Global Warming poll.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sl7vk @ Aug 8 2006, 04:09 PM) [snapback]299794[/snapback]</div>

Thank you sl7vk!!!!!!!

 

I believe "scientists" who deride global warming as being worsened by human activity are full of...malarkey.


Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995.


malarkey also malarky

NOUN: Slang. Something that does not have or make sense: balderdash, blather, bunkum, claptrap, drivel, garbage, idiocy, nonsense, piffle, poppycock, rigmarole, rubbish, tomfoolery, trash, twaddle. Informal : tommyrot. Slang : applesauce, baloney, bilge, bull1, bunk2, crap, hooey. See KNOWLEDGE.


Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. Copyright © 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by the Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

There's a recent poll on this, with expanded choices. I'll dig it up.

Also, this belongs in FHOP.

 

I hit choice #3 by error, when I intended #2.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(EricGo @ Aug 8 2006, 06:56 PM) [snapback]299938[/snapback]</div>

Hmmm....backup beep enabled or disabled?

 

malarchy = government by those with evil intent

 

The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 °Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 °Fahrenheit) in the 20th century. (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

One degree in 66 years is a problem?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(sl7vk @ Aug 9 2006, 10:01 AM) [snapback]300185[/snapback]</div>

One or two degrees is the difference between glaciers down to NY or 6 feet of seawater over your head in FL.

Cheers.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(seasalsa @ Aug 9 2006, 10:55 AM) [snapback]300181[/snapback]</div>

You bet your a$$ it is. Hugely significant, and the rate of change is completely out of line with all known historical data and precendent. Get a clue!

 

One degree is an average. The change in some places, like the Arctic, is far more dramatic.

 

I posted these graphs on the other global warming thread. I thought it would be appropriate to repost it here. Concentrate on the orange line in panel b. Yes. It goes off-scale in the present.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 9 2006, 10:10 AM) [snapback]300193[/snapback]</div>

Yes, in some areas of the globe, temperatures rose by 7 degrees. I hope no one asks if this is a big deal.

 

Climate change does not work on human opinion. Science operates on evidence and strives to show that current understanding is false. We accept current findings and keep testing. The key is evidence and testing, not marketing and opinion.

Even if climate change is "natural", cyclic and expected, we must still deal with the consequences. Whether climate change is accepted as true or not, we can minimize cost by doubling efficiency. If you double efficiency, you cut your cost by one-half and can potentially double your profit.

Climate change is not a debate, except for politial hacks. Time is overdue to step up and act responsibly for the long term. At minimum, operate along the lines of the "Precautionary Principle,"
http://www.takingprecaution.org/

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 9 2006, 11:11 AM) [snapback]300194[/snapback]</div>

Wonderful post, Alric. In my mind, the CO2 trend is much more disturbing than the observed long-term temperature rising (which is quite disturbing already). IANACS ("I am not a climate scientist"), but I recall reading something a while ago that said that such a spike in CO2 in the last few years was highly suggestive that a major carbon sink (the oceans, maybe?) had filled up and we were destined to see a much greater change in CO2 over the next several years than we have in the past few years. If this is the case, we're in deep sh*t.

Even if you don't believe that humans are responsible for global warming, a reasonable person has to admit humans create a lot of CO2. Seeing how temperature goes in lock-step with CO2 over the last several thousands of years should convince you that CO2 plays an important role in the temperature of the planet. If you just accept this one basic fact and one very basic interpretation of the data, there is no way that the recent observed spike in CO2 can't disturb you.

EDIT: Actually, one correction. Temperature doesn't go in lock-step with CO2 fraction. There is a slight delay between the CO2 peaks and the temperature peaks. This may mean that we don't see the temperature changing by what the doubters call a "large" amount until it's way too late.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Betelgeuse @ Aug 9 2006, 11:54 AM) [snapback]300219[/snapback]</div>

Yes, the oil companies bought and paid for lobbyists and political hacks (including the current administration) have managed to forstall scientific understanding, rationality, and common sense long enough that we may now be in deep sh*t. There are really only two possiblities remaining 1) we still have a chance to save civilization as we know it, or 2) its already too late.

On the chance that 1 is still a valid possibility, I vote we give saving civilization a try, but thats just my opinion.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(seasalsa @ Aug 9 2006, 07:55 AM) [snapback]300181[/snapback]</div>

YES, its huge. realize that we are talking about the average temperature of the entire Earth. one degree means a 10 degree swing in some areas, others even more.

the term global warming is a misnomer anyway since several areas such as western europe will actually get about 15-30 degrees colder on average while the Atlantic current fails because the temps of the oceans rise 3 degrees (estimated) causing the current to stop shifting the warm waters at the tropics from getting that far north.

its already been predicted that another 1½ º rise will dramatically change the weather for the entire United States. not quite ice age time, but will cause events such as a complete redistribution of growing areas that it will only hasten our entry into another ice age.

kinda funny how an ice age would be caused by global warming aint it???

ya, i didnt think it was funny either

 

For discussion of global warming by scientists see http://realclimate.org