Global cooling back again?

david letterman enjoys making a mockery of this topic too, saying on warm days they give al gore another oscar and on cool ones they take it back. Anyway, the earth does go on a cyclical basis for temperature. Recent data suggests that recent levels are out of the norm, but who knows.

The temperature isn't too far from the norm, it's the CO2 levels which are way way higher than anything before. And as a rule, CO2 levels tend to correlate with the temperature.

Originally Posted by RABicle

The temperature isn't too far from the norm, it's the CO2 levels which are way way higher than anything before. And as a rule, CO2 levels tend to correlate with the temperature.

Science more.

That's logic, not science. Science would be pointing out that Atmospheric CO2 reflects sunlight and heat and in fact is quite capable of causing warming.

It just occurred to me that it seems pretty silly to be referring to science as the ultimate arbiter in this debate. I mean, on the one hand, yeah, what other option do you have right? On the other, you've got scientists running research funded by the green lobby which says omg those bad people with their bad CO2 are killing the world, and you've got other scientists running research funded by people with other interests saying omg CO2 is negligible.

So talking about what Science would say at this point seems a bit like talking about what a person with multiple personality disorder might claim on any given day.

Originally Posted by Arainach

Science would be pointing out that Atmospheric CO2 reflects sunlight and heat and in fact is quite capable of causing warming.

Science more.

The scientific method is a logical and methodical application of observation. If one is to properly perform and understand science, one must have a good understanding of, and adherence to, the logic that defines it. Therefore application of logic specifically relevant to the scientific method is, by definition, science.


It should also be noted that in many complex systems, such as human biochemistry, or THE FUCKING EARTH, trends of its components derived in smaller scale observations (i.e. labs) often do not manifest themselves as directly or simply as one is naively apt to assume.

Originally Posted by Radez29

It just occurred to me that it seems pretty silly to be referring to science as the ultimate arbiter in this debate. I mean, on the one hand, yeah, what other option do you have right? On the other, you've got scientists running research funded by the green lobby which says omg those bad people with their bad CO2 are killing the world, and you've got other scientists running research funded by people with other interests saying omg CO2 is negligible.

So talking about what Science would say at this point seems a bit like talking about what a person with multiple personality disorder might claim on any given day.

You confuse science with think tanks. There is no great debate in the scientific world; the vast majority of minds and the overwhelming majority of evidence points in one direction.

Originally Posted by Arainach

You confuse science with think tanks. There is no great debate in the scientific world; the vast majority of minds and the overwhelming majority of evidence points in one direction.

True, but Radez has a good point if we take the censorship and manipulation of the media into account.

The scientific method is only good for understanding what's going on now. Philosophy is guiding our knowledge of the future based on what we know from the past.

To be honest, I'm more worried about what's going to happen when the magnetic poles of Earth switch again. Apparently we're 150,000 years overdue. What would be even worse is if we have an explosion of methane gas that escapes from pockets at the bottom of the ocean. Once ignited it would wipe out everything on the surface within seconds and create a "nuclear" winter. Or how about when that meteor might hit the Earth when it "passes by" in the next 10 years or so. It's all happened before!

Sadly, nothing in life lasts forever. Not even our planet.

Originally Posted by Arainach

You confuse science with think tanks. There is no great debate in the scientific world; the vast majority of minds and the overwhelming majority of evidence points in one direction.

The overwhelming majority in a situation where there's lots and lots of money to be made by agreeing and confirming etc etc.

Basically all I'm saying is that everything everyone is saying is suspect because of the vast, overwhelming amount of interest in the damn subject.

Which in turn means you can talk about the overwhelming majority all you want, and I can talk about social pressure, marketing, government funding and its effect on careers all I want, either of us could spin "science" to completely support either view point.

It's almost like interpreting the bible, in a somewhat ironic manner.

Originally Posted by HolyCaribou

I'm more worried about what's going to happen when the magnetic poles of Earth switch again

Our ancestors lived through magnetic reversals. Whatever happens isn't going to kill us, assuming that it has any effect other than compasses pointing south.

