Global Warming/Strange Weather Patterns

Call me selfish, but I really enjoy living. So that's not much comfort. I'm sure life will survive; I'm rather more concerned about the human species surviving. Based on what evidence?

Your data sample is too narrow. Try this 1000-year composite of various analyses:Anyone can look at this and see that we're talking about real climate change, not some regular cycle. Which is another way of saying "I'm not going to accept any conclusion that predicts bad news." What if the Chicken Littles are right on this? Pretending that because we don't know everything, there's no reason to pay heed to what we do know is equally irresponsible science.

My bad. You can read all about it here: File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - WikipediaI don't know anything about the Kyoto Protocol. But each of these 9 reconstructions are data that have appeared and been cited in the scientific literature.I'm not trying to tell you you need to buy a Prius tomorrow. But there's considerably more data that suggests global climate change than you repeatedly suggest, which is funny, because you're the one accusing evironmentalists of obscuring the scientific literature on this. Nine different reconstructions of historical climate agree on a recent trend towards the warmer - in fact, the sudden reversal of a cooling trend lasting the first 800 years of the scope of these surveys. I don't see that that's something you can just dismiss with "well, they've been wrong before."

I'm sorry? You must be looking at it with different eyes than I am, but I see a clear cooling trend from the start of the graph right up to 1900, when it skyrockets. Somebody stop those goalposts! I'm simply trying to substantiate a recent warming trend. I've made no particular argument about anthropogenic warming - yet. Ah, substituting ridicule for scientific analysis. Which side was "scientifically irresponsible", again?Are you a climatologist? No? Then I'm not inclined to give your casual dismissal of a .6 degree warming trend much credence. But ponder, if you will, how much more water the atmosphere might hold if it's generally .6 degrees warmer. Do the math. Personally, I prefer to have water on the ground, where we can use it to grow food. What what are? What are the ways greenhouse gases and aerosols alter our atmosphere, you mean? Not too familiar with the science, are you? Weather isn't climate, as I've said before. You keep tossing this statement off like it proves something besides your reliance on superficial reasoning and appeals to incredulity. They agree that they may be. That's scientific tenantivity, after all. It's incumbent on you to prove that they are. Naturally. What's your evidence that their conjecture is off-base? Is it your assertion that we'll completely abandon a fossil-fuel energy economy within the next, say, 50 years? You mean, there's no evidence that isn't qualified by scientific tenativity. Well, duh. Your objections continue to consist of "we don't know everything, therefore we know nothing", an attitude which I'm sure will get you far with the scientific community. Again with the Kyoto Protocol. Why should I give a damn what the Kyoto Protocol says? Was it peer-reviewed?Oh, right. Because I'm saying that there's enough evidence not to dismiss climate warming offhand, I must be a pro-Kyoto environmentalist hippie wackjob.Try and stick with the argument at hand.

Well, to be precise, you don't know that it's accumulating more ice; only that it's getting thicker.On the other hand, Nature. 2002 Oct 3;419(6906):465-7. suggests that, in fact, the thickening might actually be a result of global climate warming:

quote:

---

Switch of flow direction in an Antarctic ice stream.

​

Conway H, Catania G, Raymond CF, Gades AM, Scambos TA, Engelhardt H.

​

Earth and Space Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA. conway@ess.washington.edu

​

Fast-flowing ice streams transport ice from the interior of West Antarctica to the ocean, and fluctuations in their activity control the mass balance of the ice sheet. The mass balance of the Ross Sea sector of the West Antarctic ice sheet is now positive--that is, it is growing--mainly because one of the ice streams (ice stream C) slowed down about 150 years ago. Here we present evidence from both surface measurements and remote sensing that demonstrates the highly dynamic nature of the Ross drainage system. We show that the flow in an area that once discharged into ice stream C has changed direction, now draining into the Whillans ice stream (formerly ice stream B). This switch in flow direction is a result of continuing thinning of the Whillans ice stream and recent thickening of ice stream C. Further abrupt reorganization of the activity and configuration of the ice streams over short timescales is to be expected in the future as the surface topography of the ice sheet responds to the combined effects of internal dynamics and long-term climate change. We suggest that caution is needed when using observations of short-term mass changes to draw conclusions about the large-scale mass balance of the ice sheet.

---

The Ross ice shelf isn't just an ice cube, it's a balanced system of ice inflow and outflow. At any rate, the thickening of one ice sheet is hardly evidence against a global climate trend. The only one talking politics here seems to be you. Also I love how you've pretty much employed all the standard creationist tactics in your posts - repeating the use of the word "theory", as if to say "this isn't fact"; repeated use of the argument from incredulity; claims that your opponents are motivated by ideology while your motives are pure science. That - the failure of the "no global warming" crowd to engage in any argument besides the most superficial - is pretty much all the evidence I need to see who's most likely on the side of real science, and who is letting their economic ideology carry them away.

