My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by goku

if, there is global warming, it's natural.

Oh Goku, <sigh>...

CLIMATOLOGY 101:

The Earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling based on factors such as solar exposure (orbital path), precession, surface albedo, large catastaphic events (volcanos, meteors, etc.), etc...

What I, any many others, believe we are seeing currently is a trend towards a higher and higher rate of increase in global average temperatures. It is proven that anthropogenic CO2 is a contributor of greenhouse gases. It is proven that CO2, of any origin, produces a net warming effect in the atmosphere when exposed to sunlight. It allows certain frequencies through and disallows other wavelengths from escaping the atmosphere.

In summary, yes, the Earth is in a "warm" period (ie not a glacial period), but the rate of temperature increase is alarming, whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not. Read this thread all the way through, goku, and then tell me where you think the logic is unfounded.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

if, there is global warming, it's natural.

Goku, you are a perfect example of someone, like myself, who is not a climate scientist. So therefore, when we hear scientists come along and tell us that the average temperature of the Earth is rising faster than usual, we have to decide what to believe, right?

Now on one hand you have experts, who have spent countless hours studying the atmosphere, using highly advanced equipment, satelites in orbit, deep ice cores that give us a window into atmospheric conditions thousands of years into the past, the latest technology. Many different scientists focusing on different aspects of our global climate, studying, collecting data, researching, analyzing, writing reports, developing models, devoting countless hours in an effort to understand what is happening and why.

On the other hand, you have talk radio entertainers, who have absolutely no clue of what they're talking about. They are not scientists, they conduct no research, examine no data, develop no models, or provide any reports. But they are good at being convincing. They are good at twisting information to make people think that there is a controversy about global warming. They appeal to our sense of skepticism. They have an agenda.

Since we are not climate scientists, who does it make more sense to choose to believe?

The answer is simple.

[Zythryn]

Goku, you happened to find the world's biggest 'strawman'.
No scientist has ever claimed that there wasn't natural fluxuations in earth's climate.
The fact that the climate has changed in the past naturally doesn't disprove that man has a hand in the current climate change, any more than the fact that forests have burned before mankind was around disproves man has been responsible for some forest fires.

[goku]

first of all, if you believe evolution then you know things change.
second, where is the law that says the earth can't warm this fast?
third, the only way to study what affects climate would be to create many other earths and test them for billions of years.

fourth, where did the first expert come from and who made him or her an expert?
the last one may not be part of the first three, just a thought i had.

one more thing,
how do scientists know when they have run the correct test and have the right answers?

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by goku

first of all, if you believe evolution then you know things change.

Evolution is not synonymous with change when viewed in it's proper biological context. It is also not about belief, it is about understanding, and recognizing how nature actually behaves.

Originally Posted by goku

second, where is the law that says the earth can't warm this fast?

There is no such law, nor has anybody suggested there is. Regardless how fast the climate is changing, there still must be some method of action leading to that change. To suggest that the climate is simply warming quickly without making attempts to understand why is simply lazy and ignorant.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, all current information points to the fact that human activity is the single largest contributing factor right now to the warming trend. Saying this in no way implies that the Earth does not go through natural cycles and fluctuations. It simply shows that all current information available indicates that the trend we are currently experiencing is not the result of this natural variability.

Originally Posted by goku

third, the only way to study what affects climate would be to create many other earths and test them for billions of years.

That is simply untrue, and you've also spelled the word "effects" incorrectly. I advise you educate yourself on climatology somewhat before making such invalid and ignorant statements in the future. It really hurts your argument, and deteriorates the position about which you are trying to convince others.

You will find that nearly everyone here is willing to keep an open mind and view new data and will adjust their perceptions in the face of new evidence. However, you don't have any evidence to support your point, so you are left doing a bunch of hand-waving and trying to present strawman arguments (where you misrepresent the position of others then argue against that misrepresentation instead of their true position).

You are convincing nobody with this nonsense above, and I encourage you to try harder.

Originally Posted by goku

fourth, where did the first expert come from and who made him or her an expert?

Expert is not some binary state where someone either is or is not. It is simply a subjective label we apply to someone who has invested themselves in learning more, in studying with those who have also invested themselves in learning more, until finally they each know a tremendous amount, and the knowledge they each accumulate builds on itself in an exponential way.

