True cause of global warming

Since the study of climate change is scientific, what are they using as a control to test against?

Oh wait...
 
The proof of global warming is easier to see than most people will admit, specially if they make money studying it.

All one must to see the the proof is to see what is happening to our ice fields, every glacier has a moraine wall in front of it. As the glacier surges forward, it pushes that wall out to sea, then as we warm up the glacier will retreat and then it will surge forward again as we pass thru a mini ice age, and retreat again. The proof of continued warming is the fact that the most resent walls are never ahead of the previous walls.

AS far as what man has added or not, is the simple fact the earth was warming, and cooling, causing the glaciers to surge and retreat, prior to mans existence.

the easiest glaciers to study are the ones in South East Alaska, In the late 50's Portage Glacier was with in a half mile of Turn Again Arm, now it has retreated near 7 miles up the canyon and out of sight of the interpretation center built on its latest moraine wall.

Mendenhall Glacier, when I first saw it was at the city limits of Juneau, now it has a goodly sized lake between it and the city.

Yes the Earth is on a warming trend, but it will reverse its self some day, should we live that long.
 
EdFred said:
Since the study of climate change is scientific, what are they using as a control to test against?

Oh wait...
Click to expand...

That gets to the issue of "How do you tell if the theory is false?" It's a valid question, and one that I addressed in a post I wrote a couple of years ago:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=532125&postcount=216

I think you're right that there is a need to compare the results to something, and I think the answer is hinted at in the last sentence of the last quote in that post: "These predictions were not perfect, but they were clearly more skillful than assuming no change or some regression to the 20th C mean"
 
Jay Honeck said:
Funny how no one seems to be bitching about wanting to go back to those "Good ol' frozen days of yore..."
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what that has to do with anthropogenic global warming, since it was long before the big increase in human CO2 output.
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm not sure what that has to do with anthropogenic global warming, since it was long before the big increase in human CO2 output.
Click to expand...

Point being this: If global temperatures are rising, it's not going to be catastrophic; there will be winners, and there will be losers. It's debatable who they are, but (for example) the upper Midwest of the U.S. should be a big winner in any global warming predictions I've seen.

Humans will not dismantle the world's economic and social systems in the face of such a variable fate. The climate has changed before, it will change again, and (as always) humans (and all life in general) will change with it -- or not.
 
When the politicians give up air conditioning, I'll know they are serious. That would also have the positive effect of likely making them less inclined to sit in stuffy rooms and make extraneous and extraordinary laws.
 
Tom-D said:
The proof of global warming is easier to see than most people will admit, specially if they make money studying it.
Click to expand...

There are people who make money trying to disprove it too.

AS far as what man has added or not, is the simple fact the earth was warming, and cooling, causing the glaciers to surge and retreat, prior to mans existence.
Click to expand...

That proves that natural causes of climate change exist, but it doesn't prove anything one way or the other about whether human causes exist. (The two are not mutually exclusive.)
 
Jay Honeck said:
Point being this: If global temperatures are rising, it's not going to be catastrophic; there will be winners, and there will be losers. It's debatable who they are, but (for example) the upper Midwest of the U.S. should be a big winner in any global warming predictions I've seen.

Humans will not dismantle the world's economic and social systems in the face of such a variable fate. The climate has changed before, it will change again, and (as always) humans (and all life in general) will change with it -- or not.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right.
 
How many people in this thread approve of the death penalty?
 
Palmpilot said:
That proves that natural causes of climate change exist, but it doesn't prove anything one way or the other about whether human causes exist. (The two are not mutually exclusive.)
Click to expand...

I'll give you that thought, seeing we are eliminating the largest O2 producing areas in the world, with out any thought on replacing the O2 production.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
How many people in this thread approve of the death penalty?
Click to expand...

Only when the person starts a thread like this with malice aforethought.

If it was because they were being silly, then a simple amputation of the hands would be fine with me.

If they make some silly irrelevant post about Krill/Krell confusion, then they deserve the undying gratitude of all of mankind for not taking threads like this seriously.
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't know too much about O2 depletion, but I did find one article that estimates that oxygen levels have only decreased by 0.1%
of preindustrial levels.

http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/
Click to expand...

