"global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever"

[recursivelyenumerable]

Exactly. However 10% of climate scientists believed global cooling would occur. What if the 10% were right and the 90% wrong?

climate science was in its infancy at that time, they didn't claim to be confident in their predictions.  from the same article:

The National Science Board's Patterns and Perspectives in Environmental Science report of 1972 discussed the cyclical behavior of climate, and the understanding at the time that the planet was entering a phase of cooling after a warm period. "Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now."[16] But it also continued; "However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path."[16]

The Board's report of 1974, Science And The Challenges Ahead , continued on this theme. "During the last 20-30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade."[17] However discussion of cyclic glacial periods does not feature in this report. Instead it is the role of man that is central to the report's analysis. "The cause of the cooling trend is not known with certainty. But there is increasing concern that man himself may be implicated, not only in the recent cooling trend but also in the warming temperatures over the last century".[17] The report can not conclude whether carbon dioxide in warming, or agricultural and industrial pollution in cooling, are factors in the recent climatic changes, noting; "Before such questions as these can be resolved, major advances must be made in understanding the chemistry and physics of the atmosphere and oceans, and in measuring and tracing particulates through the system."[18]

[edit] 1975 National Academy of Sciences report

There also was a study by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences about issues that needed more research.[19] This heightened interest in the fact that climate can change. The 1975 NAS report titled "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action" did not make predictions, stating in fact that "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate." Its "program for action" consisted simply of a call for further research, because "it is only through the use of adequately calibrated numerical models that we can hope to acquire the information necessary for a quantitative assessment of the climatic impacts."

The report further stated:

    The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know..

contrast this to the IPCC report last year:

   * Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
    * Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. (...)

    * The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. (...)
          o There is a confidence level >90% that there will be more frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall.
          o There is a confidence level >66% that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
    * Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium.
    * Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the past 650,000 years

In IPCC statements "most" means greater than 50%, "likely" means at least a 66% likelihood, and "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.

[Phoenix Dark]

the 70s global cooling thing was just media sensationalism, it was never believed by climate scientists.

Kind of like Al Gore

I don't get it, you guys seem more concerned with arguing against the more extreme global warming statements than arguing the basic science of global warming in general. We know global warming exists; admitting that does not mean you believe New York is going to be flooded in a decade.

[Beardo]

Does it explain why it was hotter during the middle ages than it is now. I wonder if all the castles and kings knew how much carbon gases they were emitting.

[Beardo]

I don't get it, you guys seem more concerned with arguing against the more extreme global warming statements than arguing the basic science of global warming in general. We know global warming exists; admitting that does not mean you believe New York is going to be flooded in a decade.

We're not debating on weather the climate changes. We're asking why liberals need to lie about their numbers and we are debating on if humans are the cause.

[recursivelyenumerable]

Does it explain why it was hotter during the middle ages than it is now. I wonder if all the castles and kings knew how much carbon gases they were emitting.

it wasn't (worldwide), only in Europe.

also, are you just playing dumb or are you really so fucking stupid that you can't distinguish "CO2 emissions affect the global climate" from "CO2 emissions are the only thing that affect the global climate"?  do I need to go all Formal Logic 101 on your ass?

[Beardo]

"But unlike in other fields of citizen-science (astronomy or phenology spring to mind), the motivation for the temperature observers is heavily weighted towards wanting to find something wrong. As we discussed last year, there is a strong yearning among some to want to wake up tomorrow and find that the globe hasn't been warming, that the sea ice hasn't melted, that the glaciers have not receded and that indeed, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Thus when mistakes occur (and with science being a human endeavour, they always will) the exuberance of the response can be breathtaking - and quite telling."

[Fresh Prince]

I don't get it, you guys seem more concerned with arguing against the more extreme global warming statements than arguing the basic science of global warming in general. We know global warming exists; admitting that does not mean you believe New York is going to be flooded in a decade.

Personally it is important since it dictates government policy. Climate science is not infallible.

[Ganhyun]

You know, our planet goes through many periods of warming and cooldowns.

Two examples:

Dinosaur ages, very hot.

Ice Age. Very cold.

We go through these.

But I do believe that we should try to limit the damage we do as humans.

[Human Snorenado]

I'll make a deal with Beardo and all the other right wing nutbars- we liberals will shut up about global climate change and what we should be doing to combat it if in 30-40 years they promise to explain to everyone who lives on the coasts why they have to leave their homes that are now covered in water.

