How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Decklan]

"It's winter where I am and cold, thus disproving global warming."

Best. Argument. EVER.

I can't wait to hear the one about how ocean tides are magic and can't be explained.

[Grizzly Willy]

No.

I state that their "solutions" is more taxes.

That's pretty obvious considering the source of the faith in the whole debacle.

You think it's absurd that the pro-tax (and tax and tax and tax) wing might love to have more taxes?

Man, everything's a liberal conspiracy with you, isn't it?

[Dacien]

Because I don't want to look like a fool, I withhold opinion with reserved skepticism.

My luck is I'd go full-bore for global warming, only to have scientists say, "We've found new evidence to suggest that global warming was actually not what we thought! We now suspect that <insert new theory here>."

I'll just wait it out.

[Mortai2]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...e-and-move-on/

It's time to accept the facts about it and figure out what to do!

[Raybourne]

it's january 13 and there's no snow on the ground and i live in canada

---------- Post added 2013-01-14 at 01:02 AM ----------

Because I don't want to look like a fool, I withhold opinion with reserved skepticism.

My luck is I'd go full-bore for global warming, only to have scientists say, "We've found new evidence to suggest that global warming was actually not what we thought! We now suspect that <insert new theory here>."

I'll just wait it out.

are you still waiting out relativity, gravity, germ theory?

[Dacien]

are you still waiting out relativity, gravity, germ theory?

I'll just agree with whatever people want me to agree with, but I reserve the right to say, "I was skeptical the whole time," when/if they backpeddle.

[semaphore]

I'll just agree with whatever people want me to agree with, but I reserve the right to say, "I was skeptical the whole time," when/if they backpeddle.

I dunno, feels stupid to be sceptical about cell theory.

[Dacien]

I dunno, feels stupid to be sceptical about cell theory.

Well I never mentioned cell theory. I don't know anything about it.

[semaphore]

Well I never mentioned cell theory. I don't know anything about it.

Cells basically. And same level as global warming, gravity, relativity, evolution, germ theory, plate tectonics, molecular theory, etc etc

[caninepawprints]

I think it's normal for the earth to go through temperature changes. It was hot when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, cold when the mammoths were here, and now it's warming up again. One day in the distant future, humans (if we exist at that time) will be panicking because of global cooling.

[Grizzly Willy]

To be honest, I'll take "I don't know" over "there is no consensus" or "it's not actually happening."

[semaphore]

To be honest, I'll take "I don't know" over "there is no consensus" or "it's not actually happening."

The problem is that people saying I don't know tend to also say it's not happening in another sentence. Like Penn and Teller.

[Grizzly Willy]

The problem is that people saying I don't know tend to also say it's not happening in another sentence. Like Penn and Teller.

I know, but Dacien is usually more reasonable than that.

[Endus]

Because I don't want to look like a fool, I withhold opinion with reserved skepticism.

My luck is I'd go full-bore for global warming, only to have scientists say, "We've found new evidence to suggest that global warming was actually not what we thought! We now suspect that <insert new theory here>."

I'll just wait it out.

The thing is, it's not faith. You don't hang your hat on one idea, and if you're wrong, you burn in hell for eternity, unbeliever. You take a look at the facts, you see what you can model based on those facts, you use those models to make predictions. If you get more data, you improve those models, continuously.

Plus, we need to be clear about what we're talking about. "Global warming", or more accurately, "global climate change"? That's a fact. It's observed, and it's happening all over. Storms are getting worse, climates are going out of whack, etc. It gets a bit more squirrely when we debate why it's happening, which is why there's a lot of yak over "anthropogenic climate change", meaning "shit we did" rather than "shit that just happened", basically. There's definitely environmental factors, too. The issue is, it's difficult to draw firm lines between them. For instance, if we raised the global temperature slightly from anthropogenic reasons, this will cause some ice melt, raising sea levels and increasing the surface area of the oceans, leading to greater precipitation in general. It also leads to icecaps receding, which darkens the planet, and this means more heat energy from the sun is absorbed by polar waters rather than being reflected by the highly reflective icecaps (that's why they're white. I'm not talking mirrors, just why black clothes feel "warmer" in the sun than white clothes; they absorb the sun's heat better.)

A lot of those are natural processes, but we may have tipped the scale anthropogenically. It's like a bear on a tightrope. You might not be able to throw the bear, but you can poke him and make him fall. Saying "there's no way you could throw a bear to its death" doesn't mean you didn't cause it.

The data on this is conclusive. Figuring out precisely and exactly how and why is a bit more uncertain, but we still can't predict weather with any concrete certainty, either. A lot of science is about saying "well, it could be as low as X, or as high as Y". That's not being uncertain, it's recognizing that we don't have access to every variable, but even given those variables we haven't identified and controlled, we can still identify a range that we're statistically confident in.

[Hypasonic]

This isn't a statistical thread proving that scientifically, global warming must be true. However, it's just become so clear in my eyes that global warming has been occurring that it just seems obvious.
How ,you say? I live in Canada, and I'm 21. When I was smaller (the age where you loved building snow forts and playing in the snow) I distinctively remember huge mountains of snow piling up in my front yard...I mean huge, 7-10 feet piles that had to be plowed consistently from my driveway. I also remember halloweens where there was snow ( although not every one).
Fast forward to they past two years, living in the same neighborhood, in the middle of December....barely two inches of snow. Whereas 8-10 years ago there was probably upwards of 2-3 on the ground, with a mountain 8 feet high on my yard.
Thoughts?

May I ask, if it weren't for the mass media, how would you even remotely come to the conclusion that global warming was a reality?

edit: Oh, and I'm referring to "global" not "local"

[Sayl]

I posted the picture because it shows the evolution of the models being used, we're getting much better at working out just how fucked we are.

