Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[bigd]

"more accurate than previous theories" and lets not forget that every scale model, computer prediction has been vastly incorrect. Hence, it was called global warming but when the temps went down. Now climate change. As this is non refutable, as we all know climate changes constantly. However, lets not look at other trends from past decades. "Whatever. If you have the impulse to debate this on an EV forum, your priorities don't make sense. Go ride." I agree as I was not the one that brought it up.  Just saying if you want to spread the word about EV leave the GW fear mongering out 

[benswing]

Btw, the temperatures have not gone down, and the phrase "Climate Change" was not created as a reaction to weather patterns.  It was a calculated phrase put out by opponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming.  Much like an opponent of the idea that the Universe has a beginning was the one who coined the term (sarcastically) "Big Bang".

Also, nobody is claiming that 100% of Global Warming is due to humans.  We are now able to dig up carbon-based fuels and burn them (creating C02) at a rate that wasn't even imaginable before the industrial revolution.

It is also well known that the oil industry enjoys some of the most lucrative subsidies in the USA.  This is not up for debate.  Oil companies spend billions of dollars on lobbying to ensure those subsidies remain intact and get expanded. 

It's strange seeing the "American Spectator" thread show up so much when the topic has completely changed.  If someone wants to start a Global Warming thread, that might be a better title for further discussion.

Probably quite a few of us chose electric vehicles specifically to reduce our carbon footprint and to encourage this nascent industry to grow which will allow others to do the same.  Global warming isn't as fun to discuss as electric motorcycles, though!  :-)

[bigd]

"the temperatures have not gone down" Ill get the site posted that does in fact have temps and shows last 4 years. Tired tonight. "It is also well known that the oil industry enjoys some of the most lucrative subsidies in the USA." Nice try, when a person says that they are playing on our natural jealousy of those that have more (Oil makes billions). However, when you look at the percentages they are in line with most, if not all businesses. We have to be able to take out emotion to have a logical discussion.  "Big Bang" I love watching Big Bang Theory "Also, nobody is claiming that 100% of Global Warming " that's the point ,no one knows how much or if it even matters that much, or if one country like the USA can make a difference. "someone wants to start a Global Warming thread" Im good with that, However, if you are saying that one side can spew as much bad information as they want and the others shouldn't say anything - um nope. Unless this is a communist site that is. Have a good day 

[oobflyer]

one side can spew as much bad information as they want

This is exactly what keeps me coming back. I would very much like to end this thread here and now, but with stuff like:

every scale model, computer prediction has been vastly incorrect

and:

the temps went down

it makes me think we are being 'punked'.

I am not a scientist, but I have a degree in science. I understand the scientific method, I understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory.

The 'debate' on climate change is over (it has been for quite some time now). It is not "fear mongering" to heed the warnings of science and reason. It is not "alarmist" to push for an end to destructive activity.

The voices of science illiterates and willful ignorance insist that the debate continues, but they are becoming a small minority, much like I imagine the flat-earthers did in the years following the shocking discovery that the world is a three-dimensional sphere.

I offer one final apology to everyone that got an email suggesting they look, once again, at this thread.

I will not waste my time responding to any more these egregious inanities. Instead - I will ride

[Richard230]

I will add my un-researched and little-informed opinion:  It is my belief (from reading newspapers and magazines, not the internet) that the world is warming and that humans are contributing to the warming.  What I can not decide is to what extent we are making the problem worse and whether or not we can reverse the trend.  It would seem to me that world politics and economics would prevent any significant world-wide program that would have a noticeable effect on GW.  So I agree, lets all ride our electric vehicles where we can and just enjoy the weather before it starts feeling like summertime on Venus.   

[CliC]

I will not waste my time responding to any more these egregious inanities. Instead - I will ride

Me either Though here in southeast Texas our spring respite, that has seemingly repeated itself for the last few years, is about to be over. So surface of Venus, here I come. Hope my batteries hold up

[Burton]

Given my background and study into sustainable food growing systems I should add the following.

Most people I know as class mates believe CO2 is just a scapegoat as reducing it won't fix anything.  In fact we acknowledge in times when CO2 is higher we typically have more plant growth as a result. which in tern can sequester the carbon back into the soil.

The same people acknowledge a general warming trend and we acknowledge man could be causing the warming but have no method to determine how much of the warming we cause, and how much is cyclical.

We also know what can cause warming far faster and greater than CO2 ever could, agriculture. Or, I should say "Modern agriculture." The number one export in the US by weight is top soil, something nature builds at 1" every 500 years. In a temperate humid environment this isn't a problem nature cannot fix given enough time. However everywhere else in the world where there isn't a humid temperate climate you have a great risk to face when loosing top soil, desertification.

The way the West farms is responsible for the top soil run off and as a result desertification of once lush green forests in Africa. Those deserts we help create contribute to "climate weird'ing"  as well as "climate change," both in quotes as the real issue here is AGW.

The good news is we can "re-green" the deserts and change our current agricultural practices to build soil instead of erode it. Doing so will add more biomass and naturally reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere  but it doesn't end there.  The methods required to do this also produce more nutritious food devoid of chemicals and fertilizers. It also establishes a truly sustainable system which can replace itself in its own lifetime while producing a surplus.  And better yet you can grow an inch of top soil a year in intensive systems.

I don't care where someone stands in relation to CO2 legislation.  If you think creating deserts while depleting soil and creating toxic food is ok however I take issue with your reasoning.

I should also add something important to this conversation.  There are people who have no idea what sustainable is. but it is rather easy to define when you think about it. Something is not sustainable unless it can reproduce itself over its own lifetime. If by its own existence it cannot do this then by definition you will eventually run out of the means to create it and thus it isn't sustainable. So many people, even those who make a living at living green have a clue about what is sustainable.

