What happened to Global Warming?

Thursday, June 20, 2013 by ZombiesRus5 | Discussion: Life, the Universe and Everything

What happened to Global Warming?

When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.

Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in :(

 

I'd like some global warming back...

 

First Previous Page 2 of 115 Next Last
Phoon
Reply #21 Friday, June 21, 2013 5:46 PM

It's quite funny that the more "educated" people become the more they demonstrate a complete lack of common sense.

So far, there's been only one real answer to this topic. A nice common sense opinion without a backdrop of political bullshit.

Pizentu
The Climate has been changing as long as the Planet has been spinning. It has frozen over and melted many times. Driving SUVS has as much effect on our planet as it does on others. None. Yet nearly all the planets are also experiencing the same changes we see here on Earth. Please explain that alone Alarmists. The funniest thing that gets me is Nearly every fear mongering article about global warming causing an excessive heat wave or storm, theres always an article just under it about the huge solar storm/flare hitting Earth. 

 A volcano could explode today and put the world into a global winter in a matter or days killing all vegetation and rendering us extinct in a matter of a few very short years. Giving all my money and freedoms to Al Gore wouldnt stop it for a gazillasecond. But dont tell that to the  Cult of alarmist or they will want to exterminate you in the name of saving humanity. 

 

Pizentu
Reply #22 Friday, June 21, 2013 6:17 PM

jackswift85


Quoting Victor5, reply 12

Spoken like someone who watches way too much Fox News -- or Fox News-equivalent.

 

Believe it or not, many great scientists around the world believe the theory of global *cooling* to be a far more likely outcome, perhaps foreseeable even in our lifetimes to a small extent.  I was lucky enough to hear both sides from said scientists giving lectures in college.

I'm not saying I believe 100% in one theory or the other; nor do I believe I'm qualified to claim I know.  But just because one concept has obviously been drilled into your brain since day one (global warming), doesn't make every other concept you're not as familiar with any less credible.   This is where both ignorance and intolerance stem from -- either way, it isn't fair to your brain.  Please consider this next time before being so condescending.

Actually, I never watch Fox News, as doing so will most likely promote "ignorance and intolerance". I've kept my mind open to climate denialists claims, but everytime a new denialist meme floats around the internet ("it's the sun", "it's cooling", "we'll be fine", "temperature record is unreliable", "the oceans can absorb all the extra heat", "there's no consensus", "climate's changed before", etc.), science is there to shoot it down. I'd love to read some papers from these "great scientists" that believe that the earth is cooling, but all the information I've been able to gather (scholarly journals) very clearly points to a man-made global climate change that will warm the planet to disastrous levels (for humans). 

I'm sorry if I come off as a bit condescending, but I'm amazed (and quite tired) at the amount of Americans out there that believe AGW is a hoax just because they also vote for anyone with an 'R' next to their name. Skepticism is healthy, it allows us to challenge preconceived notions about our universe. Without it we would have never moved past how the earth is flat, etc. That word has been hijacked the last few years to mean "I don't believe in AGW and nothing you say, no amount of data, analysis and peer-reviewed literature you show me will make a difference." Pretty sad really, as skepticism is the opposite of ignorance. I'd like nothing more for these hoax claims to be true, as that means we can keep destroying forests, pumping pollutants into the atmosphere and plopping down strip malls anywhere we choose without consequences (well, the consequences of flooding all the coastlines anyways, we'll still have all the regular nastiness like cancer, emphysema and lung/heart disease, contaminated water supplies, etc. to deal with).

Being told the climate is cooling by people using critical thought, analysis, testing methods and producing repeatable results is great. Being told AGW is a hoax every time it snows is not.

 Yeah you do come off as more than "a bit condescending". As I stated above, anytime someone doesnt agree with the alarmists, they try to demonize you or tell you that you are too ignorant to understand whats happening. Sounds to me like you are the intolerant one. Or is your intolerance ok? 

 

 True or false:

 - The Earth has frozen over and melted many times in its entire history  ::: True

 - Other planets are also facing extremities in weather ::: True

 - During the past years heat waves, many coincided with increased Solar activities ::: True 

 - "Climate scientists struggle to explain warming slowdown" ::: True

 - Climate scientists were caught fudging data to show more of a warming trend than there actually was ::: True


 With this, as well as much more evidence that leads to doubt about this alarmist nature, doubting the hysteria seems hardly "ignorant and intolerant" to me. You say "Skepticism is healthy".  I guess it is only healthy until it disagrees with your perspective. Then, again, you go into your demonization of people who disagree with you by calling them "Flat Earthers". I must have some nerve to have a different opinion than you and the groups of people being paid by the government and special interest groups to find the results that they are pushing for. 


