• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Global Warming

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't know about you, but this winter in my region has been off the record warm, hell, I'm hearing a thunder storm as we speak. It was predominantly in the sixties all jan. Now we are moving into march, WTF......Does anybody agree with Gobal Warming?
 

GarzaUK

British, Irish and everything in-between.
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Messages
3,688
Reaction score
631
Location
Carrickfergus, Northern Ireland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Is our planet warming. Definitely. The hottest five years in UK history has happened in the last ten years. In 2002 a whole antartic shelf the size of a small country dropped into the ocean. The proof goes one. Weather over here is changing. The majority of our rain now comes in the summer instead of the winter. We're being told to save water over here and it's Feburary for cryingout loud.
Plus the Atlantic axis has tilted slighty somehow. Meaning in the summer Spain and Portugal get severe droughts in the summer and France, Germany and Austria get flooded. The Swiss Alp glaciers have melted to an all time low.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
GarzaUK said:
Is our planet warming. Definitely. The hottest five years in UK history has happened in the last ten years. In 2002 a whole antartic shelf the size of a small country dropped into the ocean. The proof goes one. Weather over here is changing. The majority of our rain now comes in the summer instead of the winter. We're being told to save water over here and it's Feburary for cryingout loud.
Plus the Atlantic axis has tilted slighty somehow. Meaning in the summer Spain and Portugal get severe droughts in the summer and France, Germany and Austria get flooded. The Swiss Alp glaciers have melted to an all time low.
Actually according to NOAA (National Oceanic Association America) the globe's temperature has risen .05 degrees since 1890-2006? That's not exactly hot?
 

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,450
Reaction score
3,842
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Virtualy everyone now understands it is a real occurance, not that they care, but at least they recognize it.
 

ngdawg

conliberaservatarianist
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
2,149
Reaction score
24
Location
trackside
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
GarzaUK said:
Is our planet warming. Definitely. The hottest five years in UK history has happened in the last ten years. In 2002 a whole antartic shelf the size of a small country dropped into the ocean. The proof goes one. Weather over here is changing. The majority of our rain now comes in the summer instead of the winter. We're being told to save water over here and it's Feburary for cryingout loud.
Plus the Atlantic axis has tilted slighty somehow. Meaning in the summer Spain and Portugal get severe droughts in the summer and France, Germany and Austria get flooded. The Swiss Alp glaciers have melted to an all time low.
I figured that before I post anything, I'd look things up. Seems that while the scientific community agrees that Earth's mean temperatures have risen in the last 100 years at least, why is not unanimous. Some links I found:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html states that the 5 warmest years on record occurred in the last 8 years.
http://www.culturechange.org/issue13/globalwarming.html This scientist sees it as a reduction in Earth's CO2 for a number of reasons, generally manmade.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateTrendsTemperature.html Perhaps the least objective, but still not conclusive in the whys and hows.
My own thoughts on this is that the reasons are two-fold-both manmade and the aging of our planet, with manmade holding most of the blame. There doesn't even seem to be a consensus on whether the Equator is moving northward, which was a major concern a few years back, to the point of reports that Kentucky would be cut in half by it in relatively short time. ie; a few centuries.:shock:
I think while it's true we all know about it, and many don't care, there are many who do, but how do we control it as a society? Mindsets being changed to using bikes or public transportation, alternate fuel sources are hard to change. I'd certainly be willing to use alternate clean-burning fuel; NJ's Public Service Electric and Gas used methane-fueled service fleets under Governor Whitman's term, but I haven't seen any of those in years, if they still are in use. Big Oil is probably lobbying against fuels such as ethanol and other vegetable or waste-based fuels-that cuts their profits if they were to become a viable choice. Landfills give off tons of methane and it mostly just gets burned off or released, furthering the problem. It's a great source of fuel!! Yet there's no incentive across the country to utilize it as well as it could be.
It is, unfortunately, the proverbial rock and a hard place.
 