[Oblivion]

Beardo's the worst joke character ever.

[max_cool]

I think the problem with Global Warming is it requires that people do something that may not bring immediate profit. Republicans dont like that much.

Why do liberals lie about the numbers. It just doesnt make sense.

It's not so much liberals as it is some individual scientists who are able to fudge numbers in order to get more funding, by fudge I mean that they don't outright lie but probably take the more beneficial, to their $$$$, side of the numbers. What your doing is the equivelant of calling all conservatives racists or bourgeoisie ass-fucks. You see, "it just don't hold no water" as the hero of conservatives everywhere (Sarah Palin) might say...  hahahaha see, I can do it too.

[Eel O'Brian]

i love how certain people here want others lepered for not falling in lockstep with their political opinions

congratulations, brownshirt, you'll make an excellent fascist

[Boogie]

I just finished reading this book:



Conclusion:  We are so fucked.

[recursivelyenumerable]

i love how certain people here want others lepered for not falling in lockstep with their political opinions

congratulations, brownshirt, you'll make an excellent fascist

this isn't even about politics (it's a factual/scientific issue not a political one), this is about his being a dumbass and insulting the intelligence of the entire human race by trying to pass off "how can we predict climate change if we can't predict day-to-day weather fluctuations?" and "the earth was pretty hot in the Cretaceous period, where were your man-made CO2 emissions then?" as arguments.

[Eel O'Brian]

it isn't about politics, but the words republican and liberal have been thrown around in this thread more than a drunken redneck riding the bull at a country-western bar

right, gotcha

there's an entire sticky thread here filled with complaints about unfair bannings from other boards, and what happens when some of those whiners get here - they start calling for others to be "lepered" because they don't like the way someone else posts

your fucking hypocrisy slip is showing, ladies

[recursivelyenumerable]

it isn't about politics, but the words republican and liberal have been thrown around in this thread more than a drunken redneck riding the bull at a country-western bar

right, gotcha

there's an entire sticky thread here filled with complaints about unfair bannings from other boards, and what happens when some of those whiners get here - they start calling for others to be "lepered" because they don't like the way someone else posts

only one person in this thread is calling for anyone to be lepered, namely me, and I've never used the words republican or liberal here nor have I ever (in any thread) complained about unfair bannings for that matter.

[Brehvolution]

So people really think that 50+ years of burning fossil fuels are no determent on our climate? 
Since the kuwait oil fires of the 90's, compounded by billions of cars and coal powered energy plants, people just take weather as it would have happened anyways regardless of what volcanos add to it? 

[laesperanzapaz]

it isn't about politics, but the words republican and liberal have been thrown around in this thread more than a drunken redneck riding the bull at a country-western bar

right, gotcha

there's an entire sticky thread here filled with complaints about unfair bannings from other boards, and what happens when some of those whiners get here - they start calling for others to be "lepered" because they don't like the way someone else posts

your fucking hypocrisy slip is showing, ladies

you just gotta ignore the idiots who use 'leper him' or 'why do liberals make up shit'

as for the global warming question in general: I'll admit I'm no expert, and I'm pretty much a passive observer and reader of what people seem to be discussing.  I'm not even an environmentalist, I'm too lazy I admit.

That said, and correct me if i'm wrong, i hear that the vast majority predict the warming of the globe due to man's actions...more specifically, man's action as a consumer, as a businessman, whether that means making a business selling oil, making fabric, whatever.  We use energy in our daily lives, and the solution recommended is the very thing that seems to irk alot of the more conservative members: collective regulatory action.

In the meantime, I hear that much of the opposing view - the scientists who argue the warming is overrated, etc - are funded by the oil dudes. 

Now, correct me if i'm wrong or you wish to add to this, but when 1. I hear from supposed educated scientists of various disciplines and nationalities attesting to the Warming, 2. I hear that many opposing scientists are funded by people who have a financial interest in us being ignorant about hte Warming, and 3. the solutions proposed - collective, regulatory action -  is the very thing that many conservatives cannot swallow, THEN I am inclined to think that Warming is 1. a generally factual trend, and 2. has been politicized by the conservative-minded on account of their idealogy, and 3. the business execs on account of their bottom line.

[Beardo]

Dinosaur ages, very hot.

Do you think manbearpig was alive during the dinosaur age? Studies suggest manbearpig follows a more recent evolution timeline, but I think you might be on to something.