 But just because I dont believe in Global Warming doesnt mean I dont want to live in a cleaner environment. I think this is one of the biggest mistakes by climate alarmists. One, they unjustly think anyone that doesnt believe in their side, wants dirty air and water. Or that we are just controlled by the corporations. Thats just bull. The Alarmist crowd went about this the wrong way and should have focused more on Pollution instead of relying on weather as their battle cry. Should we be looking for cleaner and more efficient energy? Absolutely. But buying "Carbon Credits" does not clean the environment  And doesnt prevent global warming/cooling/change. All it does is make Al Gore and his associates very wealthy. It also makes the population more poor and politicians more corrupt. 

Jafo
Reply #23 Friday, June 21, 2013 8:16 PM

Pizentu
But just because I dont believe in Global Warming doesnt mean I dont want to live in a cleaner environment.

By disclaiming the first you clearly deny causality with the second.

Your head is in the sand if you think human's lust for energy/resource consumption is NOT affecting this planet's [and our] survival.

I have the supreme benefit of actually not caring about your opinion and that of others who deny the reality of human-engineered global warming....I am old enough to be dead soon enough that I'll avoid the few degrees average increase in temp that will economically destroy our current 'civilization'.

...and I don't have kids who would suffer either.

Just a simple hole in the ozone layer [thanks partly to CFCs] means Aussies can last about 20 minutes in the sun before frying.  If the top half of the world suffered the same perhaps a few more people might just say...."fuck!" ....

Seleuceia
Reply #24 Friday, June 21, 2013 8:54 PM

Nah Jafo, we'd just invert our maps so Australia would be in the top half of the world...

ZombiesRus5
Reply #25 Friday, June 21, 2013 9:40 PM

I can't move to Australia just to have a pool.

Wish it would just be hotter here.

Frogboy
Reply #26 Friday, June 21, 2013 11:35 PM

I've written on this topic recently:

http://www.littletinyfrogs.com/article/445624/Climate_modeling_continues_to_fail

I fall into the skeptic camp. I've been following this debate since I was in college (now over 20 years ago).  

For all the smugness I've witnessed on the issue, I continue to be astounded that no one seems to remember that very specific predictions have been made over the past 2 decades and can now be compared to the actual measured results.

As a reminder, by 2013 the consensus was that the temperature should be about 0.75 degrees warmer today than it was in 1992. Remember the Kyoto protocols and the dire predictions back then? The internet never forgets. The actual measured temperature in 2012 is about the same as it was in 1992.

That doesn't mean we haven't had some of the "hottest years on record" but if you look carefully at those records, you'll find that the temperature is about the same each year.  Whereas the predictions showed a roughly 0.33 degree increase every decade.

Even if you go by the famous 2001 IPCC report, you will find that the temperature was supposed to have increased by almost a full degree by for the year 2012 when in fact the temperature in 2012 was essentially the same as 2001 (i.e. they're the same within the margin of error).

I'm still waiting for the "Northwest passage" that they predicted would clear of ice by the year 2010.  

Nothing I am saying should imply that global warming / climate change isn't real. Humans put out a lot of green house gasses and those gasses will have an effect. But it should give any reasonable person pause when someone suggests we take drastic action about it.  At the rate things are going, we will see maybe a 0.50 degree change by the end of the century. I think we have bigger fish to fry.

BTW, the data I am talking about here comes from Wikipedia and other sources. It doesn't come from "denialist" websites.  Global temperature for 1998 was 0.6325. (C anomaly from the 1901-2000 mean). In 2012 it was 0.5728 (i.e. it was cooler).  2011 was even cooler than 2012 (source is NCDC).

The biggest problem I have with the debate is the general lack of admission that the fidelity of our temperature readings prior to the Kyoto protocol discussion were pretty poor.  I think it says a lot that the temperature readings got a lot more consistent once the measured temperature readings started to be taken a lot more seriously and were heavily scrutinized (i.e. like making sure the measurement station wasn't near a major city with its own heat sources).

