I've got hope. Warmer air has a greater capacity to absorb and carry water vapor than cool air. As the world warms I'm hoping it just gets real cloudy 1. More clouds will raise the albedo of the planet and reflect more short wave radiation before it gets trapped as long wave radiation; mitigating some of the effects of global warming. 2. Holding more water in the atmosphere in the form of vapor may mitigate the rise in the oceans (though it takes a lot of vapor to equal a little water) Basically the whole world would be sort of be like Houston.
probably when I read the Lady Gaga thread and people referred to shim as "talented". I admit it, I haven't been the same since. I've lost a lot of faith in the human race.
I got that you were being sarcastic. Unfortunately, you sounded a lot like MojoMan, and he seems to be serious when he says it.
But seriously, please don't sink down to the "grumble grumble *insert inane complaint here* liberals grumble liberals" schtick. You're a much better poster than that, I think. Of course, you could have been just joking around, in which case I'm a twit. A perfectly plausible alternative, I admit.
Mojo, Your article here doesn't dispute global warming - in fact most of the conclusions support that it is still trending upwards. There are always short term flucuations, don't you agree? And yes, this does make climate models look a bit more shaky. What does this really mean? That predicting global warming is not as easy as people made it out to be, doesn't mean it's not happening. I agree with you that we shouldn't try to cut CO2 gases or anything like that...as it's a waste of time right now. But for different reasons. I think GW is happening, and it's man-made. But I think trying to cut CO2 is a strategy of failure. It will never happen. And even if it does, it will make this recession look like a golden age. What we need to do is adopt to a warming earth.
I wasn't sure either. Sarcasm is a B to get across online. Actually, the only reason I didn't completely believe you were serious is because I am somewhat familiar with your stance on these issues and that post didn't match up. :grin:
I have answered this line of questioning enough times now here in this forum that I have actually lost count. Several of those times I believe I have answered the question in response to posts made by you. It is important that we distinguish between global warming and anthropogenic global warming (AGW). They are two different ideas. Here is a link to one of the posts where I discussed this at some length: http://bbs.clutchfans.com/showpost.php?p=4829150&postcount=18 I will re-post the entire post again here in this thread if necessary, but for now I will just see if we can get by with the link.
You responded, but you did not refute. The data that AGW is happening is pretty strong. Your response that humans only account for a small fraction of the CO2 release doesn't make sense because many dramatic changes can be affected by minor concentration changes.
Again, if people go to the thread I linked on page 1, you'll see that single post Mojo just referenced, and then you can read in the rest of the thread the straight dope, and you can see him not really respond to the detailed refutations. It's so boring. Just post this in the same thread. (Or hey, someone could merge them.) If you expect some model of the global climate to fit precisely year to year data or decade-to-decade data, you completely misunderstand modeling and data-fitting. That's true for all scientific data. But the intellectual terrorist wins when he gets people to respond. My bad, again.
Since I started a new thread here today, I want to stay on the topic of the new thread. Scientists are baffled by the time out in the global warming trend. None of the climate prediction models used by scientists who are proponents of AGW theory predicted this downturn, but instead they predicted steady increases in the warming trend. These are the models that are used to justify cap and trade and other program that will raise energy prices dramatically and cost our economy trillions of dollars. Do we want to invest trillions of dollars of economic capital on proposals that are based on climatic projection models that we know do not work? It appears quite obvious that this would be a remarkably unwise thing to do.
I'll take the under, I don't know how many more mojo man foils there are but i don't think that many. It is friday pm however.
You responded to posts, but never gave any sort of refutation of the data, you just gave continued references to ten years worth of data within the larger data set that we are actually talking about with regards to AGW. You chose to ignore the larger data set in order to try and obfuscate the issue by speculating as to the reasons for the short term change in the warming cycle. This article is a continued attempt to obfuscate in exactly the same way. You are continuing to put your fingers in your ears and hum so that you can ignore the scientific community in favor of your politicized data cherry pickers.
Well there's that, but what I was hoping would make it obvious is the use of "hypothetical" as "proof" . The word "might" right next to "proof", too. But then again, some people actually do that seriously so I can see the confusion.
I'll take the under also, even referencing the last MaJorgeMan GW thread. He only has two bullets in that gun, and he's already fired them in this thread (not to say he won't pick them up, dust them off, and reload the same two bullets).
The information and data that I have presented speaks for itself. It is not dependent on your data, but presented in addition to your data. I am not committed to refuting the AGW data as much as I am providing an additional perspective on this topic. The AGW data is selectively chosen to support the AGW hypothesis. It provides a very myopic, skewed and heavily massaged view of the topic. But it is only a tightly restricted slice of the larger picture. I am sharing some of the rest of the story. That is why some people here want this discussion to be silenced. The data used to support AGW theory is only persuasive if it is presented in isolation, without any dissenting voices. However, people who share my perspective have no problem with an open discussion of this topic. Let everyone's voice be heard, and then let the chips fall where they may. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Only tyrants and liars are afraid of the truth. Put your information out there, by all means. And I will do the same. It is not me who is putting his fingers in his ears. It is you and those others who refuse to consider the larger picture, and the broader body of facts and truths that are relevant to this discussion.
There was a thread a while back about ocean currents and a cooling trend that will last for 30 years or so. So "global warming" will probably halt for a while. I'm not saying that carbon emissions don't heat up the planet. Just saying there is currently a counteracting variable. This could very well just be a bump on the long term trend.
I think you're adding something to the discussion. And you're right in examining alternatives. It wasn't so long ago that the apocalyptic environmental movement said the end was coming tomorrow. The Green Revolution seems to have ended or delayed those nightmarish visions of total global starvation. That said, it's the spirit of your argument that I personally object to. It represents a defense of a lifestyle and culture that cannot be sustained. You may be right in the short run about global warming (of course, in my opinion, there's a very slight possibility, but still out there) but if it isn't that, it'll be the global diminishing of biodiversity or something else that will get us. I don't think technology can keep pace forever with the voracious demand of developed countries. Either we learn to live with less or we accept the fact that within 200 years, we have affected a global equilibrium that has stood for at least thousands of years beforehand for our human ancestors.