It would probably fuck with our communications network wildly, maybe knock out a couple of powerplants.

80% of the world would be completely unaffected, and it'd be a painful transition for us but no doomsday scenario.

Originally Posted by Interrobang

Our ancestors lived through magnetic reversals. Whatever happens isn't going to kill us, assuming that it has any effect other than compasses pointing south.

Our ancestors also didn't have any reliance on devices powered by electrons.

In contrast, modern MRI machines have magnetic fields of greater intensity than the earth, and thus far we haven't seen a spontaneous destruction of the electronics near them. Current models of the process suggest that it won't be an instantaneous shift from one to another; rather it will take hundreds, even thousands, of years. In fact, it is speculated that for a period of time the poles are likely to lie somewhere along the equator.
Alas it would probably be better if the process were instantaneous, since problems in devices that rely on the earth's magnetic poles for various functions (such as GPS) could easily be resolved by one quick firmware update.

I highly doubt communication and power systems will be affected in the least by this.

Earth's poles reverse quite randomly, and the transition is pretty damn speedy. Some folks guestimate that it is within maybe a century or two.

Think of the poles as a dipole magnet (the old magnet bars you screwed around with as a kid. N & S ends). When the poles swap, the bar that the Earth basically forms inverts. The N & S sides shrink at the same pace, then once they meet in the middle, the N comes out the originally S side, and the S comes out the originally N side, and the polar intensity increases.

Now, you may be talking about technological updates, firmware, etc which is all good. But bear in mind the amount of time this will go across. Hell, there could be a brief stint where compasses are more or less useless around the middle of all this.

One of the main concerns, though, is that the magnetic field around the Earth shields it come crazy-ass UV rays. Some scientists theorize that there is a pretty brief warming period as the poles get situated once they near their "meeting point" around the core. Plus, it is quite important in atmospheric formation. For a contrast, the moon has, like, zero magnetic field. This is due to its solid insides, whereas the Earth's liquid outer core serves as a mechanism for causing this dipole magnet effect.

Oh wait. Global Warming thread.

HolyCaribou --
We aren't really "overdue". As far as I know, scientists don't know how to tack down what causes the pole reversals. They're quite random.

I always thought that the extreme cold temps was a sign that global warming really WAS kicking in, as the coldness (and tornadoes in the Midwest) was mother nature trying to counterbalance last year and this summer.

It has been a cold spring in central Manitoba.... could be global cooling...? Geez, I hope not...

I just got used to no snow till December and snow gone by early March....

Originally Posted by Radez29

Which in turn means you can talk about the overwhelming majority all you want, and I can talk about social pressure, marketing, government funding and its effect on careers all I want, either of us could spin "science" to completely support either view point.

The real difference is that you're choosing to believe in a conspiracy. The thing I dislike about conspiracies is that it's easy to say one is happening without providing an inkling of evidence, other than "ppl are evil yo." You might as well jump on the "vaccinations cause autism" bandwagon since they use the same theories you do (and are just as outweighed on the evidence as your stance is).

And well, we could just end the whole debate by saying that the dramatic increase in gases ruins air quality and water quality for humans, so it's in our best interest anyway, but someone would probably try to argue that too.

Originally Posted by FallDragon

The real difference is that you're choosing to believe in a conspiracy. The thing I dislike about conspiracies is that it's easy to say one is happening without providing an inkling of evidence, other than "ppl are evil yo."

There is evidence -- this is a scare tactic with half-baked science. Take once glance in to the "evidence" in favor of this and you begin to see more holes than swiss cheese.

1) Most of the world's temperature change would begin to show in the oceanic temperatures. The ocean's temperatures haven't changed at all since these were deployed. The temperatures actually cooled in the past five years (although not enough to instill a crazy cold-wave).