I want to emphasize the above paragraph: Until recent times, the fidelity of the readings was pretty poor. Yet, nearly every graph, chart, etc. starts far in the past (1880, 1901, etc.) as if we had the capability to do global measurements that could be trusted. If you doubt this, take a look at a world temperature chart starting from 1901 and you'll note that the biggest temperature changes were from places that were way out in the middle of nowhere, like literally middle of siberia or northern fringe of Canada or in the middle of the amazon. If you discarded those samples, the global temperature increase for the 20th century suddenly becomes pretty modest).  I have far more confidence in readings since 2001 when these measurements started to be taken very seriously and with a lot of care. And since they predict temperatures to increase by 0.50C every decade, easy to see if there is a serious issue with the climate.

I think we should all do what we can to minimize our impact on the environment. Not because it affects the climate but because it's just good general policy. But I think that the idea that we should coerce people about their "carbon use" is foolhardy.

 

 

 

Alstein
Reply #27 Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:07 AM

One thing I can state as part of my job is temperature recording: they have monkeyed around with it.  Often temperature sensors are placed in spots that make it seem slightly warmer than it is.

 

Personally, I still believe in climate change effects, but I'm with Brad in that I think the actual degree is unknown, and we probably have bigger problems, though if practical we should try to prevent it.  That said, any attempts we make at preventing it would be foiled by megacorps who would just outsource production to China, where they could pollute much more easily.  (large corporations can be bigger tyrants than governments)

 

I do think reasonable action should be taken, such as pollution reduction. 

Fuzzy Logic
Reply #28 Saturday, June 22, 2013 4:35 AM

Global warming/climate change is in the same category as politics and religion. You have two opposing sides who will never agree. Moreover, each will believe they are right, despite any factual evidence, because of their belief.

Fascinating to read though...

DrJBHL
Reply #29 Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:25 AM

I didn't wish to get into this, but enough is enough.

John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli wrote an excellent article: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/28/global-warming-consensus-climate-denialism-characteristics

I recommend reading it.


Your head is in the sand if you think human's lust for energy/resource consumption is NOT affecting this planet's [and our] survival.

Indeed.

psychoak
Reply #30 Saturday, June 22, 2013 5:56 AM

You should have stayed out of it.

 

97% consensus among climatologists magically turns into 97% consensus among peer reviewed papers.  That far less impressive 97% consensus turns into 30% consensus by their measure, with only a third of those papers authors making the claim that they've taken a position.  Yes, that bullshit article is misleading a 10% consensus into 97% by ignoring that two thirds of those they've decided to put in one camp or the other maintain skepticism in their leanings, and that the other 70% didn't take a position at all. 

 

Their earlier article, which they link in the new and improved, more factually inaccurate one you like, at least gave the actual information while pretending they'd found consensus.

 

Even if there was a consensus, it would be among college professors who depend on a myth to stay employed.  Still, academia couldn't possibly be furthering themselves, that would make them just as suspect as the oil companies!  Who would we turn to for our pearls of wisdom if we can't trust the tenured teacher that works 10 hours a week and bullshits his way through an article once a year...

Apheirox
Reply #31 Saturday, June 22, 2013 7:15 AM

Cauldyth

Gee, this thread isn't destined to become contentious and unpleasant.  Nope, not at all. 

 

 

This observation appears to be the only one in this thread that has any merit. The rest is just throwing opinions and/or insults around, perhaps excluding Frogboy's post.

 

My opinion on the matter is simple: Even if we can't currently prove or disprove 'global warming' once and for all, it is obvious that we humans are damaging the environment, possibly even fatally so. It is only sound to take precautions to ensure this does not continue. If the very survival of life on this planet is at stake, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Turchany
Reply #32 Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:12 AM

Frogboy
At the rate things are going, we will see maybe a 0.50 degree change by the end of the century.

You seem to forget there is a huge unstable factor buried deep in the oceans, Methane deposits that may break free from pressure if temperature rises further, making global warming so strong it will cause an Ice Age again. And noone knows what temperature will cause that to happen, and an Ice Age will surely destroy our civilization before we can adapt to it.

 

Interesting stuff about global warming that it will actually "freeze" Europe if it stops the North Atlantic Current, Europe will be much colder and climate will change drastically here. There is a theory that it will cause another glacial if the oceanic conveyor belt stops, and it causes huge drop in temperature, named (("insert proer name here")) events.

 

Fuzzy Logic
Global warming/climate change is in the same category as politics and religion.

 

Except Global Warming can be seen everywhere, in several deccades weather has changed, and in the Carpathian Basin it surely got warmer, we rarely had above 35°C for maximum temperatures, but after 2000 it became annual, like droughts...

