Your take on Global Warming

[sonofccn]

Well we can't even agree on Global cooling(sorry for using the wrong term) connection with GW. To you GC was a mistep. A funny little chapter in the history of man's trying to understand clmate change that Deniers keep brining up to avoid defeat. To me Global cooling is GW in a nutshell. People jumping on a some new data and forming theroy with out hard evidence. Which to me marks the reason why debate is futile. Two people can stare at the same data and conclude two entirely differnt conclusions.

Dropping that whole matter I do have to ask you a question. In your opinion what is the estimated time until a major disaster, Ie flooding of coastal area or whatever. How long until the predictions come true.

[Nonamer]

Well we can't even agree on Global cooling(sorry for using the wrong term) connection with GW. To you GC was a mistep. A funny little chapter in the history of man's trying to understand clmate change that Deniers keep brining up to avoid defeat. To me Global cooling is GW in a nutshell. People jumping on a some new data and forming theroy with out hard evidence. Which to me marks the reason why debate is futile. Two people can stare at the same data and conclude two entirely differnt conclusions.

We have much harder evidence right now about GW than we ever did about GC. GC never survived it's initial critics, and was never more than an interesting observation of temperature measures alongside some speculation, and there was never consensus. In fact, GC lead to the realization of GW because many in the process realized that the greenhouse gases being emitted at the time may divert any GC into GW.

In the case of GW, there is consensus, after having crushed its critics, and has significant observational data to support it. They're nothing alike. The only way you can conclude how GC disproves GW is to say that creationism disproves evolution, or Newtonian physics disproves relativistic or Quantum mechanics. Fundamentally, its an attack on science itself and is a pretty poor one at that. There is no logical reason why one can look at the history of GC, the history of GW, and the evidence, could possible conceive anything like what you believe.

Dropping that whole matter I do have to ask you a question. In your opinion what is the estimated time until a major disaster, Ie flooding of coastal area or whatever. How long until the predictions come true.

Climate change has likely already caused a major disaster, assuming increase in hurricane strength and GW are connected, which they seem to be. The massive El Nino of 1998 could be as well, as well recent droughts and flooding in the last few decades could all be GW associated. Of course, there's no way we can tell for sure.

As for the most dramatic event, a rise of sea levels large enough to take out significant amounts of low lying land, will probably have to wait until we see a large pulse of glacial melt water first. So far, we haven't seen that. However, some very low lying regions are already in the process of being wiped out.

[sonofccn]

We have much harder evidence right now about GW than we ever did about GC. GC never survived it's initial critics, and was never more than an interesting observation of temperature measures alongside some speculation, and there was never consensus. In fact, GC lead to the realization of GW because many in the process realized that the greenhouse gases being emitted at the time may divert any GC into GW.

In the case of GW, there is consensus, after having crushed its critics, and has significant observational data to support it. They're nothing alike. The only way you can conclude how GC disproves GW is to say that creationism disproves evolution, or Newtonian physics disproves relativistic or Quantum mechanics. Fundamentally, its an attack on science itself and is a pretty poor one at that. There is no logical reason why one can look at the history of GC, the history of GW, and the evidence, could possible conceive anything like what you believe.

As I said better to drop it or waste words. I've stated my case,you disagree. We will never agree. So I say let's the results speak for themselves.

As for the most dramatic event, a rise of sea levels large enough to take out significant amounts of low lying land, will probably have to wait until we see a large pulse of glacial melt water first. So far, we haven't seen that. However, some very low lying regions are already in the process of being wiped out.

So by 2020 we might see some property going under. I'll mark that down, and see what happens.

[sonofccn]

I just did a quick check on those dissapering islands. Thier is some thought that the islands are infact sinking, not the that the water rising so shouldn't that make them worseless as a GW prediction?

[Nonamer]

As I said better to drop it or waste words. I've stated my case,you disagree. We will never agree. So I say let's the results speak for themselves.

Actually, if you are going to claim any sort of scientific validity in your thinking, you probably will accept my position eventually. This is unavoidable, so it's better to do so now than later.

So by 2020 we might see some property going under. I'll mark that down, and see what happens.

Actually it already is happening. 2020 is just a arbitrary date for when it gets really bad.

