- not anecdote, not argument to authority, not bandwagon consensus, not models, not simple-minded study replete with dozens of systematic errors -- then sure, bring it on. To my knowledge, no such empirical evidence exists, and, in my scientific opinion, indicates that the entire phenomenon of global warming is being perceived where it does not exist.

- Warren

I am not about to try to prove anything to you or anyone else. I don't claim to be qualifed, as apparently you believe yourself to be.
 
Tell me the name of the person, Ivan, and I can give you the transcripts.
 
Origen said:
You have been warned repeatedly, religious posts are forbidden on this forum. If you want to make religious posts, you are free to find another forum that allows them.

This post has been attributed to me...I didn't write it!
I came to this forum with a peaceful heart and good intentions. But like Rambo, you've really pushed me the wrong way. You deleted my post and falsified it out of fear. You have just proven evolution is a lie, because everyone wants to cover up a lie by deleting the opposing view.

I'm open to discussion because I have nothing to hide!
 
Origen said:
This post has been attributed to me...I didn't write it!
I came to this forum with a peaceful heart and good intentions. But like Rambo, you've really pushed me the wrong way. You deleted my post and falsified it out of fear. You have just proven evolution is a lie, because everyone wants to cover up a lie by deleting the opposing view.

I'm open to discussion because I have nothing to hide!
If you had looked at the top it showed I had edited out your off topic religious rant. I have added a note at the bottom to make it clearer.

Since you refuse to accept our guidelines, you have lost your privileges to post here. We gave you quite a few chances to stop.
 
Don't you just hate when you miss out on a deletion!
 
chroot said:
What kind of retarded "argument" is that? Do you actually have a point?


chroot said:
Futhermore, anyone who derives their opinions from the Science Channel doesn't deserve to have opinions in the first place. :-p

- Warren

:rolleyes: WHAT??!

Warren, what the hell is the matter with you? What kind of a forum 'administrator' makes cheap shot, lowly comments like this? Too sad...
 
Tsu said:
:rolleyes: WHAT??!

Warren, what the hell is the matter with you? What kind of a forum 'administrator' makes cheap shot, lowly comments like this? Too sad...

Heh, you have a point.

- Warren
 
Tsu said:
Yes. I do.

Yes. You do.

- Warren
 
Pengwuino said:
Sick that puppy on him Tsu!

Well, hey, the second comment that Tsu quoted was a joke anyway... I don't think I deserve a canine attack!

- Warren
 
Hey! I'm the 'decider' on this one! Thinking... thinking... hmmm...wonder how chroots ankles taste? Bet I could turn 'em into HAMBURGER! :smile: :smile: :smile:
 

Similar threads

News Has BBC Reached the Global Warming Tipping Point?
  • Andre
  • · Replies 39 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Shows Like House, CSI, Numb3rs, The Mentalist etc. And Public Perception Of Science
  • moe darklight
  • · Replies 38 ·
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
38