Being exceedingly lazy, I'm going to copy and paste from a post I made to a Yahoo airship forum several years ago on not only the subject of oxygen depletion, but my opinion on global warming debates like this one.

-----------------

1d. Re: Oxygen tax
Posted by: "Jim Logajan" JamesL@... jimlogajan
Date: Sun Dec 9, 2007 12:40 pm ((PST))

paul denton wrote:
> [...] these are facts that are scientifically proven:
>
> 1. 30-40% OF THE WORLDS OXYGEN COMES FROM THE RAINFOREST.

I'm not sure if that number makes sense. Several years ago I was asked
by Bob Freitas (among others he asked) to review a paper of his titled
"Some Limits to Global Ecophagy by Biovorous Nanoreplicators, with
Public Policy Recommendations"[1]. In it, he determined that one could
burn the entire biosphere and consume only ~0.5% of atmospheric oxygen.
That is probably because the oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere is a
result of the action of cyanobacteria in the early history of the
earth.[2][3] Much of what was "reduced" is now buried in sedimentary
rock (just to be clear - this is not referring to fossil fuels.)

On the other hand, all I have is a lowly BSc in physics. I cannot claim
any certainty of knowledge with regard to global warming. I do not know
how anyone not trained in climatology, paleoclimatology, or even college
level physics can go about making claims one way or another on this
subject. Applied physics is a vast field and it isn't clear why some
people have no problem making authoritative claims or counter-arguments
on the subject but would probably couldn't debate General Relativity,
String Theory, or Quantum Electrodynamics if their life depended on it
-- unless they had web sites handy to grab "talking points" off of.
The level of math and/or experimental observation of those latter
subjects is probably comparable to that of climate modeling and
prediction. And yet many now claim expertise on climate models. Hmmm.

Jim

[1] http://www.rfreitas.com/Nano/Ecophagy.htm
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_Catastrophe
 
Palmpilot said:
I don't know too much about O2 depletion, but I did find one article that estimates that oxygen levels have only decreased by 0.1%
of preindustrial levels.

http://blogcritics.org/scitech/article/atmospheric-oxygen-levels-fall-as-carbon/
Click to expand...

You can view that in two ways. man has little effect on the atmosphere, or .1% is a big deal..

The major point is simple, the rain forests of south America and the Southeast Asia are our life's breath, and they are disappearing by square miles per day, with no replacement this will cause big problems to future generations.

Does it have any effect on warming? maybe maybe not, but it does have an effect on the quality of our air.
 
denverpilot said:
SZ SZ SZ SZ SZ. Over.
Click to expand...

Nah. My point here isn't really about the death penalty or global warming, but rather about the thought processes at work.

All's I'm saying is that if somebody's OK with the death penalty, then I don't see why somebody would challenge global warming.

They're both determined on the basis of facts known at the time, as researched and decided by a presumptively impartial set of decisionmakers, who are presented with various versions of the facts and the theories applicable to those facts by advocates pushing for one conclusion or another; the conclusions are then subjected to years if not decades of peer review by those who are presumptively knowledgeable in the area, and dissenting voices need not be listened to in this process; a final judgment is then made on the basis of what all of the foregoing things have led to, but sometimes outcry is so great that the judgment is not not acted on, even if sometimes the outcry is wholly frivolous, and then a great big catfight ensues, and the catfight distracts from the bigger issues of: (a) whether what is being done in this particular instance the right thing; and (b) whether the overall process is the right thing. Somewhere in all of that, the fight stops being about what is right, and instead turns into being about the fight, and then the whole thing just gets stupid and I decide that all we do is argue for the sake of arguing, with nobody being interested in learning a damned thing and only interested in who can shout the loudest.

I saw something hinting at that concept a few weeks ago, that triggered those thoughts.
 
Tom-D said:
You can view that in two ways. man has little effect on the atmosphere, or .1% is a big deal..