Though it is intersting it causes some places to be colder, I am surprised, but local attributes can mean much we cannot even imagine. The Carpathian Basin for example is expected to warm more than the world average temperature, I guess there should be places that will stay at the current temp level, or even get somewhat colder.

 

Who denies man made Global warming, well, he cannot be helped anymore. He is like religious people, he denies facts, and no amount of  facts will make him "believe it". It is not a religion that it should be believed, it is like a storm, you can't just simply say there is no storm because I don't believe in them, even if I see it with my own eyes (like the stronger storms all over the world that indicate something isn't right nowadays, unnatural).

I have a friend who is religious Christian, and even goes to University, but he doesn't believe in science, I say man, it's impossible, you don't even believe in what you are studying, it's like a paradox.

 

Apheirox
Even if we can't currently prove or disprove 'global warming' once and for all

 

What about temperature records? The years after 2000 were hotter than the previous ones, and if you compare them to earlier decades the difference is bigger.

Removing huge areas of forests, changing the albedo of uncountable km2's, building huge cities that clearly have higher temperatures than the countryside, it surely has effects on global warming. Maybe not that high that models have shown, but they surely have. If someone denies global warming, he denies REALITY TOO.

Uvah
Reply #33 Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:04 AM

Turchany
If someone denies global warming, he denies REALITY TOO.

Timmaigh
Reply #34 Saturday, June 22, 2013 9:39 AM

 

Turchany



Who denies man made Global warming, well, he cannot be helped anymore. He is like religious people, he denies facts, and no amount of  facts will make him "believe it". It is not a religion that it should be believed, it is like a storm, you can't just simply say there is no storm because I don't believe in them, even if I see it with my own eyes (like the stronger storms all over the world that indicate something isn't right nowadays, unnatural).

You can sadly say the same about alarmists too. Just replace "denies" with "believes in".

And your example with storm does not apply here, as this is not about believing in/denying global warming, it is about believing/denying that said warming is primarily man-made. Which is completely different animal - you can see a storm, so its pretty difficult to deny its existence. The cause of the storm, can be disputable though, at least up until the point, where you have a complete understanding of how storms form. Do we have complete understanding of how climate works?

Anyway I read recently about some bee-related disease, where whole colonies in Europe and America went missing over last decade. Given the fact, that bees pollinate the flowers and this actually concerns food production, this  seemed to me like a far bigger issue than climate change. The likelyhood of this being caused by humans seems bigger than in case of climate change as well.

 

 

Jafo
Reply #35 Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:14 AM

Timmaigh
as this is not about believing in/denying global warming, it is about believing/denying that said warming is primarily man-made.

Actually...you have that arse-about...

People are questioning 'global warming' as a concept/reality, not whether or not if so it's due to human action.

Human impact upon the global environment is unquestionable.  It's simple fact.

Whether or not it's negatively impacting is also beyond doubt.  Simply count the number of species of animals 'extincting' each year.... the culling of old-growth rainforests - the 'lungs of the planet'.... you don't even have to include fractionation of gas ...or the odd EXXon Valdez or two... the whales [that manage to escape the Japanese harpoons] that beach themselves for 'no apparent' reason.

None of that can be debated.  There IS no opposite 'truth'.

Just because good old 'mother nature' keeps avoiding the noose and prolongs/confuses scientists' expectations of 'effect' doesn't mean it isn't happening....just happening in spite of man's attempts to computer-model it.

Perhaps it'll take 50 more years to average 1 or 2 degrees more .... but the TINIEST increases will impact humanity's fragile ecosystem....whilst the population continues to escalate and add yet MORE pressures.

Heck, it was back in the 1970s when people actually started to think beyond themselves and wonder....what if/when? 

Good old ZPG....

As a bright-eyed Architecture student in 1972 I can recall all the debates about urban decentralisation .... natural resources.... recycling ...all sorts of socially-responsible directions the future world NEEDED to be pointed at...

All came to [mostly] nothing....the GOD of Capitalism saw to that.

So....40 years later....where am I at?  No dramas....good old ego is fine....the Planet will at least outlive me....so...like all other individual entities out there....I don't really care.

Timmaigh
Reply #36 Saturday, June 22, 2013 10:38 AM

 No, i dont have it arse-about.

And we are not discussing "human impact upon the global environment". Its all about human impact upon climate change/warming. Which is hardly a fact. 

