General discussion


Global warming is real, and caused by humans.

By Absolutely ·
Excerpt from**1/2

For the entire article, purchase a membership to

"Hurricanes are born in the warm waters of the tropical Atlantic and Pacific oceans, which are both getting warmer. Over the 20th century, ocean surface temperatures increased by between 0.32 degrees Celsius in the Pacific tropical region and 0.67 degrees C in the Atlantic tropical region. This has correlated with a twofold increase in category-4 and -5 hurricanes over the last 30 years (ScienceNOW, 17 August). Some researchers maintain that these changes in sea surface temperature (SST) are within the natural variability of climate. Others say that the human-caused climate change is the culprit.

"To figure out just how much people are to blame, atmospheric scientist Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California and colleagues compared observed SSTs with the predictions of 22 global climate models. They ran the different models under various physical scenarios, including changes in solar irradiance, volcanic eruptions, and increased sulfate aerosols and greenhouse gas emissions. Only model simulations that included the known human-caused increases in greenhouse gases replicated the observed rise in SST. In total, the team found an 84% probability that two-thirds of the observed temperature changes were caused by human activities. "There is no way of explaining the observed increases without positing a large human impact on these ocean temperatures," Santer says."

Maxwell, don't even start with your BS about political bias: Ben USED the competing models, and they all FAIL to account for the measured change. Address the science, or STFU, please.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -


by ProtiusX In reply to Can you quantify that ass ...

I feel as though I am arguing with a child. There are mountains of data that have been published and many of them were sited by Maxwell. Read his posts and follow the links. If you would like I can reproduce them with tiny URL but it would be easier for you to read his posts. If you want original links try these:

Collapse -

Is NASA an apologist for the left?

by deepsand In reply to Child

See .

Or, StratFor?

See .

You and Max are now in the position of having to attempt to proof that the majority of the scientific community is wrong.

Should you or any of your IM force be captured, ... Good luck.

Collapse -

Having worked at Lewis research center...

by X-MarCap In reply to Is NASA an apologist for ...

It is sadly... It is also a haven of very far left wing political people.

They renamed the engineering center after John Glenn. Oh the shame... It was named after an engineer, Oh the horror!

Collapse -

I think they may have been captured.

by deepsand In reply to Is NASA an apologist for ...

As neither Max or Protius has yet to reply, there's a good chance that they've been captured ... by aliens. Oops, that was earlier, which explains their odd behavior.

As for NASA, you're quite right. No one in full possession of their senses would dare to have such a logical reason for so naming a building; unless, that is, they had no interest in currying polical favor. It's an egregious display of naivete.

Collapse -

"not as great as being reported by the left wing propaganda machine"

by Absolutely In reply to On the contrary

"Child" you say? Fine, I won't dispute that. I know my age, and your opinion won't change that.

Key words like "left wing propaganda machine" can falsely give the impression to many readers, without proof, that your opponents' claim(s) is/are false. Because I am not a leftist, I do not take that particular epithet personally. But your response (criticism of the style of my delivery instead of the substance of the research I initially presented) is the basic reason that I continue to request quantified arguments, which you and Maxwell both continue to not provide.

I'll try to be less confrontational now, and return to the text of the message directly up the vertical line from this one:

"I did not say that humans have no effect on their environment. I merely stated that the effect is not as great as being reported by the left wing propaganda machine and regurgitated on forums such as this."

How great does "the left wing propaganda machine" report the human effect on the environment? How "great" or not great do you say the effect is? Please do me the courtesy of treating me as though I am not part of any "left wing propaganda machine" and that I honestly believe the facts as I have cited them. In fact, I am not running for any elected office, and have no other reason to hope for any material gain, other than keeping the Earth habitable for myself and other humans, if I successfullynconvince people of the reality of globabl warming caused by combustion of fossil fuels.

Collapse -

2 flaws

by deepsand In reply to Okay

1) Past causes of temperature flucuations are irrelevant; and,
2) Earth's climate is not self-regulating. It is, in fact, susceptible to runaway in either extreme.

Collapse -

Past causes are irrelevant to a chaos model..

by JCitizen In reply to 2 flaws

Both your statements are correct. I guess I better read the rest of your posts to verify just what stand (if any) you take on any action or lack thereof society should initiate.

Collapse -

A heads-up & a question.

by deepsand In reply to Past causes are irrelevan ...

Be prepared for a lengthy read; this is but one of many discussions re. global warming. And, just so it is clear to you, my interest here is first & foremost in the scientific facts, with matters of policy to be based on such; i.e., form follows function.

You say that you hail from Palmer, AQ, which presumably is not within the U.S.. And, since TR's system does not comport well with non-US addresses, those of you outside the U.S. are forced to use various kludges re. your location.

What does AQ denote?

Collapse -

re: form follows function

by Absolutely In reply to A heads-up & a question.

Please comment on the application of that same principle to the government as sponsor of research into effects of 'greenhouse gases' on climate. How does the observed form of the government's role as sponsor follow government's valid function? Or, do you see the role of sponsor as axiom, with form following that function, above question?

Collapse -


by deepsand In reply to re: form follows functio ...

Since both government & sponsorship are functions, I'm uncertain as to the meaning of your question. Are you asking if the sponsorship of scientific research is a legitimate exercise of government?

Related Discussions

Related Forums