The major point is simple, the rain forests of south America and the Southeast Asia are our life's breath, and they are disappearing by square miles per day, with no replacement this will cause big problems to future generations.

Does it have any effect on warming? maybe maybe not, but it does have an effect on the quality of our air.
Click to expand...


Sorry, Tom, but while the Holy Rainforest is being reduced, other areas are being replanted.

For example, in Pennsylvania we have as much forest now as we did in 1780 (over 65% of the surface) with about 20% more in cropland.

Old growth forests are essentially sterile beneath the canopy.
 
dmccormack said:
Sorry, Tom, but while the Holy Rainforest is being reduced, other areas are being replanted.

For example, in Pennsylvania we have as much forest now as we did in 1780 (over 65% o

f the surface) with about 20% more in cropland.

Old growth forests are essentially sterile beneath the canopy.
Click to expand...

In Nebraska there were no trees before man started to control the prarie fires. The fires would kill the tree seedlings. National Arbor Day Foundation was born. Now there are tens of millions of trees in NE sucking up Co2.

Then again the trees provide homes to birds and wildlife that breath and produce more Co2. ;)

Man could not possible be good for the environment could it? :mad2:
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
In Nebraska there were no trees before man started to control the prarie fires. The fires would kill the tree seedlings. Johny Appleseed ( yes, he was real) started planting trees and the Arbor Day Foundation was born. Now there are tens of millions of trees in NE sucking up Co2.

Then again the trees provide homes to birds and wildlife that breath and produce more Co2. :dunno:

Man could not possible be good for the environment could it? :mad2:
Click to expand...

Precisely.

Here's the crux of the divide: Humans are or are not a symbiotic part of the environment.
 
The man made global warming myth was created to justify research grants, carbon taxes, Co2 regulation, and to control and slow economic development in wealthy countries. It has nothing to do with protecting the environment, and everthing to do with wealth distribution and socialism.

Man made global warming is the greatest man made myth.
 
Last edited:
Palmpilot said:
Right now there is a scientific consensus that the theory of gravity is correct, in spite of observations to the contrary, yet we still view gravitational science as being strong enough to trust our lives to it.
Click to expand...

Nobody talks about a "scientific consensus" in such matters. They don't have to. There's evidence and a falsifiable theory.

Tell me, what evidence is there that could falsify the AGW theory?
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Nah. My point here isn't really about the death penalty or global warming, but rather about the thought processes at work.

All's I'm saying is that if somebody's OK with the death penalty, then I don't see why somebody would challenge global warming.

They're both determined on the basis of facts known at the time, as researched and decided by a presumptively impartial set of decisionmakers, who are presented with various versions of the facts and the theories applicable to those facts by advocates pushing for one conclusion or another; the conclusions are then subjected to years if not decades of peer review by those who are presumptively knowledgeable in the area, and dissenting voices need not be listened to in this process; a final judgment is then made on the basis of what all of the foregoing things have led to, but sometimes outcry is so great that the judgment is not not acted on, even if sometimes the outcry is wholly frivolous, and then a great big catfight ensues, and the catfight distracts from the bigger issues of: (a) whether what is being done in this particular instance the right thing; and (b) whether the overall process is the right thing. Somewhere in all of that, the fight stops being about what is right, and instead turns into being about the fight, and then the whole thing just gets stupid and I decide that all we do is argue for the sake of arguing, with nobody being interested in learning a damned thing and only interested in who can shout the loudest.

I saw something hinting at that concept a few weeks ago, that triggered those thoughts.
Click to expand...

OK, if I support the DP because I believe that it has a zero recidivism rate for those upon whom it has been imposed, that support is well grounded in the literature and data available. I'm happy to look at additional data that would contradict this, however, at present, I'm not aware of any contrary data.

My theory is both supported by the current evidence, and falsifiable.
 
Geico266 said:
The man made global warming myth was created to justify research grants, carbon taxes, Co2 regulation, and to control and slow economic development in wealthy countries. It has nothing to do with protecting the environment, and everthing to do with wealth distribution and socialism.

