Global Warming... Oops, I'm Sorry It's Now Called CLIMATE CHANGE :lol:

[Dolce Vita]

i think the reason we are not on the same page here is that the diagram is over a period of 600 million years, and a much larger scale. Al Gore's model was less than 200 years and on a way uber smaller scale, the sharp increase he shows would hardly move our diagram co2 line up a pixel.

what people don't understand is you have to look at climate change as a huge cycle not short term.

 

[PVS]

i think the reason we are not on the same page here is that the diagram is over a period of 600 million years, and a much larger scale. Al Gore's model was less than 200 years and on a way uber smaller scale, the sharp increase he shows would hardly move our diagram co2 line up a pixel.

what people don't understand is you have to look at climate change as a huge cycle not short term.

the problem is the assumption that this study is hardcore fact. its not even a universally accepted theory. its a hypothesis based on an equation, and as such its reliability is question.
for example check this out:
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=19061535
Our results indicate that tropical sea surface temperatures were significantly higher than today during the Early Silurian period (443-423 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been relatively high, and were broadly similar to today during the Late Carboniferous period (314-300 Myr ago), when carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to have been similar to the present-day value. Our results are consistent with the proposal that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations drive or amplify increased global temperatures1,6.

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/2/449.abstract
Here we present a CO2 record based on stomatal frequency data from multiple tree species. Our data show striking CO2 fluctuations of ≈600–300 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Periods of low CO2 are contemporaneous with major glaciations, whereas elevated CO2 of 500 ppmv coincides with the climatic optimum in the Miocene. Our data point to a long-term coupling between atmospheric CO2 and climate.

so who's right? fuck if i know. fuck if they know.
the trouble is we would all have to get phd's in geophysics in order to call ourselves qualified to attempt to prove anything about global warming.
i just don't care to see one source presented as definitive factual evidence when it clearly isnt.

 

[fdd2blk]

you are trying to predict THE FUTURE.


good luck with that.

 

[PVS]

you are trying to predict THE FUTURE.


good luck with that.

to whom are you referring?

oh and @ Dolce Vita, i wasnt following al gore's model. merely pointing out the atmospheric co2 trends of the last half-million years.
in fact (get ready for an aneurism) i never saw inconvenient truth nor am i arguing that global warming is caused directly by elevated atmospheric co2.
i just think its very pretentious to claim to know anything for a fact on this issue without concrete evidence. (this includes mr. vice president gore)

 

[fdd2blk]

i am referring to anyone who is going to try to tell me what effect happenings today will have on the weather tomorrow.
trying to predict the future, and not just the future but the future weather.

 

[Dolce Vita]

How about this, a comprimise. there are many many factors that go into the tempature of the earth. not just co2 levels, for anyone to predict future temps is insane to base it on co2 levels. it is a fact that in 2 weeks the earth itself (through active volcano hot spots and oceanic methane beads) contributes more in volume to the equation than humans do in 1 year.

what yall need to understand is that the earth is still cooling down from when it got hit by another celestial object (which created the moon) overall we are still cooling, you only have to drill a mile before you hit the mantel which is liquid magma. as time goes on, and the earth cools, the crust will thicken, so this idea that "global warming even exists is a crock of shit that the government made up based on short term data to pass cap and tax. and 250,000 years is short term when you consider the earth is about 5 billion years old thats 5,000,000,000. al gores data is only based on .005% of the earth's history

btw im totally stoned i hope that makes sense

 

[PVS]

How about this, a comprimise. there are many many factors that go into the tempature of the earth. not just co2 levels, for anyone to predict future temps is insane to base it on co2 levels. it is a fact that in 2 weeks the earth itself (through active volcano hot spots and oceanic methane beads) contributes more in volume to the equation than humans do in 1 year.

what yall need to understand is that the earth is still cooling down from when it got hit by another celestial object (which created the moon) overall we are still cooling, you only have to drill a mile before you hit the mantel which is liquid magma. as time goes on, and the earth cools, the crust will thicken, so this idea that "global warming even exists is a crock of shit that the government made up based on short term data to pass cap and tax. and 250,000 years is short term when you consider the earth is about 5 billion years old thats 5,000,000,000. al gores data is only based on .005% of the earth's history

btw im totally stoned i hope that makes sense

i'm not sure if it makes sense but it certainly is not a compromise

i am referring to anyone who is going to try to tell me what effect happenings today will have on the weather tomorrow.
trying to predict the future, and not just the future but the future weather.

are you implying that al roker is a fraud?

 

[CrackerJax]

The idea that man can affect the global mean temperature is absurd on its face. It's a political narcissism.

