Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Sticks And Stones! We're an HTTYD fan forum. Feel free to have a look around and stay awhile; whether you want to talk about the movie, post some fanwork, or just kick back and relax with us, we can't wait to have you!

If you'd like, join our community!

If you're already registered, just log in below:


Username:   Password:
Add Reply
[USA] Election Topic; For the 2012 USA presidential election
Topic Started: Apr 12 2012, 03:27 PM (2,068 Views)
Night Fury
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
1. There was a sharp cooling period before the 80s, to the point that everyone was utterly panicked...
That just proves the disconnect between science and the media. Global Cooling was regarded as a fringe theory in the scientific community even at the height of its popularity in the 1970's. Even at that time, the number of papers supporting a warming hypothesis far outnumbered those supporting a cooling hypothesis. The warming skeptics are just trying to undermine the scientific consensus about Global Warming by appealing to this past "consensus" that was "proven wrong".

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Quote:
 
2. A lot of data that we have on the past is due to indirect measurements (such as tree rings and glaciers), .... superimposed on data from other sources, and "inconvenient" data is snipped...you shouldn't have to throw data out or deny peer review to make your case. If it isn't, you try to find the "correct" answer.
Multiple reconstructions of the data have been done, and almost all *legitimate* ones have shown basically the same trend. And the fact is, those journals have been peer-reviewed multiple times.

Quote:
 
3. The problem with "positive feedback" is it doesn't exist. If it did, there should be a "hot spot" in the atmosphere for the "trapped" heat. It does not exist.
Yes, it does... but so does negative feedback. An example of negative feedback would be an increase in cloudcover, which has a high albedo. This would offset some of the warming caused by the lack of reflective ice cover. Opposing feedbacks work in tandem to maintain a close equilibrium, but if you add too much external forcing into the system (such as unusually high amounts of GHG) the equilibrium may become increasingly unstable.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/story2.html

Quote:
 
4. You cannot seriously tell me that colder = hotter, under any circumstances. The fact is, winter is supposed to be cold, because we are turned away from the sun, and for the same reason, summer is supposed to be hot, because we are turned toward it. The atmosphere is not a stationary thing, it is always moving and changing, and hot and cold temps will move around the world, especially when El Nino and La Nina have their say. It has nothing to do with humans putting out CO2. It has been doing that as long as the earth's been around. If you want extremes, look at the moon. That has little or no atmosphere. The temperature where the sun hits is over 100 celcius, whereas where the sun does not hit it is far in the opposite.
The fact is, that a warming planet will cause some areas to get colder *temporarily*. A cooling planet (theoretically) would cause certain areas to temporarily warm. It has to do with disruption of the circulatory system, which causes quasi-stationary areas of high and low pressure to migrate. El Nino and La Nina have exactly the same effect, but they are part of a normal cycle.

When I talk about warming and cooling, I mean relative to normal (typically a 30 year average) for that specific location at that specific time of year. Obviously it's going to be colder in winter and warmer in summer regardless, but that's not anything to do with Global Warming.

If you removed the entire atmosphere from Earth, we would indeed be very hot in the sun, but we'd actually be much colder on average. This doesn't help your argument. Sure, it might be 300C at the equator at mid day, but most of the planet would probably be -230C when the sun wasn't hitting it directly. It's the Greenhouse gases like water vapour and CO2 that prevent us from freezing. Increasing those gases will increase the average temperature.

Have you ever stopped to wonder why it is that Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite being further from the sun?

http://www.universetoday.com/22153/venus-and-mercury/

Quote:
 
Look at far-hotter periods in the earth's distant past. CO2 didn't initiate the warming, it followed it. Why? Because plant and animal life thrived. If anything, the atmosphere protects us from things getting too crazy.
You are partially correct. Almost all of the energy for the Earth's weather comes from the sun. Changes in solar forcing or the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) are the driver behind the initial warming, but this warming itself leads to a release of CO2. Once that happens, the CO2 that is released increases the temperature, causing more CO2 to be released (via melting permafrost or other processes). This has been happening since we came out of the last glacial maximum at the end of the Pleistocene. What we're doing now is accelerating the process by releasing amounts of CO2 that haven't been in the atmosphere for millions of years. Who knows what the end result will be.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659-climate-myths-ice-cores-show-co2-increases-lag-behind-temperature-rises-disproving-the-link-to-global-warming.html

Edited by Night Fury, Nov 18 2012, 02:31 PM.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Tasermon's Partner


Quote:
 
Both are different issues entirely.


