Global warming

Posted 474 day(s) ago 10734 Views 500 Replies
Results 1 to 50 of 501
Page 1 of 11 1 2 3
  1. #1

    Global warming

    Alaska is doing it wrong.

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...headed-ice-age

    Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

    Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation's icebox is getting even icier.

    That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

    Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

    In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

  2. #2
    JDShellnutt's Avatar
    Posts
    420
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Earth

    It's because of all the fine work Al Gore has done to stop Global Warming. Thank God for Al Gore, I know I do every day!
    2 users like JDShellnutt's post: oucub23, Teo9969


  3. #3
    KABOOKIE's Avatar
    Posts
    1,798
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    The DooDah

    It's now Global Climate change. Thus any change in temperature, weather, climate, whatever fits their agenda. 20 years ago the government barely employed ~5000 scientist in atmospheric research. Today it's well over 35,000. That's 30,000 new scientist doing everything they can do to prove climate change. Well they can't prove it, they can only continue to research it. The day they announce what the rest of us have known since age 5, that you can't control the weather and it has natural periods of cooling and warming, is when all those government stiffs lose their jobs. That will be a bad thing because most atmospheric scientist couldn't find another job outside of burger flipping.
    2 users like KABOOKIE's post: Fahooglegods, OUSchitzo


  4. #4
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    6,733
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by oucub23 View Post
    Alaska is doing it wrong.

    http://www.alaskadispatch.com/articl...headed-ice-age

    Alaska is going rogue on climate change.

    Defiant as ever, the state that gave rise to Sarah Palin is bucking the mainstream yet again: While global temperatures surge hotter and the ice-cap crumbles, the nation's icebox is getting even icier.

    That may not be news to Alaskans coping with another round of 50-below during the coldest winter in two decades, or to the mariners locked out of the Bering Sea this spring by record ice growth.

    Then again, it might. The 49th state has long been labeled one of the fastest-warming spots on the planet. But that's so 20th Century.

    In the first decade since 2000, the 49th state cooled 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit.
    They're just showing off.

  5. #5
    Yatahaze's Avatar
    Posts
    1,797
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Dela-where?

    Originally Posted by KABOOKIE View Post
    It's now Global Climate change. Thus any change in temperature, weather, climate, whatever fits their agenda. 20 years ago the government barely employed ~5000 scientist in atmospheric research. Today it's well over 35,000. That's 30,000 new scientist doing everything they can do to prove climate change. Well they can't prove it, they can only continue to research it. The day they announce what the rest of us have known since age 5, that you can't control the weather and it has natural periods of cooling and warming, is when all those government stiffs lose their jobs. That will be a bad thing because most atmospheric scientist couldn't find another job outside of burger flipping.
    Bullshit, I'd hire one to be my nanny too.
    5 users like Yatahaze's post: ImTheDude, nolesooner, oucub23, SoonerAmongThePack, Teo9969


  6. #6
    SoonerAmongThePack's Avatar
    Posts
    3,927
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1200
    Location
    In The Clouds

    Originally Posted by Yatahaze View Post
    Bullshit, I'd hire one to be my nanny too.
    Uh, negatory. I'm gainfully employed in the private sector.

  7. #7
    kssooner's Avatar
    Posts
    3,603
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Kansas

    Originally Posted by KABOOKIE View Post
    It's now Global Climate change. Thus any change in temperature, weather, climate, whatever fits their agenda. 20 years ago the government barely employed ~5000 scientist in atmospheric research. Today it's well over 35,000. That's 30,000 new scientist doing everything they can do to prove climate change. Well they can't prove it, they can only continue to research it. The day they announce what the rest of us have known since age 5, that you can't control the weather and it has natural periods of cooling and warming, is when all those government stiffs lose their jobs. That will be a bad thing because most atmospheric scientist couldn't find another job outside of burger flipping.
    I was thinking about this the other day and I wondered why, since so many seem to believe that man can control the Earth's environment by regulating this, eliminating that and through taxes and wealth distribution, we can't seem to make it rain when there is a drought. I mean, if we can control the temperature, we should also be able to make it rain anytime it's needed.

  8. #8
    SoonerAmongThePack's Avatar
    Posts
    3,927
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1200
    Location
    In The Clouds

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    I was thinking about this the other day and I wondered why, since so many seem to believe that man can control the Earth's environment by regulating this, eliminating that and through taxes and wealth distribution, we can't seem to make it rain when there is a drought. I mean, if we can control the temperature, we should also be able to make it rain anytime it's needed.
    Too complex a system on too grand a scale. Localized cloud seeding is the only practical possibility. Not possible in our lifetime's with any foreseeable technology.

  9. #9

    Global warming

    Last year was the warmest year on record. Keep talking about Alaska though.

  10. #10
    Fahooglegods's Avatar
    Posts
    4,926
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Right near da beach. Boy-eee!

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Last year was the warmest year on record. Keep talking about Alaska though.
    So? The record only covers what? Maybe 200 years. What about the other 4.5 billion?

  11. #11

    Re: Global warming

    Well cub started a thread about how Alaska's temperature dropped last year. So I rebutted with a statement that despite one state of 50 cooling, the rest of the earth was an average of 3.2 degrees warmer than any prior recorded temperature.

  12. #12
    Fahooglegods's Avatar
    Posts
    4,926
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Right near da beach. Boy-eee!

    Originally Posted by OnlyOneOklahoma View Post
    Well cub started a thread about how Alaska's temperature dropped last year. So I rebutted with a statement that despite one state of 50 cooling, the rest of the earth was an average of 3.2 degrees warmer than any prior recorded temperature.
    Once again. So? Its the liberals pushing "global warming", something they can't possibly ever prove (because it is a fairy tale). That article was simply poking fun at their ridiculous claims.