I just did a quick check on those dissapering islands. Thier is some thought that the islands are infact sinking, not the that the water rising so shouldn't that make them worseless as a GW prediction?

Thought? From who? If it's just some random forum post or the discussion section at wikipedia then it's not valid. Real sources unambiguously state that it's the cause of global warming.

[sonofccn]

Actually, if you are going to claim any sort of scientific validity in your thinking, you probably will accept my position eventually. This is unavoidable, so it's better to do so now than later.

I always include scientific validity. One of the reason I discredit GW is it lacks of solid results over it's entire history. Which is why I'm asking for predictions. It's pointless to argue over the slight increase in temp. I want solid estimates on what will happen according to the GW so that we may better see just how accurate the theroy is. So not only will I stay firmly on my side of the line, I don't see a future were I will have to cross it.

Thought? From who? If it's just some random forum post or the discussion section at wikipedia then it's not valid. Real sources unambiguously state that it's the cause of global warming.

Floods in Bangladesh: II. Flood Mitigation and Environmental Aspects. H. Brammer. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 156, No. 2 (Jul., 1990), pp. 158-165

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7 ... n=crossref reports it's not greenhouse gases. Through you need access to the Jstor database to view more then the first page.

As to it's sinking I got that from reading the wikipedia page. Which happens when your island is basicly built upon layers of sand/rich soil.


So can you pick a prediction on rising sea level that doesn't involving at the very least possibly sinking islands which will skew any results?

[Nonamer]

I always include scientific validity. One of the reason I discredit GW is it lacks of solid results over it's entire history. Which is why I'm asking for predictions. It's pointless to argue over the slight increase in temp. I want solid estimates on what will happen according to the GW so that we may better see just how accurate the theroy is. So not only will I stay firmly on my side of the line, I don't see a future were I will have to cross it.

GW makes quite a few predictions. Most notably that sea levels will rise, glaciers will melt, and average global temperature will trend upwards. All of these things are happening. What's not to believe?

Floods in Bangladesh: II. Flood Mitigation and Environmental Aspects. H. Brammer. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 156, No. 2 (Jul., 1990), pp. 158-165

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0016-7 ... n=crossref reports it's not greenhouse gases. Through you need access to the Jstor database to view more then the first page.

As to it's sinking I got that from reading the wikipedia page. Which happens when your island is basicly built upon layers of sand/rich soil.


So can you pick a prediction on rising sea level that doesn't involving at the very least possibly sinking islands which will skew any results?

My sources are way newer are more direct to the point. Here's another:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 099971.ece

Likely both are happening (river delta islands do tend to sink), but global warming is making it much worse from what I gather.

[Gandalf]

CNN

PARIS, France (AP) -- The world's leading climate scientists, in their most powerful language ever used on the issue, said global warming is "very likely" man-made, according to a new report obtained Friday by The Associated Press.

The report provides what may be cold comfort in slightly reduced projections on rising temperatures and sea levels by the year 2100. But it is tempered by a flat pronouncement that global warming is essentially a runaway train that cannot be stopped for centuries.

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice-mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that is not due to known natural causes alone," said the 20-page report.

Human-caused warming and rises in sea-level "would continue for centuries" because the process has already started, "even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized," said the 20-page report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The report by a group of hundreds of scientists and representatives of 113 governments contains the most authoritative science on the issue. It was due for official release later Friday morning in Paris. (Watch climate experts discuss the planet's future Video)

The phrase "very likely" translates to a more than 90 percent certainty that global warming is caused by man.

What that means in layman's language is "we have this nailed," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who originated the percentage system.

It marked an escalation from the panel's last report in 2001, which said warming was "likely" caused by human activity. There had been speculation that the participants might try to up the ante to "virtually certain" man causes global warming, which translates to 99 percent chance.

On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7-23 inches by the end of the century. That could be augmented by an additional 4-8 inches if recent surprising polar ice sheet melt continues. (Watch how rising sea levels could affect San Francisco Video)

The 2001 report projected a sea level rise of up to 35 inches.

Many scientists had warned that this was being too cautious and said sea level rise could be closer to 3 to 5 feet because of ice sheet melt.

But despite losing on that battle, scientists said the report is strong.