Sorry for derailing the thread, but no, they're not entirely different issues.

The ecosystems help regulate the climate of Earth. Ergo, massive alteration of the ecosystems will result in alteration of the climate.

Though you are certainly correct that species extinction as a result of habitat destruction and fragmentation is also a major problem.

Once again, I really don't mean to sound antagonistic in any way, seriously, I don't, but this concept is pretty simple.
Edited by Tasermon's Partner, Nov 18 2012, 07:11 PM.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Polychrome
Member Avatar
Official Conversation Killer
Night Fury
Nov 18 2012, 02:30 PM

This'll be my last post on the matter. Yeah, I'm running away like a coward, just like my previous posts accused people like me of doing. After working all of my non-work waking day on a much larger one full of links and research and having some other random astrophysics page close my browser window, I'm kinda P.O.ed and with my sleepless work schedule it isn't worth the stress anymore. This has literally eaten the tiny bit of nonexistent free time I have during the week and it's 10 minutes before I have to leave for work.

I apologize that I haven't figured out how to multi-quote in this particular forum.

1. There is no consensus. Whatever semblance of a "consensus" is out there is greatly manipulated by governments and media. There *is* however, much bullying in the pop-culture, to the point that skeptics and other dissidents simply do not speak out, but research and study in solitude. There is a huge blog-movement over it right now, now that the internet is evening the playing field. Look it up. Being quiet over it doesn't make the other side "right" (just look at what happened in Nazi Germany when people got too quiet), it just means our side needs to speak out more.

2. The truly legitimate ones show huge temperature drops in recent centuries and a much hotter period than we have now in the middle ages. Most of the studies trying to prove global warming do everything in their power to delegitimize these time periods and pretend they don't exist.

Peer review in climate science has become utterly useless because a few ivory tower folks run the entire show. Anything that even remotely suggests there's no emergency is thrown out the window. I don't know if I'd call it a conspiracy so much as elitism at its worst.

It doesn't matter who points out a flaw. Einstein wasn't peer reviewed. (Though even he knew he had flaws in his work, people greatly depend on his work now.)

3. I'm not talking about in the normal sense. Normal conditions will always exist. I'm talking about people claiming that a little extra plant food will cause an irreversible death spiral. Historically, this has not been the case, and times of higher CO2 (with or without humans) have been Earth's lushest. Whatever causes the extra CO2, it won't kill us. If anything, it might increase farm outputs.

The climate balances itself out. Clouds reflect away sunlight before it can even get trapped. Rainwater cools the atmosphere. Of course, warmists will say this happens in the form of bazillions of evil hurricanes. If you look back at lists of hurricanes, names and unnamed, there is no trend in any direction at all.

4. Venus is hot because its atmosphere is 80% thicker than Earth's. It doesn't matter what gas it is at this point. Larger atmospheres generally mean higher air pressure and higher temperatures. For an extreme example, see Jupiter or Saturn.

5. We know exactly what'll happen. More plants.

If anyone out there is genuinely interested in skeptic stuff, but doesn't want in on the fight, PM me. I can point out some basic resources to get started. Until then, I'm outta here.
Any crash you can walk away from is a good one! -Launchpad McQuack
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
Night Fury
Member Avatar


Polychrome
Nov 18 2012, 07:12 PM
5. We know exactly what'll happen. More plants.
Well, that's one positive, assuming there's any dry land left for them to grow on. :D

I kind of left my thoughts open-ended on purpose, because I said from the very beginning that I'm not a global warming fanatic.

We're both skeptics. The difference between you and me is that I accept the basic science. The properties of CO2 are well documented, and it does cause the atmosphere to warm.

I know that increasing the levels of CO2 will increase the temperature, and that it will initially be tempered by other negative feedbacks. What I don't know is where the tipping point is -- when the concentration of CO2 will outstrip the ability of the atmosphere to normalize.

The climate models are attempting to answer that question. There have been some bugs to work out and the media has jumped onto them like vultures, but that doesn't completely invalidate the models. It just means we need to work harder and continue improving the data.

Anyway, like you, I am done with this discussion. Take from it what you will.
Delete Post Delete Post Delete Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Dragon's Den · Next Topic »
Add Reply