2) A group of GEOPHYSICISTS (real scientists. Not poseurs like these Environmental Studies wackos that are writing articles) looked over temperature changes in the Antarctic across the past 50 years. Despite how folks are panicking about ice melting marginally at present, this is a normal trend. The temperature in Antarctica has been relatively constant for the past 50 years (when these studies began), except for one region. That region got colder.

3) CO2 has never been proven as a cause of this. It's just a likely source to blame since industrial countries give it off in loads. In addition to this, the computer models constantly in use are so flawed that they're laughable. It is based upon weather predicting software which in itself is horribly inaccurate outside of a mere week. That inaccuracy gets exponentially worse as time draws on. Tag on to this that we're talking about a world-wide trend. Every year, scientists make a prediction on weather (due to Global Warming supposedly happening) and it ends up being horribly wrong. Increase in hurricanes in the Gulf? Nada. I was in the Gulf of Mexico in the summer and I must say that it was pretty darn tame.

There is no "pure intention" behind this. There are selfish gains to be had in pursuing and branding this topic. The lackluster science will fool many eyes, but not all of them. Al Gore isn't a scientist nor does he know much on this topic. For reference, he refuses to debate with a specialist, and his questions he answers on the air are screened and relatively softball questions. But the IPCC is probably your main focus on this subject, right? Well, the IPCC is a political organization. Plus, its scientists are lacking in credentials considerably. You may tout a "consensus" in a post or two (which does not exist in the first place. It's just a convenient false-justification to shut people up), but let me tell you first-hand that scientists do not believe in consensus. If they did, we'd still be healing people with leeches and thinking that all the planets revolve around the Earth.

You want to see debates where progress was RUINED thanks to a lack of science causing a scare? Let's look at two similar past scares that are very, very similar to the hype caused by Global Warming.

a) Nuclear Power. There was a movie called The China Syndrome released about two weeks before Three Mile Island melted down. Following the melt-down, folks went in to scare-mode and demanded that nuclear power should be abandoned. Even though NO ONE was killed or even exposed to radioactive material. You may point to Chernobyl, but that was shoddy Russian engineering at its worst. The reactor had a meltdown in the 1980s, but the plant was built in the 60s. Even by 1960s Russian standards, it was deemed as very poorly-built. That is THE absolute worst-case scenario. If nuclear power hadn't been canned, I can't begin to imagine how far along our technology in the field would be by now.

b) DDT. There was a supposed thinning of egg shells which was NEVER PROVEN. There was strong evidence of bird species in the area flourishing rather than crashing. It was tested on mice for carcinogenic response, as well. The mice got cancer, but that's because they were fed old, molded cheese (as per normal that day). Feeding them this food eventually resulted in cancer just the same. The banning of DDT use resulted in Malaria epidemics in third world countries, resulting in more deaths than Hitler... And counting. Weigh that situation in your mind for a spell.

Despite what folks think, doubting Global Warming isn't akin to denying the moon landing or thinking JFK was killed by aliens. The vast majority of folks bumbling through this subject are in fact armchair "scientists" who actually are just rooting for a team because they "sound better". In politics, over 80% of people are too lazy to thoroughly research and weigh the people running. They will obsess over one platform and scrutinize over that. Out of that base number, even LESS make it to the polls to vote.

This isn't politics; this is science. Unfortunately, it has found its way in to the political realm. The 20% that DO look in to the subject matter in elections? That number is even smaller on Global Warming, simply because most folks don't have the background or knowledge to properly follow it. What's going on is the "sheep" mentality, I'm afraid.

You may love to say "oh well, debate is over. Facts are in," but Atmospheric Sciences is a VERY young science. If you ask a scientist what he thinks the problem is on something that he CAN'T ANSWER, he will give a hypothesis. That hypothesis is grabbed by someone along the grapevine as a theory. Before you know it, that is in the papers as a purported fact and is being used as fuel for a politicized scientific debate.

We can't even get weather predicting straight, and now you want to take the researchers' word on this without question? You talk about the opposition having lacking evidence, but the