Who actually cares about "global warming"? And is cutting CO2 important?

[nota]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer

We can go on and quote various scientific journals and research but the point is even scientists are not certain.

Through quoting the most reputable scientific research available, specifically THE most authoritative, comprehensive and conclusive study ever conducted on this subject, we can be certain of one thing:

Originally Posted by NASA

"Over the time period of our survey, the ice sheet as a whole was certainly losing mass, and the mass loss increased by 75 per cent in 10 years,” the study said.

"Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it's losing more,"

the continent had a net loss of about 196 billion tonnes of ice in 2006, up from 112 billion tonnes in 1996.

Which is the complete opposite of what you implied, and continue to.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer

Next your going to say all glaciers are melting, and that Antartica is loosing its ice mass, and that the extinction rate of all animals is going up, and that the Sahara desert is expanding, that our sea levels are dramatically rising (faster than it has been for the last 6,000 years), global crop failures, El-Nino events, and that computer models are proving all of this. Well simply, computer models cannot prove anything. A prediction can never be proof. Any topic and data can be caused by a thousand different reasons. How can we even claim to "know" nature.

Lol, all glaciers are melting... they melt everyday. Antartica is losing its ice mass, and the sea level is rising... because of Antartica losing more ice than usual. Btw this isn't a prediction, its a well educated guess by a scientist. Tell me why would an ice pack lose more ice than usual? The simple answer is global warming..

[Sledgehammer]

From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 C per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold
Doran, T. T., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, J. E., Fountain, A. G., McKnight, D.M, Moorhead, D. L., Virginia, R. A., Wall, D. D., Clow, G. D., Fritsen, C. D., McKay, C.P, and Parsons, A. D., 2002 "Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem responce,"
Nature p. 415: 517-20

Both Satellite data and ground station show slight cooling over the last 20 years.
Comisi, J. C., 2000 "Variablility and trends in antarctic surface tempuratures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements,"
Journal of Climate p.13: 1674-96

Side-Looking radar measurements show West Antarctic ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.
Joughin, L., and Tulaczyk, S., 2002, "Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica," Science p.259:476-80

Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has increased.
Thompson, D. W. J., and Solomon, S., 2002 "Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change," Science p.296:895-99

Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979
Liu, J., Curry, J. A., and Martinson, D. G., 2004, "Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability," Geophysical Research Letters p.31: 10.1029/2003 GLO18732

The greater part of Antarcitca experiences a longer sea-ice season, lasting 21 days longer than it did in 1979.
Pakinson, C. L., 2002, "Trends in the length of the southern Ocean sea-ice season, 1979-99," Annals of Glaciology p.34:435-40

Less Antarctic ice has melted today than occurred during the last interglacial.
Anderson, J. B., and Andrews, J. T., 1999, "Radiocarbon constraints on ice sheet advance and retreat in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica," Geology p.27:179-82

Anybody can come up with scientific studies to show only the results that they are looking for. I believe that global warming is occuring and that problems will come of it, I just dont see that we can possibly constrain nature to the point where it can be controlled, and if we could, why we should. Nature NEVER EVER stays at a status quo. Its a constantly changing system with so many variables and chaos that even our educated guesses are constantly quite off the mark. In 1988, a prominent climatologist "predicted" that our temputures would increase by .35 C over the next ten years. Actuall increase was .11 C giving a 300% error rate. When can a +-300% "Prediction" ever be accaptable, and that was for a short ten year stint. "The forcings that drive long-term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change" James Hansen. And finally a quote from Jurassic Park, "Life will find a way".

[Matra et Alpine]

Originally Posted by Sledgehammer

a prominent climatologist "predicted" that our temperatures would increase by .35 C over the next ten years. Actuall increase was .11 C giving a 300% error rate. When can a +-300% "Prediction" ever be accaptable,

That is a typical abuse of statistics that causes the "confusion".

Like I loved the earlier quote with "Mass loss increased" ... how many "Ordinary folks" will think that means the mass when UP ..ie they only grasp "increase" and not percentages

Anyway, If the temperature range predicted was 100 to 100.35 and it only turned out to be 100.11 then that's a 0.003% error. If the temperature range was -20 to -20.35 then in that case -20.11 is still only a 0.01% error. Is the error on the difference or the end point ??

