Question for Global Warming skeptics

[Thiebear]

This one says were cold?

[twa]

Quit that,I'm getting a chill

Throw some styorofoam on the fire.

[btfoom]

I'd need the same type of evidence that DNA currently affords to criminal cases.

IMHO, man made global warming (which I assume you mean, as the Earth has shown empirically go through warming and cooling cycles FAR before man was on the planet) is in the same stage of proof as criminal trials in the dark ages. One person claims to be an expert, shows some quick 'magic', and really just runs the show for a long term.

Take out the solar, rotational, orbital (with respect to the sun), volcanic, sea, lunar, celestial, animal (except human), non-animal (insects, etc), and vegetation effects, and still show me that humans and ONLY humans have affected and caused Global Warming, then I will listen.

By the way, what kind of evidence would you need to show that Global Warming isn't a problem and we need to do something about it (and see, I didn't even start another thread)?

[Hubbs]

In science this is addressed by the amount of available data, replication of results, and verifying predictions. GW actually started as a fringe theory with little support. Decades have passed before enough work was accumulated and enough predictions were confirmed to place GW as the mainstream scientific theory that it is today. Other theories (cloud cover, sunspots, etc) did not stand up to such scrutiny.

You've stated numerous times in this thread that "science has accounted for" all of the variables, and thus the theory of man-made global warming should be accepted. I have a couple problems with that:

1. The scientific method requires a control. The control in this case would be another Earth. We don't have that, so we have to create a computer model. To create a computer model, we have to assign mathematical values to every single factor that goes into the interactions that create the climate of an entire planet, then assign mathematical values to how every single factor affects every single other factor within the climate of an entire planet, and we have to make sure that we haven't missed any factors at all.

Do you see why I consider this to be an educated guess, but nothing more than an educated guess?

2. Based on my limited knowledge of the topic, my understanding is that there are numerous reputable studies out there which suggest that mankind's contribution to the recent warming trend is insignificant enough to be irrelevant in terms of drastically changing the planet on its own. Again, my knowledge is quite limited, I'm simply more interested in other topics for whatever reason, I'm saying this entirely from memories of reading articles from sources that I trust (CNN, Time, BBC, Bloomberg, Huffington, Reason, NPR, WSJ... just to name a few). But my understanding is that there have been perfectly legitimate scientists who have come to perfectly legitimate conclusions that man isn't nearly as much of an influence as other perfectly legitimate scientists have concluded, perfectly legitimately. And if "science," as a monolithic entity, weighs all previously-measured factors equally, then shouldn't the fact that different conclusions are being reached naturally suggest that we should doubt anyone who says that the answer has absolutely, without a doubt been proven, and anyone who says otherwise is wrong?

[PeterMP]

This one says its COLD outside....

Do I need to link the papers where people address the fact that those temperature changes are likely the result of the orbital patterns of the Earth and that changes in the Earth's orbit don't explain the current warming (that you have no answer for) AGAIN?

[twa]

Solar activity, which sun spots as a measure of, does have a role in global temperatures. Nobody has ever denied it. The sun has a ~11 year cycle that can be seen as a reduction in sun spot numbers. .

What do ya think?

http://www.physorg.com/news203746768.html

[Hubbs]

At this point there is no stopping it. The kind of weather you've seen this year (heatwavees, droughts, floods) is a preview of what's coming, and it will get much worse even if we completely cut out all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow.

Okay, see, here's where you lose me, because you're speaking in such generalities that your statements mean nothing at all.

Yes, July and August were hot. Heat waves happen all the time. I'm sure that in a couple specific locations on a couple specific dates, heat records were broken. Just like I'm sure that in a couple specific locations on a couple specific dates, snow records were broken in the same year. Droughts? Floods? Really? Those are only phenomena of global warming? They're not phenomena of normal weather?

