On The Christian Lie


 

 

 

 

A Message Board, Guestbook, or Poll hosted for your website.
Atheisteye.com/ > Forums > Science > Global Warming
 
Username:
Password:
 

Thread Tools Search This Thread 
Reply
 
Author Comment
 
solidsquid
Avatar / Picture

AtheistCoalition.com
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 209

Contact using Yahoo

    02/24/07 at 01:05 AM
Reply with quote#1

The IPCC came out with its report earlier in February and their conclusion was that humans have contributed to the process we call global warming - as if we needed any more evidence of that.

The IPCC's Global Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis summary is available for download:

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Kowboy
Frequent Member
Registered: 10/17/05
Posts: 92

    02/24/07 at 05:29 PM
Reply with quote#2

All:

 

While we can debate global warming, it seems obvious to me that the cure offered by the alarmists, shutting down the world's economy, is much worse than letting the climate heat a little.

 

We may be able to nanotech our way out of this in a decade or so. That definitely won't happen if the environmentalist whacko's have their way.

 

Kowboy

solidsquid
Avatar / Picture

AtheistCoalition.com
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 209

Contact using Yahoo

    02/24/07 at 09:43 PM
Reply with quote#3

Yeah, it's just a little heat - few species die off, glaciers melt, ozone deteriorates but hey, we might have an economy in the black.  Wouldn't want to "alarm" anyone.
Kowboy
Frequent Member
Registered: 10/17/05
Posts: 92

    02/25/07 at 10:03 PM
Reply with quote#4

Squid:

 

The famous "hockey stick" of the 2001 report, puporting to show that the planet is warmer than at any time in the last thousand years, is missing from this one. Maybe that's because they had to erase that inconvenient medieval warm period.

 

The new report also reduces the influence of human activity on warming by one third, which conveniently cuts the predicted sea level rise from Al Gore's twenty to thirty feet to 17 inches.

 

We need good science, not the scare-mongering and economy wrecking of the environmentalist whack-o's.

 

Kowboy 

Cynic
Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 09/26/05
Posts: 612

    02/26/07 at 10:38 AM
Reply with quote#5

They say necessity is the mother of invention.  Without a little scaremongering, I wonder if anyone would find it necessary?

solidsquid
Avatar / Picture

AtheistCoalition.com
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 209

Contact using Yahoo

    02/27/07 at 11:48 AM
Reply with quote#6

I don't have the time to go into depth right now so this will be quick.  The report for 2007 is not the full report - it is merely a summary.  The full, complete report is still forthcoming.  Yes, the graph is not found there however this does not mean it was intentionally deleted for lack of support for that reconstruction either.  The "hockey stick" which many people who reference coporate interest protector organizations like Heartland like to cry out as being bogus actually has had more support lent to it.

For instance, the NRC report on global temperatures for the past 2,000 years combined data from several lines of research to create a graph which shows a similar trend found in Mann et al.'s work:



Which correlates well with the information that is emphasized in the IPCC summary on the typical "greenhouse" gases concentrations:



This is only just a small piece of the rapidly accumulating data that shows we have a large hand in the problematic rise in global temperature and concentration of gases in the atmosphere.  Whether you believe humans are to blame or not for a large portion of this - it doesn't negate the fact that there is a problem which must be faced.  But I'm not here to try and change your mind because, truthfully, I don't care if you accept the data or not.  Any realizations of accuracy or inaccuracy of your views will be done on your own and most likely not impacted by what I post on my friend's internet discussion board.
Kowboy
Frequent Member
Registered: 10/17/05
Posts: 92

    02/27/07 at 05:21 PM
Reply with quote#7

Squid:

 

Please don't get me wrong. I'm all for new, better and more scientific information and I welcome it from you or anyone else.

 

It seems to me there is a contingent of chicken littles out there who are giving the thoughtful level-headed folks a bad name. Al Gore can't miss the sea level rise by twenty feet and keep his credibility.

 

Smothering the economy of the nation that makes most of the world's stuff can't possibly be good for humankind. It's no coincidence that the wealthy countries can afford to be environmentalists. It's a risk/benifit analysis that has to be weighed carefully and thoughtfully, not emotionally.