EDIT:

"Whether or not it's negatively impacting is also beyond doubt. Simply count the number of species of animals 'extincting' each year.... the culling of old-growth rainforests - the 'lungs of the planet'.... you don't even have to include fractionation of gas ...or the odd EXXon Valdez or two... the whales [that manage to escape the Japanese harpoons] that beach themselves for 'no apparent' reason.

None of that can be debated. There IS no opposite 'truth'."

None of that is debated here and denying human made climate change does not equate to denying all that.

EDIT no. 2:

"Just because good old 'mother nature' keeps avoiding the noose and prolongs/confuses scientists' expectations of 'effect' doesn't mean it isn't happening....just happening in spite of man's attempts to computer-model it."

So you decided to ignore any inconsistencies in current empirical evidence pointing out its maybe not so hot, as it may seem, and simply believe that the warming is simply happening and it is a man´s fault?

BTW did you really have such profound debates with your schoolmates back in the 70s? 

 

 

Jafo
Reply #37 Saturday, June 22, 2013 11:09 AM

Timmaigh
Its all about human impact upon climate change/warming. Which is hardly a fact.

Still arse-about, I'm afraid.....

The negativity in this thread is about the actual concept of 'global warming'.  Look at the OP....read the OP...."what happened to Global Warming?".  It says it right there.

It didn't say 'human impact upon climate change...."   You said that....

...in #36, hence the quote....

As for 'none of that is debated here..."  - why not?  Are you making a ruling?

The only topics verboten in 'Everything else' are Politics and Religion.... both of which create vehement adversities/adversaries which are unacceptable within these forums, that's all...

 

Jafo
Reply #38 Saturday, June 22, 2013 11:19 AM

Timmaigh
BTW did you really have such profound debates with your schoolmates back in the 70s?

Yes, probably before you were born...and no, this generation did NOT invent cogent thought.

I spent the 60's, along with millions of others expecting it ALL to be snuffed out if and when some blithering idiot pushed a button [on EITHER side of the cold war....it didn't matter who - both 'sides' were equally lethal].

I spent the 70's naively thinking I could 'make a difference' - hence studying Architecture. [and thankfully missing conscription]. A lot of people thought they could.

These days I just watch each successive generation sober up too....

LightStar
Reply #39 Saturday, June 22, 2013 11:59 AM

the whales [that manage to escape the Japanese harpoons] that beach themselves for 'no apparent' reason.

That one was figured out Paul  These beaching of whales and dolphins occurrences over the past few years are the result of man, specifically Naval forces mainly of the US, testing advanced sonar devices without having enough brains in their heads to consider that marine life could be affected. They didn't even care enough to think about it at all.

The stupidity of the human race once again rears its ugly head.

Timmaigh
Reply #40 Saturday, June 22, 2013 12:24 PM



Quoting Timmaigh, reply 36Its all about human impact upon climate change/warming. Which is hardly a fact.

Still arse-about, I'm afraid.....

The negativity in this thread is about the actual concept of 'global warming'.  Look at the OP....read the OP...."what happened to Global Warming?".  It says it right there.

It didn't say 'human impact upon climate change...."   You said that....

...in #36, hence the quote....

As for 'none of that is debated here..."  - why not?  Are you making a ruling?

The only topics verboten in 'Everything else' are Politics and Religion.... both of which create vehement adversities/adversaries which are unacceptable within these forums, that's all...

 

Well, no, i did not mean to do any rulings. You are free to talk about whatever you want.

You just reacted to my post, which was a reaction to post of Turchany, which clearly dealt mainly with the global warming, not environment pollution in general. I thought majority of the posts concentrated predominantly on that particular thing. 

In regard to the warming itself, i was always under impression, that the whole confict between "alarmists" and "denialists" is not about whether its really or getting warmer or not, rather whether this is man-made thing and therefore there should be certain steps made to stop it. 

Regarding architecture, its interesting and bit of funny. I mean, how you wanted to make a difference. I guess this is one of those signs of differences between our generations. I studied architecture solely cause i had a talent for drawing, i did not even know at 18 years of age, whether i want or do not want to study it. There were no such noble reasons behind it and i pretty much doubt any of my schoolmates were any different. Perhaps unlike me majority of them had actually at least clear, that they really want to be architects, but personally i think they just wanted to succeed at life in general and that was about it, as far as their motives go.

Then again, maybe neither you nor me do not really represent, what our generations are all about.

 

 

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!

Articles Filters

Category:
View:
Search:
Apply



walnut3