The Global Warming Thread

[Bigfatbillsfan]

We were hoping you might be able to explain to us the science that proves the theory of man-made global warming.

 

The science that would explain man made global warming would have to do with the fact that CFCs as well as excessive CO2 output into the atmosphere from man made sources are to blame for the recent rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. Though there is science to support this it is not a proven fact and there are other theories to explain why the earth's temperature is rising.

Edited March 29, 2012 by Bigfatbillsfan

[Rob's House]

The science that would explain man made global warming would have to do with the fact that CFCs as well as excessive CO2 output into the atmosphere from man made sources are to blame for the recent rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. Though there is science to support this it is not a proven fact and there are other theories to explain why the earth's temperature is rising.

 

I have to give credit where credit is due. That is a lot more reasonable response than I expected.

[3rdnlng]

I have to give credit where credit is due. That is a lot more reasonable response than I expected.

 

 

That certainly explained global warming. Next up, DiN and Conner discussing the European missile shield strategy.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

That certainly explained global warming. Next up, DiN and Conner discussing the European missile shield strategy.

 

I wouldn't have expected you to understand anyway. But I gave it my best shot.

[3rdnlng]

I wouldn't have expected you to understand anyway. But I gave it my best shot.

 

 

You need to work on your "best shot". Maybe a compass will help.

[Bigfatbillsfan]

You need to work on your "best shot". Maybe a compass will help.

 

What? A compass will help me explain global warming theory to you? I'd love to know how that would work.

[3rdnlng]

What? A compass will help me explain global warming theory to you? I'd love to know how that would work.

 

 

You really, really cant't be this stupid. Your best shot? Compass? Did you ever consider that I might be telling you that your best shot was way off the mark? But anyway, I'll explain it so you can understand. You are in Arizona. If the compass says "S" it's warmer. If it says "N" it's colder.

[3rdnlng]

We need to use more aerosols.

 

 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/05/11036451-mixed-blessing-cleaning-up-pollutants-fueled-hurricanes-study-finds

Edited April 6, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[KD in CA]

The science that would explain man made global warming would have to do with the fact that CFCs as well as excessive CO2 output into the atmosphere from man made sources are to blame for the recent rise in global temperatures over the past 100 years or so. Though there is science to support this it is not a proven fact and there are other theories to explain why the earth's temperature is rising.

 

And what are the major sources of CO2 output?

[/dev/null]

And what are the major sources of CO2 output?

Kitten tears and posts by D_i_N

[DC Tom]

And what are the major sources of CO2 output?

 

Because of the failed policies of the Bush administration.

[B-Man]

Healthy polar bear count confounds doomsayers

 

The debate about climate change and its impact on polar bears has intensified with the release of a survey that shows the bear population in a key part of northern Canada is far larger than many scientists thought, and might be growing.

 

The number of bears along the western shore of Hudson Bay, believed to be among the most threatened bear subpopulations, stands at 1,013 and could be even higher, according to the results of an aerial survey released Wednesday by the Government of Nunavut. That’s 66 per cent higher than estimates by other researchers who forecasted the numbers would fall to as low as 610 because of warming temperatures that melt ice faster and ruin bears’ ability to hunt. The Hudson Bay region, which straddles Nunavut and Manitoba, is critical because it’s considered a bellwether for how polar bears are doing elsewhere in the Arctic.

 

The debate over the polar-bear population has been raging for years, frequently pitting scientists against Inuit. In 2004, Environment Canada researchers concluded that the numbers in the region had dropped by 22 per cent since 1984, to 935. They also estimated that by 2011, the population would decrease to about 610. That sparked worldwide concern about the future of the bears and prompted the Canadian and American governments to introduce legislation to protect them.

 

But many Inuit communities said the researchers were wrong. They said the bear population was increasing and they cited reports from hunters who kept seeing more bears. Mr. Gissing said that encouraged the government to conduct the recent study, which involved 8,000 kilometres of aerial surveying last August along the coast and offshore islands.

 

Mr. Gissing said he hopes the results lead to more research and a better understanding of polar bears. He said the media in southern Canada has led people to believe polar bears are endangered. “They are not.” He added that there are about 25,000 polar bears across Canada’s Arctic. “That’s likely the highest [population level] there has ever been.”

 

 

 

 

For years, polar bear experts have reported a growing number of underweight polar bears heading south for food. Far from being signs of an apocalyptic extinction, those are classic signs of overpopulation. The habitat is not shrinking; over-breeding that has the species overrunning the land (in this case the sea. We stopped hunting to beef up the herd, so to speak. Now the polar bears suffer as there are too many of them.

 

.

[DC Tom]

And what are the major sources of CO2 output?

 

Cement manufacturing, for one...

[Bigfatbillsfan]

And what are the major sources of CO2 output?

 

Your posts.

[3rdnlng]

Your posts.

 

 

While on the other hand your posts seem to be a major source of methane, which is much more harmful.

[DC Tom]

Your posts.

 

Point of note: that joke only makes sense when someone's speaking, not typing.

 

And even then it's lame.

 

(And yes, /dev/null, that applies to you too.)

[DC Tom]

THIS is what I'm talking about, conner. No "But there's a consensus!" bull ****, no "but all the authorities say..." nonsense, no "oh, you're just resorting to a debating tactic that I only just read in wikipedia but don't understand" crap. Actual science, objectively done, that's falsifiable, that makes a prediction that can be tested.

 

THAT is why you can't even discuss it with me, you !@#$head.

[janicks]

THIS is what I'm talking about, conner. No "But there's a consensus!" bull ****, no "but all the authorities say..." nonsense, no "oh, you're just resorting to a debating tactic that I only just read in wikipedia but don't understand" crap. Actual science, objectively done, that's falsifiable, that makes a prediction that can be tested.

 

THAT is why you can't even discuss it with me, you !@#$head.

 

The original article is first:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Climate+Impact+of+Increasing+Atmospheric+Carbon+Dioxide&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C21&as_sdtp=on

not exactly light reading, but very interesting.

 

I've always been irritated by journalists and bloggers reporting on an article such as this and focusing on some point estimate, but not giving any discussion about the uncertainty in the estimate or the model, which is somewhat understandable since journalists don't have the right training, but still, its critical information. But maybe its not the journalists' fault, because I didn't see any estimates about uncertainty in the projections, which is really odd.

[3rdnlng]

The original article is first:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Climate+Impact+of+Increasing+Atmospheric+Carbon+Dioxide&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C21&as_sdtp=on

not exactly light reading, but very interesting.

 

I've always been irritated by journalists and bloggers reporting on an article such as this and focusing on some point estimate, but not giving any discussion about the uncertainty in the estimate or the model, which is somewhat understandable since journalists don't have the right training, but still, its critical information. But maybe its not the journalists' fault, because I didn't see any estimates about uncertainty in the projections, which is really odd.

 

 

The original article is first? That's sort of playing it safe now isn't it?

Edited April 6, 2012 by 3rdnlng

[Gary M]

I think they need to find a new lead scientist this guy is a buffoon!!

 

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/apr/06/nasa-scientist-climate-change

 

"Averting the worst consequences of human-induced climate change is a "great moral issue" on a par with slavery, according to the leading Nasa climate scientist Prof Jim Hansen."

 

"The situation we're creating for young people and future generations is that we're handing them a climate system which is potentially out of their control,"

 

as opposed to having complete control of the climate like we do now?