[PeterMP]

What do ya think?

http://www.physorg.com/news203746768.html

First, the current solar cycle has started very slowly and historically that means a low solar cycle max.

Second, the little ice started before the Maurder minimium and extended from one solar low point through a higher point and then into the maurdner minimum so the efforts to extend the changes in solar output to the little ice age are at best have issues.

Third, as even it is stated in your link, the long range predictions are very dubious.

Lastly, the sun isn't going to shut down. The major driving force to large climate changes are more tied to orbital patterns in the Earth. The appearant changes in solar output are more minimal and will easily be over powered by CO2 production if we keep going in the manner we have for the last 30+ years.

(There are other issues here that make things more complex. The sun has a magnetic field that changes as solar output decreases. This changes the interaction between the suns' magnetic field and the Earth's and cosmic rays.

The Earth's magnetic field is caused by the molten core of the Earth, which the continents are floating on, and the ocean is full of charged species (ions) that move around in currents, which likely create something similar to electrical circuts, and of course magnetic fields interact with electrical currents, and of course, we are messing with the whole system and not just one variable (e.g. temperature) (Burgold has already mentioned the acidification of the ocean).

In other words, it is an interesting time to be alive))

(Have you read my spiel about changes in the environment and evolutionary systems, or should I type it out again?)

[alexey]

Yes, July and August were hot. Heat waves happen all the time. I'm sure that in a couple specific locations on a couple specific dates, heat records were broken. Just like I'm sure that in a couple specific locations on a couple specific dates, snow records were broken in the same year. Droughts? Floods? Really? Those are only phenomena of global warming? They're not phenomena of normal weather?

What frequency and severity of heatwaves/droughts/floods would you consider to be a significant deviation from the norm?

[alexey]

By the way, what kind of evidence would you need to show that Global Warming isn't a problem and we need to do something about it (and see, I didn't even start another thread)?

Please read the thread before posting:

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?332779-Question-for-Global-Warming-skeptics&p=7790609&viewfull=1#post7790609

[alexey]

You've stated numerous times in this thread that "science has accounted for" all of the variables, and thus the theory of man-made global warming should be accepted.

All the variables that were mentioned, yes. I was safe in saying that because people were mentioning obvious variables such as solar activity.

1. The scientific method requires a control. The control in this case would be another Earth. We don't have that, so we have to create a computer model. To create a computer model, we have to assign mathematical values to every single factor that goes into the interactions that create the climate of an entire planet, then assign mathematical values to how every single factor affects every single other factor within the climate of an entire planet, and we have to make sure that we haven't missed any factors at all.

Do you see why I consider this to be an educated guess, but nothing more than an educated guess?

I think the important question here is just how educated is the guess.

Here are some other guesses that we have heard in this thread so far:

- there are natural variations, therefore this variation is natural

- humans haven't been around long enough to mess things up

- maybe scientists failed to consider energy output of the sun

- there is just too many variables for us to determine what is going on with any kind of meaningful certainty level

- we cannot fix it, so **** it

I am more comfortable going with a guess is based on 30+ years of scientific research in multiple disciplines. Also notice how the IPCC language has gotten stronger over time. This is not because Al Gore has been getting them pizza

2. Based on my limited knowledge of the topic, my understanding is that there are numerous reputable studies out there which suggest that mankind's contribution to the recent warming trend is insignificant enough to be irrelevant in terms of drastically changing the planet on its own.

This was the case some time ago. Evidence for GW has been accumulating at an increasing pace. This is the reason why IPCC's documents are using much stronger language now.

[twa]

(There are other issues here that make things more complex. The sun has a magnetic field that changes as solar output decreases. This changes the interaction between the suns' magnetic field and the Earth's and cosmic rays.

The Earth's magnetic field is caused by the molten core of the Earth, which the continents are floating on, and the ocean is full of charged species (ions) that move around in currents, which likely create something similar to electrical circuts, and of course magnetic fields interact with electrical currents, and of course, we are messing with the whole system and not just one variable (e.g. temperature) (Burgold has already mentioned the acidification of the ocean).