So depends on who wants to use the "data" and how.
SOme of them are deliberate mis-truths btw on BOTH sides

[Sledgehammer]

Originally Posted by Matra et Alpine

That is a typical abuse of statistics that causes the "confusion".

Like I loved the earlier quote with "Mass loss increased" ... how many "Ordinary folks" will think that means the mass when UP ..ie they only grasp "increase" and not percentages

Anyway, If the temperature range predicted was 100 to 100.35 and it only turned out to be 100.11 then that's a 0.003% error. If the temperature range was -20 to -20.35 then in that case -20.11 is still only a 0.01% error. Is the error on the difference or the end point ??

Statistics was a fun course in college. I remember the professor telling us a joke on the first day.
"If you ask a math professor what 2+2 equals he will immediately answer 4. Go to a physics professor and ask the same question and you will get the same answer. You will get the sam answer from a chemist, an english professor and a psychology professor. However when you ask a statistics professory what 2+2 is, he will think for a moment and answer "what would you like it to be.""

So depends on who wants to use the "data" and how.
SOme of them are deliberate mis-truths btw on BOTH sides

Obviously. The U.S. wouldnt fund NASA millions of dollars to carry out research to show that global warming was not a major threat. The same practices of research can be seen in nearly every science.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Global warming is just a theory used to explain these changes because we don't know what we've done to the environment..

[key1710]

Bring global warming on lets all buy Range Rovers!

[Sledgehammer]

Originally Posted by #1 Mustang Fan

Global warming is just a theory used to explain these changes because we don't know what we've done to the environment..

As far as increasing CO2 emissions, we have done a part. The second thing that I have noticed during reading is that temperatures in cities are going up. This can be seen as a trend but is definetly not the case in many cities. Population is less of a factor. What seems to raise the temperatures is the increased use of manufacturing which affects local climate in a few different ways. One manufacturing is almost guarenteed to produce heat along with gas's. A second comes from radiant heat from the color of the building and its surroundings (blacktop, black tar roofs). This city heating is surface temperature rise and is not significantly coorelated (as of yet) with atmospheric temperature rising, which we have seen little of since the beggings of historic record.

[MadMax13]

I love the way the vast majority of experts say global warming is a fact, along with our massive contribution, yet everyone argues the fact simply because a few experts, who happen to work for oil companies, power plants, etc. say otherwise, oh, and the government. All you had to have done is pay attention in science class, and possess a fair amount of common sense, to see that global warming will occur, hell, ****ing home ec proves it...

[SlickHolden]

Originally Posted by IBrake4Rainbows

Global warming and the Ice caps melting could be two completely separate phenomena that people are linking out of convenience and political gain.

However that doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing something about it.

Guess that melting ice has got to go somewhere, Some the size of states.

But i think some will only see it happening when it's to late, Like the day after Tomorrow.
When i see birds moving in large flocks all types of breeds I'm ****ing going that way!.

[john14]

We had 15 consecutive days of temperatures of 35 degrees celsius or above during March (in Adelaide, Australia). Many people would think global warming is very real just based on weather patterns like that.

[jugga]

tooo many lazy people in big cars with massive engines they dont need. sort them out and give me an nsx with race fuel
too little is done about energy saving and recycling etc if politicians want to moan do something about it.

[Homem de Gelo]

I do.
I'd gladly park my car and ride a bycicle if it things weren't so distant here in Brasilia.

[CapnBoost]

I'd like to see any report anyone can find about polar bears drowning. That has to be my most irritating claim by global warming eco-nazis. All i can find is stuff like "overestimated" or "polar bear expert wonders where they got their numbers" or "don't rush to judgement" etc.

I'm thoroughly convinced that polar bears were chosen because of one photograph taken by a national geographic photographer, and the fact that we think polar bears are cute.
We know that warming trends also tend to align with increases in human productivity, and that the majority of carbon dioxide isn't processed by trees at all, but by algae in the ocean. I don't like the focus on the little picture and the allegation that it has global impact.

What is everyone's plan to help developing nations industrialize? They're going to be burning dinojuice by the 1000's of barrels unless you all can come up with some magically cheap geothermal, solar, etc. power.

[MadMax13]

The problem primarily lies in the US, China and India, they are the biggest polluters. When the gas prices spiked people all over the started getting smaller cars, people in the US just bitched about the prices and kept their Hummers and quad cab, extended bed turbo diesels, the Chinese think the world revolves around their advancement and India just lacks the technology, which is no excuse...