 

Sincerely,

 

Kowboy

illusionpiercer
Avatar / Picture

Thine Lips Unhinged
Registered: 10/24/06
Posts: 44

    03/19/07 at 06:54 PM
Reply with quote#8

Hey, did you know that the British channel 14 showed a documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" ???? Curiously, I haven't heard a thing about it from the American media. Anyways, here's the link to it; I saw the first half hour (got yelled at to turn it off after that cause I had the volume too loud), very interesting science behind it. Tell me what you think.

solidsquid
Avatar / Picture

AtheistCoalition.com
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 209

Contact using Yahoo

    03/21/07 at 10:19 PM
Reply with quote#9

I prefer a different medium like scientific journals.
illusionpiercer
Avatar / Picture

Thine Lips Unhinged
Registered: 10/24/06
Posts: 44

    03/23/07 at 11:53 AM
Reply with quote#10

These are scientists, the same ones who publish in scientific journals. Did you watch the documentary?
solidsquid
Avatar / Picture

AtheistCoalition.com
Registered: 11/30/04
Posts: 209

Contact using Yahoo

    03/26/07 at 10:57 PM
Reply with quote#11

I haven't had time lately to sit down for over an hour and watch it. I've been working on several presentations I have to give this week. Maybe this weekend.
illusionpiercer
Avatar / Picture

Thine Lips Unhinged
Registered: 10/24/06
Posts: 44

    03/27/07 at 12:36 PM
Reply with quote#12

hey man, I know what you mean. I think these past few days might be the first time in a month where I don't have a whole lot to do.
atheistrule
Avatar / Picture

Thine Lips Unhinged
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 30

    10/25/09 at 03:29 AM
Reply with quote#13

Yeah.. the evidence's saying Globe is warming.. and.. they say it's cos of great amount of Carbon di oxide in the atmosphere..But.. there's something I confuse.. We all know that.. CO2 contains 97% in Mars' atmosphere..
but why Mars' average temperature is -82 F ? Why isn't warm up?

                                                              AtheistRule

Cynic
Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered: 09/26/05
Posts: 612

    10/25/09 at 10:45 AM
Reply with quote#14

Atmospheric stuff is complicated.  I'm not necessarily convinced either way, though I'm much more inclined to agree with a consensus of experts in the field than naysayers whose motivations are more pro-business than pro-science.  I doubt anyone truly understands the issues completely, least-wise me.  In the case of Mars, though the question might be how the temperature might be if it had a different gaseous composition of thickness.  Mars' atmosphere is very thin compared to Earth and while we tend to consider it close to us, it's actually significantly farther from Sol than we are.

The CO2 question is an interesting one though.  A lot of people try to couch it in terms of what's driving what -- is the heat driving up the CO2 levels, or are the CO2 levels driving up the heat?  In reality, it's probably both.  Figuring out how is trick though, because ocean capacity to store it depends on temperature, which varies by depth, region, and how the currents are running.  Altered ocean currents are much more important than people realize.
atheistrule
Avatar / Picture

Thine Lips Unhinged
Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 30

    10/26/09 at 03:05 AM
Reply with quote#15

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynic
Atmospheric stuff is complicated.  I'm not necessarily convinced either way, though I'm much more inclined to agree with a consensus of experts in the field than naysayers whose motivations are more pro-business than pro-science.  I doubt anyone truly understands the issues completely, least-wise me.  In the case of Mars, though the question might be how the temperature might be if it had a different gaseous composition of thickness.  Mars' atmosphere is very thin compared to Earth and while we tend to consider it close to us, it's actually significantly farther from Sol than we are.

The CO2 question is an interesting one though.  A lot of people try to couch it in terms of what's driving what -- is the heat driving up the CO2 levels, or are the CO2 levels driving up the heat?  In reality, it's probably both.  Figuring out how is trick though, because ocean capacity to store it depends on temperature, which varies by depth, region, and how the currents are running.  Altered ocean currents are much more important than people realize.



Yup... it's quite complicated.. anyway.. thanks for replying,Bro...

AtheistRule
Previous Thread | Next Thread
Reply

 
Bookmarks
 
Google GoogleTalkOrigins.org TalkOrigins.orgSkeptoid SkeptoidSkeptic's Annotated Bible Skeptic's Annotated Bible