In other words, it is an interesting time to be alive))

(Have you read my spiel about changes in the environment and evolutionary systems, or should I type it out again?)

Always is,but certainly getting even more so

and yes I have

[skinfan133]

While I think that environment plays a part in the illnesses you are referring to here, it is far from the sole cause and difference since the 50s. IMO, things like food additives, diet, medications, and technology/lifestyle have contributed more to the human decline in overall health and vitality than anything else.

you do realize that average lifespan has practically doubled over the last 125 years right? And that people don't die of the common cold and influenza at age 25 like they used to? Just checking...

Exactly. We've been bombarded with chemicals in food. MSG, Sodium Nitrate, Corn Syrup, etc... Propylene glycol is in several foods and it's considered "lower toxic Anti-freeze". Most foods come in plastics now which leak BPA into the food. Sodium Fluoride, a deadly poison is put into our tap water.

Of course you have technology too. Teflon cooking pots release chemicals and fumes that kill birds, yet it's safe for us? You have the possible cell phone use causing cancer links. I can't remember where I saw it, but I read a long time ago that some Russian study showed that using mircrowaves to cook food makes the food harmful to eat. It suggested that the radiation converts proteins of the food in carcinogens.

I think someone didn't do well in Chem 101. Demonstrate to me that BPA poses a serious threat to health, or even that it can transfer from container to food more than 1 time out of 10,000 trials. There are no credible studies linking BPA to serious human health issues. The studies that get people who understand nothing about chemistry riled up are the ones where lab mice were injected with BPA and some of those mice developed testicular cancer.

Propylene glycol is only a serious health concern under extreme circumstances. Toxicity generally occurs only at plasma concentrations over 1 g/L, which requires extremely high intake over a relatively short period of time. It would be nearly impossible to reach toxic levels by consuming foods or supplements, which contain at most 1 g/kg of PG. Cases of propylene glycol poisoning are usually related to either inappropriate intravenous administration or accidental ingestion of large quantities by children.

The lethal dose of sodium fluoride for a 70 kg human is estimated at 5–10 g. The lethal dose of caffeine is only slightly greater at roughly 10.5-12 g per 70 kg.

at any rate, similar chemical structure does not mean similar chemical properties, and just because something is toxic at high levels does not mean it is toxic at any level.

I'm not saying I'm a proponent of putting chemicals in food that don't belong there, I'm actually a staunch supporter of organic foods. But please, be informed...

[Reic]

you do realize that average lifespan has practically doubled over the last 125 years right? And that people don't die of the common cold and influenza at age 25 like they used to? Just checking...

.

Just because the life span has doubled does not mean we are healthier. Individuals died of the common cold and influenza because they did not have the ways to treat it, but now we do. 125 years ago society could not afford to be the fat lazy slobs they are today. The reason why we live longer is because of advances in the medicinal realm, without that, our lifespan may not be even doubles from 125 years ago.

[skinfan133]

Just because the life span has doubled does not mean we are healthier. Individuals died of the common cold and influenza because they did not have the ways to treat it, but now we do. 125 years ago society could not afford to be the fat lazy slobs they are today. The reason why we live longer is because of advances in the medicinal realm, without that, our lifespan may not be even doubles from 125 years ago.

exactly my point, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My quip was mainly to Ken's assertion that medicine and technology are leading to a decline in health... When obviously and empirically they have done the opposite.

[Reic]

exactly my point, I'm not sure what you're getting at. My quip was mainly to Ken's assertion that medicine and technology are leading to a decline in health... When obviously and empirically they have done the opposite.

Ahh gotcha, I was looking at it from the viewpoint of "we are healthier because we live longer"

[Reic]

.