All of them. Every single one. That's what's so dramatically obvious about the graph; 9 different reconstructions of historical climate agree on a recent, anomolous warming trend. What I was substantiating was that the trend is anomolous and not cyclical; the data of the last millenium shows clearly that what we're experiencing is not cyclical. Like I said, try to stick with the argument at hand. I have not committed the argument from authority; I've only cut the legs out from your argument from incredulity. Why should your incredulity be given credence? An absolute falsehood.

quote:

---

Currently (end Dec. 2004) the trend in satellite data from the Mears et al version is +0.129 C/decade, from the Spencer and Christy version 5.1 +0.078 C/decade, from Fu et al 0.2 C/decade (May 04) and from Vinnikov and Grody, +0.22C to 0.26C per decade (Oct. 03). This can be compared to the increase from the surface record of approximately 0.06 C/decade over the past century and 0.15 C/decade since 1979.

---

Satellite temperature measurements - WikipediaNot so. I've employed ridicule in addition to argumentation. Hi, remember the forum guidelines? You're required to support your position with evidence, not name-calling. Thanks!This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-24-2005 10:37 AM

This is hardly undisputed. Say we're wrong that cancer can be treated medically. Wouldn't all those misallocated funds for hospitals be better spent finding the true cause? We'd better stop training doctors right away.It's fine that you've stopped replying to me. But the least you could do would be to refrain from employing arguments that I've already demolished. Scientific tenativity provides you no place to hide from the legitimacy of the global warming models; it provides you no toehold for an argument from incredulity. If you're going to argue like a creationist, it's better to argue creationism.

Aren't these economic projections based on models, and therefor speculation? After all we can't even predict the stock market in a week; we're supposed to believe economists can predict what a policy will cost us?In short every criticism you applied to the global warming models applies to the economic cost models. And everybody knows that economists just guess, anyway.

I don't understand how this "superclimate" is supposed to work. From what I've read this "superclimate" sounds like it's just hot and humid, with possibly more atmospheric oxygen.The problem is that those are conditions that can still be found on Earth, like in the tropics. And what we know of hot, humid climates is that they're not perfect zones for human habitation - they're generally the perfect breeding ground for diseases and parasites. I don't understand how the proposed "superclimate" would be at all beneficial. Creationists seem to always skip over that part. So, when we act in time to reverse these startling climatological trends, what will be the effect on your end-times prophecies?

Then we might propose a shaded greenhouse, or something. I mean it doesn't sound like you're proposing any conditions we couldn't simulate and study in regards to its effect on the human body.But creationists are never specific about how this all works; I was hoping you could comment on it. What specifically about this superclimate makes it so super? They're exempt because they don't have the technology to be compliant, yet.

What exactly have you presented so far? All I recall you presenting were the mention of some scientists who disagree about a warming trend, and an assertion that there has been no increase in atmospheric temperatures which turned out to be wrong. Did I miss something?

So, warmer and thinner. Again, factors we could simulate. Warmer, thinner, and more humid? I'm no doctor but these don't sound like complex interactions to model in the body.And you're sitting on a goldmine with this. If all you have to do to make a person live to the age of Noah and cure all disease or whatever is alter their atmosphere, that's a revolutionary and easy medical treatment! So why aren't we doing this? I'd appreciate anything you have to offer on the subject. By all means, take your time. I'm inclined to agree that Bill Moyers is full of shit on this; not because China is going to be the ruin of us all but because the literal Bible cuts both ways; you can just as easily support evironmentalism from the Bible as you can greedy evironmental devastation. And Biblical literalists are a generally right-leaning bunch; they're much more likely to hold the belief that global warming simply isn't happening and won't happen as opposed to rooting for it to take place.

Well, right, that's what an atmosphere is. So what's the magic mixture that you're so sure makes everything "super"? Ok. We put people in oxygen tents. Do they increase in size and live to be 900? I don't see that happening. In fact too much oxygen can be harmful to you. [qs]Revelation 11 prophesies...[qs] Fascinating, but it doesn't speak to my question. What about this superclimate causes it to have the effects you ascribe to it?

I can appreciate that. Do you know of any creationist scientists that have addressed this? I know that the "superclimate" is fairly widely asserted among YEC's, do you know of any that have tried to propose the mechanism by which it would have its "super" effects? That's a fair point, but we're talking about factors that would radically affect the human body, and in regards to the human body, there's only a few ways "in" - only a few channels by which environmental factors could exert their influence. It's this area that I'd like some creationist to explore.

Buz has speculated that those conditions and conditions following global warming are the same, or similar at least. I was merely exploring that claim.