Apostle13

Wisdom Warrior
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 3, 2005
Messages
1,344
Reaction score
24
Location
Outer Darkness
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
tecoyah said:
Virtualy everyone now understands it is a real occurance, not that they care, but at least they recognize it.
I recently read an interesting article concerning the ice fields at both polar regions. Initially scientists had believed the ice was only diminishing at the southern pole, but now have evidence it is occurring about evenly for the northern one. This was due to warmer ocean currents penetrating/undermining beneath the ocean ice. Suggesting that the phenomenon is atmosherical (man) as well as universal. It could be our sun is getting hotter by means of expansion (closer), which is reason enough for NASA to initiate a planned series of launches/missions to begin studying the sun and its relevance there about.
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
tecoyah said:
Virtualy everyone now understands it is a real occurance, not that they care, but at least they recognize it.

"Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of

"extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the

world's climatologists are agreed" that we must

"prepare for the next ice age." The Christian

Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is

Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug.

27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to

advance," "growing seasons in England and

Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North

Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean

can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World,"

April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost

unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result

from the global cooling that the New York Times

(Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to

another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also

said "a major cooling of the climate is widely

considered inevitable" now that it is "well

established" that the Northern Hemisphere's

climate "has been getting cooler since about

1950."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

What happened and why, if we assume we are warming now, did the trend change if it even is a change?
 

Ausonius

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So,what do you suggest we do? - Buy warmer clothes?

Do you really think that anyone responsible to government will do anything?
 

Loxd4

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2005
Messages
206
Reaction score
0
Location
South Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
You know what happens if some one bomb the south and north pole to melt the snow to help global warming...wouldn't that suck
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
"Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of

"extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation."

Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the

world's climatologists are agreed" that we must

"prepare for the next ice age." The Christian

Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is

Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug.

27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to

advance," "growing seasons in England and

Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North

Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean

can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World,"

April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost

unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result

from the global cooling that the New York Times

(Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to

another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also

said "a major cooling of the climate is widely

considered inevitable" now that it is "well

established" that the Northern Hemisphere's

climate "has been getting cooler since about

1950."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

What happened and why, if we assume we are warming now, did the trend change if it even is a change?

I suggest you read these two then:
Post 1

Post 2

Your source is completely obsolete and pointless with regards to this matter. A very lame attempt to discredit the actual science and facts of current studies. Not indifferent to what the oil companies are doing.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Apostle13 said:
I recently read an interesting article concerning the ice fields at both polar regions. Initially scientists had believed the ice was only diminishing at the southern pole, but now have evidence it is occurring about evenly for the northern one. This was due to warmer ocean currents penetrating/undermining beneath the ocean ice. Suggesting that the phenomenon is atmosherical (man) as well as universal. It could be our sun is getting hotter by means of expansion (closer), which is reason enough for NASA to initiate a planned series of launches/missions to begin studying the sun and its relevance there about.
I suggest you also read these two:
Post 1

Post 2

As well as the Time special report issue last week. Here's the source if you didn't see it.
Post 3
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
Your source is completely obsolete and pointless with regards to this matter. A very lame attempt to discredit the actual science and facts of current studies. Not indifferent to what the oil companies are doing.

Obsolete, ALL those scientist ALL those sources cite are obsolete? The articles all stated it was undeniable. They were looking at the evidence, much of it the same we are looking at now, and it was clear we were in a cooling trend. Well those measurements haven't changed. So what happened?
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Obsolete, ALL those scientist ALL those sources cite are obsolete? The articles all stated it was undeniable. They were looking at the evidence, much of it the same we are looking at now, and it was clear we were in a cooling trend. Well those measurements haven't changed. So what happened?
Perhaps you would like to look up what it means to be obsolete.
I didn't say they were wrong, I said they were obsolete. Irrelevant with regards to current issues. Perhaps you read the articles I gave you? Seems like you didn't.
Also let me point out the contrast between sources that you've cited: an opinion article written by a non-scientist on the website jewishworldreview.com, vs what I've cited: Nature.
 
Last edited:

Ausonius

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Apparently, the true test of science is not empirical evidence, but rather political correctness.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
Perhaps you would like to look up what it means to be obsolete.