The Earth's magnetic field is caused by the molten core of the Earth, which the continents are floating on, and the ocean is full of charged species (ions) that move around in currents, which likely create something similar to electrical circuts, and of course magnetic fields interact with electrical currents, and of course, we are messing with the whole system and not just one variable (e.g. temperature) (Burgold has already mentioned the acidification of the ocean).

Now this is something I feel we need to conduct more research on, the acidification of the ocean. I have done a few review articles on ocean acidification in my physiology of marine animals class, I will have to find the journal and post it. I just woke up, so I can't recall much off the top of my head.

[skinfan133]

Now this is something I feel we need to conduct more research on, the acidification of the ocean. I have done a few review articles on ocean acidification in my physiology of marine animals class, I will have to find the journal and post it. I just woke up, so I can't recall much off the top of my head.

What I would give to be "just waking up" at 0830...

[Burgold]

Now this is something I feel we need to conduct more research on, the acidification of the ocean. I have done a few review articles on ocean acidification in my physiology of marine animals class, I will have to find the journal and post it. I just woke up, so I can't recall much off the top of my head.

and that's part of the problem with the politicization of "Global Warming." Acidification falls under the GW umbrella, but because it does a lot of people turn their ears off. It's what Predicto was talking about. Political prejudice has damaged our ability to look at many of these issues. Part of the blame for that is due to hyperbolic leftist nutjobs who believe that if you give a baby seal a haircut that the world will implode, but part all sides are guilty of exaggeration and demonization to such an extent that no one talks about "facts" only "issues"

There are things happening which are hard to dispute and will impact us. Some of them we don't know why. I believe the plight of the honey bee has to do with pollution, but right now, there's no science to back it up. Regardless, it's a big problem. A real problem. So is acidification. So is the thinning of our atmosphere or the lose of Antarctic ice.

The "why" is certainly important. In this case, the what ought to be addressed too. To the degree that we can provide positive change we should. Why else do we forse our children to clean their rooms when we know it will get messy again almost immediately. Some losing battles are worth fighting... are worth the struggle.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Here's a related question:

Let's assume that global warming is in no way connected to man, but that the earth is in a natural warming pattern. This means that the earth is warming. Now, lets assume that the earth in its natural warming pattern is dangerously close to causing severe, cataclysmic problems that threaten the lives of every single person on earth. So, the question is, making all those assumptions, why would man NOT take dramatic steps to prevent that from happening?

[Burgold]

Here's a related question:

Let's assume that global warming is in no way connected to man, but that the earth is in a natural warming pattern. This means that the earth is warming. Now, lets assume that the earth in its natural warming pattern is dangerously close to causing severe, cataclysmic problems that threaten the lives of every single person on earth. So, the question is, making all those assumptions, why would man NOT take dramatic steps to prevent that from happening?

Dude, that would be like irrigating arid land and making it possible for vegetation to grow there. It's not possible for man to impact or alter his environment.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

We'll get it one day Burgold!

[Thiebear]

I'm sure we can pollute the earth TSF and Burgold, we have been.

I'm sure we can help the ground around us... we have been.

Not the same as Climate change?

If temperature and C02 have been many many many times higher with a polar ocean 45-60million years ago: Did the Earth care?

I know we do... as our existence is at stake, but the earth will continue to go on 2 million years from now when we are no longer around as we are now.

[War Paint]

Those emails proved man made global warming is a farce and a scam. I can't believe people still buy into that BS. Watching Al Gore's movie was laughable, yet scary because some people believe that garbage.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

I'm sure we can pollute the earth TSF and Burgold, we have been.

I'm sure we can help the ground around us... we have been.

Not the same as Climate change?

If temperature and C02 have been many many many times higher with a polar ocean 45-60million years ago: Did the Earth care?

I know we do... as our existence is at stake, but the earth will continue to go on 2 million years from now when we are no longer around as we are now.

You dodged the question. The question is not assuming that we can or can't do something. The question is, shouldn't we try to do something about it?