"There's no question that the powerful language is intimately linked to the more powerful science," said one of the study's many co-authors, Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria, who spoke by phone from Canada. He said the report was based on science that is rock-solid, peer-reviewed, conservative and consensus.

"It's very conservative. Scientists by their nature are skeptics."

The scientists wrote the report, based on years of peer-reviewed research; government officials edited it with an eye toward the required unanimous approval by world governments.

In the end, there was little debate on the strength of the wording about human activity most likely to blame.

"That is a big move. I hope it is a powerful statement," said Jan Pretel, head of the department of climate change at the Czech Hydrometeorological Institute.
Rising sea levels

The panel quickly agreed Thursday on two of the most contentious issues: attributing global warming to man-made burning of fossil fuels and connecting it to a recent increase in stronger hurricanes. Negotiations over a final third difficult issue -- how much sea level rise is predicted by 2100 -- went into the night Thursday with a deadline approaching for the report. (Watch a preview of the report Video)

While critics call the panel overly alarmist, it is by nature relatively cautious because it relies on hundreds of scientists, including skeptics.

"I hope that policymakers will be quite convinced by this message," said Riibeta Abeta, a delegate whose island nation Kiribati is threatened by rising seas. "The purpose is to get them moving."

The Chinese delegation was resistant to strong wording on global warming, said Barbados delegate Leonard Fields and others. China has increasingly turned to fossil fuels for its huge and growing energy needs and it asked that an ambiguous footnote be added to the "very likely" statement. (Watch how Asian nations have given the U.S. political cover on energy consumption Video)

The footnote reads: "Consideration of remaining uncertainty is based on current methodology," according to an official who was at the negotiations but was sworn to secrecy.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over whether warming is man-made, said other countries' officials. And several attendees credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement so quickly.

The Bush administration acknowledges that global warming is man-made and a problem that must be dealt with, Bush science adviser John Marburger has said. However, Bush continues to reject mandatory limits on so-called "greenhouse" gases, even as he acknowledges the existence of climate change.
Climate change a global issue

But this is more than just a U.S. issue.

"What you're trying to do is get the whole planet under the proverbial tent in how to deal with this, not just the rich countries," Mahlman said Thursday. "I think we're in a different kind of game now."

The panel, created by the United Nations in 1988, releases its assessments every five or six years -- although scientists have been observing aspects of climate change since as far back as the 1960s. The reports are released in phases, with this one being the first of four this year.

The next report is due in April and will discuss the effects of global warming.

But there are some elements of that in the current document.

The report says that global warming has made stronger hurricanes, including those on the Atlantic Ocean, such as Hurricane Katrina, according to Fields, the Barbados delegate, and others.

It also said an increase in hurricane and tropical cyclone strength since 1970 "more likely than not" can be attributed to man-made global warming. The scientists said global warming's connection varies with storms in different parts of the world, but that the storms that strike the Americas are global warming-influenced.

That's a contrast from the 2001 report, which said there was not enough evidence to make such a conclusion. And it conflicts with a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological group said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.

Fields -- of Barbados, a country in the path of many hurricanes -- said the new wording was "very important." He noted that insurance companies -- which look to science to calculate storm risk -- "watch the language, too."

THe above article pretty much comes out and states that it's our fault. And if you haven't seen An Inconvienant Truth, you need to. That will settle the issue for you.

[sonofccn]

GW makes quite a few predictions. Most notably that sea levels will rise, glaciers will melt, and average global temperature will trend upwards. All of these things are happening. What's not to believe?

The whole major impact on mankind thing, the endless increase in the temp, etc.

My sources are way newer are more direct to the point. Here's another:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 099971.ece

Yes the reseach done by that university which all the links regarding theislands sinking via global warming refrenced. Through this appears to be just another refrence to it. I'm curious did the report even mention the possibility these islands were sinking? Or did it merely say water is rising because of GW.

Likely both are happening (river delta islands do tend to sink)

So if we agree that these island sink naturally why does global warming need to be involved? Obvious these islands have natural problems which will skew any data obtained.

So (and this us open to anyone) make a prediction. My only criteria is that it must blantenly be GW and not "well GW is helping this along". I want an estimate when the icecaps will melt and flood or something solid.

