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 -

Oh Tony

by Oz_Media In reply to A counter argument

A fact is not a thesis or a theory, it is not speculation. Facts are proven discovery.

The sky is blue on a clear, sunny day...FACT. You can say it isn't but you sure as **** wouldn't be correct by denying such a fact.

Round tires roll better than square tires. FACT.
Again deny it all you like, you are not in ANY way right though because FACT 'proves' you wrong. This is of course based on friction, agitation etc. Scientific and proven fact.

So no, facts are not deniable, you can 'pretend' facts don't exist or you can question the science behind a fact. But unntil proven otherwise, a fact is a fact, whether you agree or not.

Collapse -

Well I don't want to be picky

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Oh Tony

But the sky on my pluton is not blue on a clear and sunny day.
What colour is blue and can I have some more clarity in the definition of clear please and exactly how sunny does the sun have to be to get this unclear clear sky to resolve to this significant proportion of the visual spectrum known as blue.

I wish you was right Oz, but facts are all too easily denied. The meaning attached to the facts, even more easily.

Did I mention my new company Square that makes the roundest rolliest tyres ever, by the way ?

Collapse -

Completely incorrect, but amusing all teh same

by Oz_Media In reply to Well I don't want to be p ...

Your train of thought is somewhat amusing here, if not a little tiring.

When you are describing 'your' view of teh sky as somewhat smoggy, that is SMOG you are viewing not the sky. The sky beyond the smog is being inhibited BY the smog.

What s clear? Without smog, pure without tainted tint due to human intervention.

Water in a pool is clear too until you pee in it, that doesn't mean 'water' is not clear though.

YO uare playing a stupid game, it's not even worth it really, just a bit tiring. YOu really don't have a point, just a poor understanding of what makes fact a fact, it has nothing to do with what YOU believe or what YOU think. IN the case of Square, go for it, just don't invest your kids tuition money in it, because it won't fly. People understand facts and logic, because YOU feel square tires roll better , that is neither a fact nor logical in any sense of either word.

Collapse -

Now you've irritated me

by Tony Hopkinson In reply to Completely incorrect, but ...

Facts have actuallity, they have no inherrent meaning whatsoever.
The words we use to describe them, give context and we derive meaning from that.

Yes I was playing a game. I thought that was goddamn obvious, if you don't want to play, don't !

Collapse -

The Sky

by Jellimonsta In reply to Completely incorrect, but ...

Isn't the sky simply solar radiation viewable as a result of being scattered by air molecules, cloud particles or other particles?

If so, could not the SMOG be considered in this all encompasing definition of 'Sky'?

Just my 2c ]:)

[edit: because I type like a spazmo ]

Collapse -

Techinically everyone is wrong

by Oz_Media In reply to Completely incorrect, but ...

If you really want to get into it. The Sky woul dactually be every colour BUT blue as we only see the colours that are not absorbed and that are reflected back to our eyes. When something is red, it is in reality every colour BUT red, as it reflects red and does not absorb it as it does with every other colour of the spectrum.

But it's funny how a serious discussion that counters what MANY people sepw here is completely iognored or segued due to people's inability to accept facts they don't believe.

The sky as we see it is generally Blue because yes, the reflection of the sun off off our planet, oceans etc. combined with the particles of gases in the air make it appear blue, yet the atmosphere is for the most part made up of colourless gases.

The point is, 'the sky' as most normal people see it, is blue. Takes a real dork to see anything beyond that (sorry, nothing too personal intoned there), but really that is just geekspeak to avoid the focus of the comment.

Collapse -

Hee-hee, Oz: it depends what you mean by "is"!!!

by Absolutely In reply to Completely incorrect, but ...

If the color that the sky "is" describes the color(s) of the light frequencies that reach our eyes, then the sky is blue, but if the color that the sky "is" means the frequencies of light that the atmosphere does not emit, reflect, or refract to the surface of Earth, then the sky is some other color.


Collapse -

alright smart arse

by Oz_Media In reply to Completely incorrect, but ...

What is 'IT'? You know, 'IT' what is 'IT' all about? F**ck 'IT', screw 'IT', forget 'IT' what is 'IT'? Okay that was good acid and wild youth.

Anyhow,the PIGMENT that an object retains is not the colour WE see. Therefore a red chair is not actually red, we just see it as red.

A blue ball is actually every pigment BUT blue, but our eyes tell us it's blue because we simply see what the actual pigment reflects. Thus we identify objects by the reflected colour, not the actual colour.

Collapse -

not as much of a smart arse as I thought I was

by Absolutely In reply to Completely incorrect, but ...

It's the nitrous oxide (another greenhouse gas, aka "laughing gas") in the atmosphere that makes me feel funnier than I really am.

Collapse -

Actually all of you are wrong.

by croeiii In reply to Completely incorrect, but ...

To truly determine the color of any sky one must first remove ALL impurities. When that is done the true color of any sky would be.....Black!

Related Discussions

Related Forums