With that said, I would like to ask what relevance your fourth question truly has to the issue under discussion. It sounds more like a trolling question, but I'm being cautious to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Originally Posted by goku

the last one may not be part of the first three, just a thought i had.

Ah... Thanks for the answer to my last question. My suggestion to you, if you are truly interested, is that you seriously consider studying abiogenesis or even cosmology, as those fields at their heart are asking "where things come from."

Originally Posted by goku

one more thing,
how do scientists know when they have run the correct test and have the right answers?

Scientists do not work in a binary state of "right" and "wrong." They approximate reality as closely as possible within margins of error. The information we have about global climate change is very well supported across multiple research modalities and the margins of error are quite slim. The correctness is supported with mountains of evidence gathered over decades of research. The science behind climate is reductionist, where faulty ideas are consistently rejected, new ideas presented, and the ones that don't work are discarded... until finally what you're left with are all of the correct ideas and concepts which most closely fit with empirical observations (a bit like natural selection, actually).

There are some big words in that last sentence above, so let me dumb it down a bit for those who may not read about this issue, and who don't really know any more than what they've heard regurgitated repeatedly on AM talk radio...

They know they are right when their models consistently and accurately align with past observations and accurately predict future trends.


My biggest point to you is that you would learn quite a lot about this issue by spending just a little time studying it. It's truly fascinating and worth the effort. You are doing yourself a great injustice if you simply repeat like a sheep the already debunked sentiments you keep hearing from the denialists. Also, if you truly learned about it, you would be much better equipped to present contradictory views and show us why your views are correct. In fact, more than doing yourself a favor by learning more, you'd be doing all of us a favor by sharing that knowledge you acquire.

Be true to yourself by trying to understand the true mechanisms by which nature operates, and your world will be both more enriched and more beautiful.

[goku]

i don't get my ideas from talk radio, i like listening but rarely have the chance.
even if we have a thousand years of climate records, i feel that is small when compaired to billions of years.

i started to spell effects with an E but an A just looked better

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by goku

even if we have a thousand years of climate records, i feel that is small when compaired to billions of years.

When compared to billions of years, that IS small. When compared to the expanse of human life on planet Earth, however, it's rather significant.

Choose your reference frames carefully. They matter...

...Especially when considering how we can choose to a) continue harming ourselves, our offspring, as well as other non-human life, or b) study the process and change our behaviors as a result of these newly acquired understandings.


You can choose to believe anything that you want to. I just ask that you at least recognize the difference between lies and truths. Be well.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by goku

even if we have a thousand years of climate records, i feel that is small when compaired to billions of years.

Sure, but that's not the point is it?

Do you even believe global warming is occurring at all? If so, what do you think is causing it? There has to be a reason, right? The rate of increase is abnormal compared to historical data. Why is it happening? Why is all the reasearch conducted by scientists over the years not convincing to you? What's your issue?

Cedars acknowledges warming but isn't concerned. Turtle acknowledges warming but seems to feel that human causation isn't a sufficient explanation by itself, he doesn't trust the mathematical models being used, and is hard at work trying to show that underwater vocanism could be a major factor.

You just say it's natural. Well, the rate of change is too fast, which is why scientist believe it's not natural. What is your issue with the science? What is your explanation for the rapid warming? What, if anything, can you show us?

[Essay]

Originally Posted by goku

i don't get my ideas from talk radio, i like listening but rarely have the chance.

So where do you get your ideas?

[goku]

Originally Posted by REASON

Sure, but that's not the point is it?

Do you even believe global warming is occurring at all? If so, what do you think is causing it? There has to be a reason, right? The rate of increase is abnormal compared to historical data. Why is it happening? Why is all the reasearch conducted by scientists over the years not convincing to you? What's your issue?

Cedars acknowledges warming but isn't concerned. Turtle acknowledges warming but seems to feel that human causation isn't a sufficient explanation by itself, he doesn't trust the mathematical models being used, and is hard at work trying to show that underwater vocanism could be a major factor.

You just say it's natural. Well, the rate of change is too fast, which is why scientist believe it's not natural. What is your issue with the science? What is your explanation for the rapid warming? What, if anything, can you show us?

that's alot of questions.
nope, i don't think there's any global warming.
i think it's important to question scientists as a system of checks and balances.