Nope but you can explain what makes those scientist obsolete and the same data obsolete.

I didn't say they were wrong, I said they were obsolete. Irrelevant with regards to current issues.

I know what you said, but your simple declaration doesn't pass as a reasoned explaination.

Perhaps you read the articles I gave you? Seems like you didn't.
Also let me point out the contrast between sources that you've cited: an opinion article written by a non-scientist on the website jewishworldreview.com, vs what I've cited: Nature.

That's just one place it was posted and it was the opinion of a non-scientist, it was the writings of a political writer cited the stated FINDINGS of some of the very same scientist and publications crying global warming now. And the states made then were made with just as much confidence as the ones now.

From the NewsWeek article from 1975

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually."..........................

"
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972."

Hmmm weren't greenhouse gases increasing during those times?

They were looking at the same data then that is used now for those periods, that data hasn't changed.

From the 1974 National Science Board

"During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.""Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know."

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/july_2003/climate.htm



So what has changed?
 

C.J.

Active member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
409
Reaction score
9
Location
Mississippi
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stinger said:
And the states made then were made with just as much confidence as the ones now.?

I believe the statements then were made believing that C02 contributes to global warming, and that particulate pollution was believed to contribute to global cooling. Many believed that particulate pollution would dominate, therefore global cooling was more likely.

There was disagreement over this theory then, as there is now concerning global warming. Scientists knew that any variation in the previous 30 or 40 years was over too short a period to be meaningful in the global cooling debate, but some were drawn in by the press, their own convictions, and their desires to be right. Same can be said for today.

Regards,

"C.J."
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Nope but you can explain what makes those scientist obsolete and the same data obsolete.

I know what you said, but your simple declaration doesn't pass as a reasoned explaination.
Simple, it's the year 2006 now. Those articles are essentially a quarter century old. And irrelevant to the situation today. See reason followed below.

Stinger said:
That's just one place it was posted and it was the opinion of a non-scientist, it was the writings of a political writer cited the stated FINDINGS of some of the very same scientist and publications crying global warming now. And the states made then were made with just as much confidence as the ones now.

From the NewsWeek article from 1975

"The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually."..........................

"
A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972."

Hmmm weren't greenhouse gases increasing during those times?

They were looking at the same data then that is used now for those periods, that data hasn't changed.

From the 1974 National Science Board

"During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade.""Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age." And in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences stated: "The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know."

http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/july_2003/climate.htm


So what has changed?
Ironically, the Clean air act signed into law by Nixon.
The very phenomenon that is described back then is also directly correlated with human involvement. Prior to the clean air act and formation of the EPA there was essentially no regulation of the amount of particulates or soot dumped into the atmosphere from industry and utility companies. Not to mention vehicular emissions back then were also extremely dirty and containing lead as an octane booster which also led to particulate emissions. Essentially forming enough "cover" that much of the sunlight was blocked out. This phenomena was not even known nor prooven until, again, ironically, the 3 days after 9/11. It's known as global dimming and it's very prominent today in the developing countries of China and India where predominantly dirty coal power plants power those nations.
This phenomenon is known as Global Dimming. A kind of negative pull on the effects of Global dimming if you will.

So you ask what has changed? Ironically, the air is cleaner. Thus the true effects global warming are showing.

Source:Aerosols cool more than expected
 
Last edited:

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
Simple, it's the year 2006 now.

So the mere fact that the number of the year can reverse Global Cooling and an impending Ice Age. Well that is quite amazing. What if next year we call it 1975 again then we can reverse any Global Warming that is occouring.

Those articles are essentially a quarter century old. And irrelevant to the situation today. See reason followed below.

Only if the data from the years prior to 1975 that these articles cite has changed. I see no evidence that it has.


So you ask what has changed? Ironically, the air is cleaner. Thus the true effects global warming are showing.