 

[jrh72582]

The idea that man can affect the global mean temperature is absurd on its face. It's a political narcissism.

I don't know if it's true, but I certainly think it's possible.

 

[CrackerJax]

The highest probability of weather change comes from the sun. There is every indication we are cooling down, not warming up.

There is also no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on earth.

I think Al Bore should just step back and quit politicizing our sciences. It's not helping us go in the right direction. He's not helping us find out what the right direction is either.

 

[Dolce Vita]

The highest probability of weather change comes from the sun. There is every indication we are cooling down, not warming up.

There is also no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on earth.

I think Al Bore should just step back and quit politicizing our sciences. It's not helping us go in the right direction. He's not helping us find out what the right direction is either.

but he is making a lot of money delling us this lie

 

[Hydrotech364]

I know this,its a hot MF in texas.Cant even let the plants grow in direct sunlight,gonna do an experiment tomorrow,to see if i can pull another outdoor grow off this year even with the heat at 100.Peace

 

[PVS]

The highest probability of weather change comes from the sun. There is every indication we are cooling down, not warming up.

There is also no correlation between CO2 levels and temperature on earth.

well since you stated that opinion a few times already i guess that makes it right.

 

[Dolce Vita]

And here is some of da proof, not just opinion.

"Although no direct physical connection between sunspots and the weather has been demonstrated, the statistical correlation has so far withstood every test to which skeptics could subject it." - http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/13/science/analysis-links-sunspots-to-weather-on-earth.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?friend

 

[PVS]

And here is some of da proof, not just opinion.

"Although no direct physical connection between sunspots and the weather has been demonstrated, the statistical correlation has so far withstood every test to which skeptics could subject it." - http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/13/science/analysis-links-sunspots-to-weather-on-earth.html

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm?friend

proof that solar winds directly effect atmospheric conditions on earth is not necessary.

the scientific community as a whole does not dispute the effect which sunspots/solar winds have on our climate. however to there is no proof that the current 30 year warming trend is caused by solar winds.

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/sunspots

"Maybe the Connection Exists, but There Is No Trend
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a connection between cosmic rays and cloudiness, as speculated. Could this explain the temperature increase over the past few decades? Clearly not. Why? Because there has been no net change in sunspot numbers or cosmic rays over this period. Take a look at the graphic above. Cosmic rays cycle up and down with the sunspot cycle, but there is no net change over the cycles covering the period from 1960 to 2005."

 

[Dolce Vita]

proof that solar winds directly effect atmospheric conditions on earth is not necessary.

the scientific community as a whole does not dispute the effect which sunspots/solar winds have on our climate. however to there is no proof that the current 30 year warming trend is caused by solar winds.

http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/sunspots

"Maybe the Connection Exists, but There Is No Trend
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a connection between cosmic rays and cloudiness, as speculated. Could this explain the temperature increase over the past few decades? Clearly not. Why? Because there has been no net change in sunspot numbers or cosmic rays over this period. Take a look at the graphic above. Cosmic rays cycle up and down with the sunspot cycle, but there is no net change over the cycles covering the period from 1960 to 2005."

In your opinion, what is the % chance that humans truly have a significant footprint in temperatures?

Do you think passing :cap and trade is a move to clean up the world, or a way to pay for their uncontrolled spending.

 

[PVS]

In your opinion, what is the % chance that humans truly have a significant footprint in temperatures?

i have neither the data nor the qualifications to formulate an opinion on it.
i only believe that its possible, simply because it has not been disproved.
damn you want a percentage of probability too? i'm flattered that you think so much of me.

Do you think passing :cap and trade is a move to clean up the world, or a way to pay for their uncontrolled spending.

i think that whole system is a confusing mindfuck. as for motives i wouldn't presume to know.............but they are politicians

 

[Dolce Vita]

yeah im just not buying all this global warming stuff, heck im freezing this year compared to previous years.

 

[CrackerJax]

i have neither the data nor the qualifications to formulate an opinion on it.
i only believe that its possible, simply because it has not been disproved.
damn you want a percentage of probability too? i'm flattered that you think so much of me.



i think that whole system is a confusing mindfuck. as for motives i wouldn't presume to know.............but they are politicians

So now we base our economy on something which is not proven nor indicated? global temps flatlined in 1998 and have been cooling ever since......

The FACTS are we don't fully understand the weather, not at all. One thing which is known however is that Al Bore is dead wrong.

 

[jrh72582]

yeah im just not buying all this global warming stuff, heck im freezing this year compared to previous years.

If the current theory on climate change is correct, the winters will be more extreme as well. Basically, we'll move to a two season pattern, with extremes on both ends.