Man made global warming is the greatest man made myth.
Click to expand...


Exactly. Just another money laundering scheme from the left. What a joke. Now that its been outed, the left still won't back down. They might as well keep saying "its for the children", over, and over again.
 
Anthony said:
Exactly. Just another money laundering scheme from the left. What a joke. Now that its been outed, the left still won't back down. They might as well keep saying "its for the children", over, and over again.
Click to expand...

I am more concerned about "Global Slowing" . We as students of aviation understand drag, and aerodynamics. Can you imagine all of the drag and thrust put on planet earth due to all of the windmill farms being put up? :yikes:

Oh the humanity!

Also, can you imagine the energy transferred into the planet if all the cars going west slammed on their brakes?

Remember, we are on a planet traveling though space. For every action there is an opposite reaction. So stomping on the brakes and putting up winds mills will affect the rotation of the planet. Global slowing! :eek:

Now send me $30 billion US tax dollars so I can property study global slowing. ;)
 
That may be a joke, but consider solar. Generally speaking, we're talking about covering vast swaths of relatively high albedo desert with dark solar panels. The energy collected by the solar panels would have been reflected back into space, and as such is adding to the AGW issue.
 
JeffDG said:
... Tell me, what evidence is there that could falsify the AGW theory?
Click to expand...
You could demonstrate that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas in a lab experiment.

You could demonstrate that CO2 is not increasing in concentration in the atmosphere through measurements.

You could demonstrate that CO2 varies due to processes other than human production by identifying and characterizing those processes.

You could demonstrate that the Earth is no warmer than we would expect from a black body at this distance from the Sun. You could demonstrate that the Earth is no warmer, on average, than the atmosphere-free moon. You could demonstrate that temperatures on Mercury and Venus are similarly dependent solely on their distance from the Sun and that Mercury is warmer than Venus.

You could identify other processes that better explain the warming seen for the past few decades. You could demonstrate that the Earth has not actually been warming.

You could create climate models that better correlate with historical climate data and consistently predict ongoing climate changes and use those models to demonstrate limited sensitivity to CO2.
-harry
 
Ken Ibold said:
It dawned on me last night that the true cause of global warming is vegetarians. They eat the plants that soak up CO2 and release O2, and leave alone the animals that soak up O2 and release CO2.

I think I need to have a big hunk of meat for dinner.
Click to expand...

I only eat Raw Organic Vegans.
 
Come on Harry! Get with the program. MMGW is so yesterday. Global slowing is the new cause celeb. Get on the band wagon for the latest fabricated money grab. This is gonna be huge! :rofl:
 
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Di-Lithium crystals.
 
JeffDG said:
OK, if I support the DP because I believe that it has a zero recidivism rate for those upon whom it has been imposed...
Click to expand...
For the purposes of this discussion, of course, the term "death penalty" represents the incremental effects of upgrading a sentence from life in prison to death.
-harry
 
JeffDG said:
OK, if I support the DP because I believe that it has a zero recidivism rate for those upon whom it has been imposed, that support is well grounded in the literature and data available. I'm happy to look at additional data that would contradict this, however, at present, I'm not aware of any contrary data.

My theory is both supported by the current evidence, and falsifiable.
Click to expand...

But that's only true if the DP is appropriately applied, which is where the issue is here.
 
mantakos said:
For the purposes of this discussion, of course, the term "death penalty" represents the incremental effects of upgrading a sentence from life in prison to death.
-harry
Click to expand...

People in prison often kill other prisoners, giving you a >0 recidivism rate.
 
JeffDG said:
People in prison often kill other prisoners, giving you a >0 recidivism rate.
Click to expand...

Again, that's immaterial to the point. The decision to impose the death penalty is where it is; and if you're OK with imposing it, I don't see how you could in good conscience even try to say "but science is different!"
 
When the AGCC loudmouths lead by example I will follow suit. Last time I checked they are flying their own planes, driving cars, using computers, etc... if its REALLY that disastrous of an issue, they would quit telling everyone what to do and just do it themselves. Until then they can STFU and quit being hypocrites.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top