It doesn't make much sense to just post a picture without providing the relevant background or context.

Given the article I stole it from I assumed it was from the Met website? I could be wrong, but again I was just stealing the picture.

Then you couldn't have looked very closely. I'm not sure I buy your explanation, to be honest. After all, where did you read about this in the first place? You surely weren't just Google-image-surfing for graphs.

Like I said, the image you lifted is from a skeptical article which attempted to cast aspersion on both The Met and its modeling. Since you weren't specific or clear enough in your post, you give readers the impression that you were trying echo the content of the (crappy) article, even though your language was milder. That's a bad move.

I've never said global warming isn't happening (which is why I'm ignoring Semaphore, she seems intent on trying to argue against a point I'm not making...) more information is a good thing, better information is a good thing but the way it's reported to people who aren't scientists is also important, the way it's put out there for your average person matters and that's the part that failing.

Then you too need to be a lot more careful in how you try to present information -- as it stands, you're failing to abide by your own suggestion.

[Dacien]

I know, but Dacien is usually more reasonable than that.

Thank you good sir. I do try.

The thing is, it's not faith. You don't hang your hat on one idea, and if you're wrong, you burn in hell for eternity, unbeliever. You take a look at the facts, you see what you can model based on those facts, you use those models to make predictions. If you get more data, you improve those models, continuously.

Plus, we need to be clear about what we're talking about. "Global warming", or more accurately, "global climate change"? That's a fact. It's observed, and it's happening all over. Storms are getting worse, climates are going out of whack, etc. It gets a bit more squirrely when we debate why it's happening, which is why there's a lot of yak over "anthropogenic climate change", meaning "shit we did" rather than "shit that just happened", basically. There's definitely environmental factors, too. The issue is, it's difficult to draw firm lines between them. For instance, if we raised the global temperature slightly from anthropogenic reasons, this will cause some ice melt, raising sea levels and increasing the surface area of the oceans, leading to greater precipitation in general. It also leads to icecaps receding, which darkens the planet, and this means more heat energy from the sun is absorbed by polar waters rather than being reflected by the highly reflective icecaps (that's why they're white. I'm not talking mirrors, just why black clothes feel "warmer" in the sun than white clothes; they absorb the sun's heat better.)

A lot of those are natural processes, but we may have tipped the scale anthropogenically. It's like a bear on a tightrope. You might not be able to throw the bear, but you can poke him and make him fall. Saying "there's no way you could throw a bear to its death" doesn't mean you didn't cause it.

The data on this is conclusive. Figuring out precisely and exactly how and why is a bit more uncertain, but we still can't predict weather with any concrete certainty, either. A lot of science is about saying "well, it could be as low as X, or as high as Y". That's not being uncertain, it's recognizing that we don't have access to every variable, but even given those variables we haven't identified and controlled, we can still identify a range that we're statistically confident in.

And that's all good and fine, and I'll go along with it since I'm far, far from educated enough to rebut the scientific community. I work for a solar company so I'm all up in the environmentalism now yo, but I just don't want to get all up in arms about it until everyone calms down and reaches a general consensus, the way we've done about gravity, etc.

I mean, it's not like it affects Dacien in any day-to-day way, right? Me accepting global warming will have 0% impact on my behavior.

Edit: Plus I drive a hybrid, so I'm doing my part for a less-hot, safer-for-our-grandchildren planet.

[Endus]

And that's all good and fine, and I'll go along with it since I'm far, far from educated enough to rebut the scientific community. I work for a solar company so I'm all up in the environmentalism now yo, but I just don't want to get all up in arms about it until everyone calms down and reaches a general consensus, the way we've done about gravity, etc.

We pretty much are at a general consensus when it comes to global climate change, at least when referring to scientists. There's a lot of political pressure to not bow to it, since a lot of anthropogenic climate change's likely culprits are based in the oil industry, and they have a lot of money to throw around, much like smoking lobbyists did for decades trying to conceal the scientifically-accepted idea that cigarettes caused cancer.

I've done academic reviews in the field and I've got a working paper published by an international climate change adaptation group, which is why I feel comfortable being this firm on this subject. I'm not a scientist, though; I was working as a research associate in both cases, but you don't need a doctorate to read through several hundred papers and see the general consensus.

Nor do I expect the average Joe to have read hundreds of scientific papers. Hence my posting :P


Incidentally, these debates inevitably make me think of this comic;

[Decklan]

I think the most common misconception about the terminology (thanks to Fox News and other right swinging news organizations...) is that because it's now called Global Climate Change and not global warming DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE WARMING HAS STOPPED. I see a lot of people who are very obviously confused about what Global Climate Change means (again, thanks to right swinging media) and what they don't seem to know is that GCC refers to the fact that the climate is changing drastically in many ways. There are more severe weather events such as more flooding from heavy rains, more violent hurricanes, larger drought areas (expanding deserts).

There is still warming, and no, there being snow on the ground outside your house in the middle of January does not mean that global warming is fake. It means it's winter.

[oblivionx]

Incidentally, these debates inevitably make me think of this comic;

They seem to leave that RAISE ALL YOUR TAXES point out of it amongst the stifle economic growth, ban "bad" power for "good" power (that doesn't exist) and a litany of other things.

This is the problem with the global warming cult... What better world are you creating? How is enviro-terrorism going to create a better world?

The only thing actually proposed is more taxes and more government. If that's your creed, you're giddy about it... but if you aren't exactly enamored with the demagogues of the world rabble rousing their way to power and more taxes, giddy isn't exactly the word to use. The enslavement of the rural to benefit the urban is what they really are on about, which is fine if your urban I suppose.