I know no one here has used the term yet but I hope I have placed some perspective on it for you in case you were unaware of its abuse. Like others in this thread I am sure I will regret posting this later

[kingcharles]

Take 5 minutes and view this scientifically correct debate: https://t.co/FayxPJSs6j

[oobflyer]

Thank-you kingcharles! That was fantastic 

[Burton]

Take 5 minutes and view this scientifically correct debate: https://t.co/FayxPJSs6j

While I love Nye I realize he is but a mechanical engineer not a scientist.

Also anyone who still uses the IPCC's -97% numbers (there are two of them one for "studies" and one for "scientists") clearly doesn't realize where the number came from or they wouldn't use it to support their arguments -_- 

Out of the 11,944k papers the IPCC looked at they chose 75 falling into categories which supported the IPCC position (no joke read their own report) and then claimed 65, or 87% supported the IPPC position . Yeah 87% is what they claim now not 97% but you wouldn't know that unless you read their retraction.  This "study" was an attempt to make up for the previous attempt bellow.

A similar story can be told for the "97% of scientist agree" meme started by IPCC in their own report they admit to how they came up with the numbers. First they had an online survey sent out to 10,257 people and 3146 replied back. The IPCC chose 75 of those 3146 replies to qualify their 97% number.

There were two questions used out of the 9 asked on the now infamous Zimmerman survey to make the 97.4% claim (numbers indicated below those two):

Q1. When compared with pre-1800's levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
1. Risen
2. Fallen
3. Remained relatively constant
4. No opinion/Don't know

76 of 79 (96.2%) answered “risen.”
 
Q2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?  [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
1. Yes
2. No
3. I'm not sure
 
75 of 77 (97.4%) answered “yes.” This being he higher number is what the IPCC used without realizing it was really 75 out of 79 or 94.9%

Q3. What do you consider to be the most compelling argument that supports your previous answer (or, for those who were unsure, why were they unsure)? [This question wasn't asked if they answered "remained relatively constant" to Q1]
 
Q4. Please estimate the percentage of your fellow geoscientists who think human activity is a contributing factor to global climate change.
 
Q5. Which percentage of your papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last 5 years have been on the subject of climate change?
 
Q6. Age
 
Q7. Gender
 
Q8. What is the highest level of education you have attained?
 
Q9. Which category best describes your area of expertise?


You will note no questions used to get the claimed 97.4% number even involved AGW. So yeah, anyone still using these numbers isn't thinking critically in my book.

[bigd]

Sorry, I have not watched the video here yet but please tell me that the IPCC 97% paper is not still been used. That has been refuted so many times I would hope that the more educated do not use it for anything other than bathroom material (and not talking about reading

[bigd]

2002 2.86°C 134     
2010 2.89°C 135     
2011 1.99°C 120     
2012 1.91°C 119     
2013 2.24°C 126     
2014 2.58°C 130(1)
Now those that think that temp. went up, note That in 2002 the amount from average is 2.86 in 2014 it is "only"  2.58. Now my degree was not in math but I thought that 2.58 < 2.86. Also note that for example 2011,12,13,14 were lower than 2010. However, 2010-389ppm CO2, 2011- 391, 2012-393ppm 2013-396ppm, 2014-401ppm. Now if CO2 was the cause or even the main cause, logic would dictate that the temp would have went up consistently with the CO2. In conclusion, the climate is complex and yet some want to "think" they have the answers. Have I ever said that CO2 was not the cause of the drought ooops flooding ooops tropical ooops dry climate I am in (little sarcasm here . No, as nothing has come up that is conclusive either yes or no. However, because someone has a different view as I do I will not go to the childish levels of saying they are "science illiterates and willful ignorance".  I just state my opinion and listen to others. Not trying to be an elitist as some, but I have read more from both nay Sayers and alarmist on this topic than most, as I am still trying to come up with a conclusive answer. I agree, I wish that others would not use "egregious inanities" like the IPCC report.

A little food for thought , I find this interesting. "The average person who says they care about climate change actually has a substantially worse than average footprint. Monroe is the CEO of Oroeco, a recently launched web app that tracks a user’s personal impact on climate change."
(1)http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global/globe/land_ocean/ytd/4/1880-2014

[BrianTRice@gmail.com]

"logic would dictate": No, it does not. You're missing the forest for the trees. A statistical trend is not borne out one year to the next but over a much longer course. CO2 buildup happens over a very long time cycle and we haven't identified how long that is. There are complex partial differential equations that go into this which are not fully understood (e.g. how much is soaked up by the ocean which we have poor observability into) - what is understood is that the whole system's inputs are lopsided (heat in vs. heat out) and trending in the wrong direction over time.


re: "worse than average", this is not food for thought; it is junk. Educated people in the first world are all worse than average. Awareness and education are not cheap, so the correlation is just via education and time to reflect on the big picture.

[bigd]

"You're missing the forest for the trees. A ... is not borne out one year to the next but over a much longer course." Agree and when we go back to the 1910 - 1940s we see temp spikes like the present before the industrial revolution. Also, 8000 years ago the earth temp rose more than at any time in the present. But the alarmist do not mention that as there was not a statistical significant CO2 rise at that time. Do we want to go even farther back? History dictates that there is a wide variety of temp and climate changes constantly (yes over time). The biggest problems with the alarmist is every prediction they make is wrong. After Sandy I remember climatologist "warning" about how many  more hurricanes there will be, well low and behold they are going down, this is going to be a very low year. I remember once a person told me that to be a scientific theory, you had to be able to replicate it and get the same results. If that is correct than the alarmist are way off.
"it is junk." didn't mean to strike a nerve, just relaying a statistical fact from an experiment