That said I'm tired of this whole topic. I find it dull, unintersting, and highly pointless, so Nonamer it's been an honor to exchange ideas(however pointlessly) your a good debater who belives in what he says and strives to bring as many facts to the table as possible, but I'm done. I'll lurk and jot down any interesting predictions, but I won't bug you guys anymore. Fair deal?


Edit:Slight bending of my previous statment(sorry I really didn't mean to drop back in on you guys) but I stumbled upon a GW debat on a conservative blog I frequent and find a nice link. Thought I might as well link it here.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

[Nonamer]

The whole major impact on mankind thing, the endless increase in the temp, etc.

That is merely a consequence of GW. And temps will increase until CO2 emission stops.

My sources are way newer are more direct to the point. Here's another:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environme ... 099971.ece

Yes the reseach done by that university which all the links regarding theislands sinking via global warming refrenced. Through this appears to be just another refrence to it. I'm curious did the report even mention the possibility these islands were sinking? Or did it merely say water is rising because of GW.

Likely both are happening (river delta islands do tend to sink)

So if we agree that these island sink naturally why does global warming need to be involved? Obvious these islands have natural problems which will skew any data obtained.[/quote]

They're sinking too fast for simply a reduction in altitude. Anyways, the article specifically says the islands are going reclaimed due to GW with no vagueness in speech. You can take it at face value or dispute it directly. Simply saying it should be wrong is not an argument in of itself.

So (and this us open to anyone) make a prediction. My only criteria is that it must blantenly be GW and not "well GW is helping this along". I want an estimate when the icecaps will melt and flood or something solid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming

We have more than plenty of predictions. None of which is going to say "Sea levels will rise X meters by 20XX" since that are just too broad a prediction. It's like predicting how evolution will occur for all major species worldwide for the next 100-1000 years. An impossible task given our current technology.

We do have spot predictions in the relative short term though that are very specific. For instance, the glaciers of Mt. Kilimanjaro will be gone by 2020. So will all the glaciers of Glacier National Park by 2030. It's rather unlikely predictions will get any more specific than that in the near future.

That said I'm tired of this whole topic. I find it dull, unintersting, and highly pointless, so Nonamer it's been an honor to exchange ideas(however pointlessly) your a good debater who belives in what he says and strives to bring as many facts to the table as possible, but I'm done. I'll lurk and jot down any interesting predictions, but I won't bug you guys anymore. Fair deal?

You can quit any time if you wanted. But I suspect you're better off admitting at least some amount of ground on GW before you do.

Edit:Slight bending of my previous statment(sorry I really didn't mean to drop back in on you guys) but I stumbled upon a GW debat on a conservative blog I frequent and find a nice link. Thought I might as well link it here.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/

These arguments are terrible. All of the are rehashes or variants of existing GW attacks. Since there are quite a few of these, point out the ones you think are the good ones and I'll refute them. There's too many for me to do all at once.

[Jedi Master Spock]

You might consider RealClimate, which is where a lot of climatologists hang out last I checked.

As I said, there's been a lot of work done on this in the last ten years - even just the last five have seen overwhelming progress in building better climate models.

[Nonamer]

You might consider RealClimate, which is where a lot of climatologists hang out last I checked.

As I said, there's been a lot of work done on this in the last ten years - even just the last five have seen overwhelming progress in building better climate models.

Now that is a good site. Thanks.

[watchdog]

Oh and watchdog IF and I stress IF mankind falls I'm betting on the roaches. Durability and survivbility in it's purest form. I bet they attack and enslave the whale people :)

I hate to interrupt the flow of this thread by going off topic but; There is something with a much better survival capability than the cockroach, the water bear;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_bear

Check it out.

[Nonamer]

son-of-ccn is out guys, so this thread may be over. It's a shame that he was unwilling to debate or even listen anymore.

So, anyone else has anything to say?

[sonofccn]

Oh and watchdog IF and I stress IF mankind falls I'm betting on the roaches. Durability and survivbility in it's purest form. I bet they attack and enslave the whale people :)

I hate to interrupt the flow of this thread by going off topic but; There is something with a much better survival capability than the cockroach, the water bear;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_bear

Check it out.

I stand corrected watchdog. That is impressive. I'm still betting on the roach empire however :) Of course now they may need to ally with the whale people to crush the waterbear threat.