IOW another guess, IOW we have no idea. Read the article cites again. The scientist were "convinced", is wasn't debatable. And we really have no new data to deal with.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051219/full/051219-11.html
 

Gill

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 5, 2005
Messages
8,713
Reaction score
1,907
Location
The Derby City
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
jfuh said:
Your source is completely obsolete and pointless with regards to this matter.
Yes, and in 25 years the global warming zealots will be declared obsolete... and laughed at.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Gill said:
Yes, and in 25 years the global warming zealots will be declared obsolete... and laughed at.
So you deny that global warming is not happening? You deny that global warming is not attributed by the greenhouse gas carbon Dioxide?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Gill said:
Yes, and in 25 years the global warming zealots will be declared obsolete... and laughed at.

Exactly. I remember those days well when the fear was a "mini-ice age". The fact is we are still coming out of the last one. If you read the article from then they were plotting ways and even wanted to try some that would cause the world to warm up. Imagine if we had listened to them and done them and THEY WORKED.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
So the mere fact that the number of the year can reverse Global Cooling and an impending Ice Age. Well that is quite amazing. What if next year we call it 1975 again then we can reverse any Global Warming that is occouring.
Now you are very dishonestly misrepresenting my statment, I said nothing of the sort. I said your reference was of obsolete data. The new facts proove that while global dimming had indeeed occurred, but because of the clean air act, it's no longer occuring and dimminishing. Thus we're now expereincing the full effects of global warming.

Stinger said:
Only if the data from the years prior to 1975 that these articles cite has changed. I see no evidence that it has.
I find it interesting that you edited out the remainder of my post.



Stinger said:
IOW another guess, IOW we have no idea. Read the article cites again. The scientist were "convinced", is wasn't debatable. And we really have no new data to deal with.
I read you're obsolete article, and I've presented a new article. Now are you going to debate each word for word with me on this issue or are you going to open your eyes and read the facts which I've posted.
Here's what it is in a nut shell.
1) Global warming = positive effect on temperature - caused by green house gas
2) Global dimming = negative effect on temperature - caused by soot and particulates from emissions
3) Combustion of fossil fuels produces 1 & 2
4) Clean air act eliminated the effect of 2

5) 1 remains.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Exactly. I remember those days well when the fear was a "mini-ice age". The fact is we are still coming out of the last one. If you read the article from then they were plotting ways and even wanted to try some that would cause the world to warm up. Imagine if we had listened to them and done them and THEY WORKED.
Well what would've happened stinger? If I recall correctly, according to you humans can not effect climate.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
jfuh said:
Now you are very dishonestly misrepresenting my statment, I said nothing of the sort.

I asked you what made the information obsolete and the only think you gave me was the number of the year has changed.

I said your reference was of obsolete data.

Since when did the previous global temperature date become obsolete? Those are the same historical measurements used today. Who declared all those previous measurements are now obsolete and where did the new date come from?

The new facts proove that while global dimming had indeeed occurred, but because of the clean air act, it's no longer occuring and dimminishing. Thus we're now expereincing the full effects of global warming.

And since the clean air act ONLY applies to the US then you would have to prove that the other countries in the world such as China and Eastern Europe and not replacing what we cleaned up.

So we screwed up when the scientist had us use alternative aerosols and all we have to do to reverse so-called global warming is go back to using them by this reasoning.

But then there is this recent report showing that, as opposed to what you are saying, low levels of soot cause global warming and high levels cause global cooling.....

"
It was the results of this modelling that persuaded them that soot is twice as effective as carbon dioxide in raising global surface air temperatures.
The report says high soot emissions may have contributed substantially to global warming over the past century, notably to the growing trend in recent decades for ice, snow and permafrost to melt earlier in the spring."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3333493.stm


So in fact the clean air act should have caused cooling not warming as you state.


I find it interesting that you edited out the remainder of my post.

You find brevity interesting?


I read you're obsolete article, and I've presented a new article.

But have yet to answer what made all the data is obsolete and no longer operative. And you have yet to post anything from any authoritative source proving that the fact we cleaned the air is now causing global warming for if that is true it would be very easy to fix, just go back to what we were doing.
 
Top Bottom