  13. #13
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/

    Within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

    Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.

    Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers.


    By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here.

    To utterly reject global warming is to reject science. Food for thought.
    2 users like OUMallen's post: brokebacksooner, dainbramage


  14. #14
    OUSchitzo's Avatar
    Posts
    2,277
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Dallas

    /\/\/\/\/\/\/\

    Sounds like if you disagree then you won't be in the "high school in crowd". Maybe Scientist by "nature" are not aggressive, if you know what I mean, so no ones going to have the balls to say "screw you all your wrong".

    If you go to school and are taught by someone who believes in GW then after 4-5 years guess what you believe in GW.


    The biggest Obstacle for Scientist to control the climate is this.......and God controls it (in my belief)




  15. #15
    kssooner's Avatar
    Posts
    3,603
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Kansas

    Global warming

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    http://scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/




    To utterly reject global warming is to reject science. Food for thought.
    The climate changes and has for billions of years. It warms and it cools all by itself. The belief that man can control the earth's changing climate by reducing a naturally occurring gas and the huge political agenda of forcing/regulating this, redistributing that to "solve" something man as zero control over is what is being rejected/debated.

  16. #16
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    The climate changes and has for billions of years. It warms and it cools all by itself. The belief that man can control the earth's changing climate by reducing a naturally occurring gas and the huge political agenda of forcing/regulating this, redistributing that to "solve" something man as zero control over is what is being rejected/debated.
    I mean, basically all peer-reviewed science either states CO2 emissions are a cause, or at least aren't NOT a contributing factor.

    It's like, science and stuff. I don't know how you can look that in the eye and go, "Nah, you're stupid."

  17. #17
    wut's Avatar
    Posts
    291
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Huntsville, AL

    Global climate change. Global. Warming the planet as a whole will alter our oceanic and atmospheric currents and lead to periods of both positive and negative temperature and precipitation anomalies. However, the concern is with the global temperature, which is rising.

  18. #18
    wut's Avatar
    Posts
    291
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Huntsville, AL

    Originally Posted by KABOOKIE View Post
    That will be a bad thing because most atmospheric scientist couldn't find another job outside of burger flipping.
    Yeah, all those semesters of physics, mathematics and computer science to get my degrees in meteorology will just fall by the wayside and I'll head on down to McDonald's for work. Good point.

  19. #19
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by KABOOKIE View Post
    It's now Global Climate change. Thus any change in temperature, weather, climate, whatever fits their agenda. 20 years ago the government barely employed ~5000 scientist in atmospheric research. Today it's well over 35,000. That's 30,000 new scientist doing everything they can do to prove climate change. Well they can't prove it, they can only continue to research it. The day they announce what the rest of us have known since age 5, that you can't control the weather and it has natural periods of cooling and warming, is when all those government stiffs lose their jobs. That will be a bad thing because most atmospheric scientist couldn't find another job outside of burger flipping.
    Anti-intellectualism at its finest!
    2 users like OUMallen's post: dainbramage, OnlyOneOklahoma


  20. #20
    kssooner's Avatar
    Posts
    3,603
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Kansas

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    I mean, basically all peer-reviewed science either states CO2 emissions are a cause, or at least aren't NOT a contributing factor.

    It's like, science and stuff. I don't know how you can look that in the eye and go, "Nah, you're stupid."
    http://www.petitionproject.org/

  21. #21
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    You reject published (!) peer-reviewed studies, the overwhelming majority of which support (or don't deny) global warming, in favor of a petition signed by people only needing a bachelor's, and also higher-level degree holders but in unrelated fields?

    I mean, you do understand that peer-reviewed studies >>>>>> petition, right? Not being a dick - just making we're generally on the same page about how "science" works.

    I mean, do these people signing an online petition from a janky-looking website somehow overcome peer-reviewed science?


    Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

    1. Biochemistry (744)

    I) Biochemistry (676)
    II) Biophysics (68)
    2. Biology (1,438)

    I) Biology (1,049)
    II) Ecology (76)
    III) Entomology (59)
    IV) Zoology (149)
    V) Animal Science (105)
    3. Agriculture (783)

    I) Agricultural Science (296)
    II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
    III) Plant Science (292)
    IV) Food Science (81)
    Medicine (3,046)

    1. Medical Science (719)

    2. Medicine (2,327)


    Thank God those physicians are checking into global warming!

  22. #22
    wut's Avatar
    Posts
    291
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Huntsville, AL

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    Yeah, the review article they circulate with the petition was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. I know that when I want information about climate science, the JAPS is the first place I turn.

  23. #23
    kssooner's Avatar
    Posts
    3,603
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Kansas

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    You reject published (!) peer-reviewed studies, the overwhelming majority of which support (or don't deny) global warming, in favor of a petition signed by people only needing a bachelor's, and also higher-level degree holders but in unrelated fields?

    I mean, you do understand that peer-reviewed studies >>>>>> petition, right? Not being a dick - just making we're generally on the same page about how "science" works.

    I mean, do these people signing an online petition from a janky-looking website somehow overcome peer-reviewed science?


    Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

    1. Biochemistry (744)

    I) Biochemistry (676)
    II) Biophysics (68)
    2. Biology (1,438)

    I) Biology (1,049)
    II) Ecology (76)
    III) Entomology (59)
    IV) Zoology (149)
    V) Animal Science (105)
    3. Agriculture (783)

    I) Agricultural Science (296)
    II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
    III) Plant Science (292)
    IV) Food Science (81)
    Medicine (3,046)

    1. Medical Science (719)

    2. Medicine (2,327)


    Thank God those physicians are checking into global warming!
    So those 9,000 PHd's are irrelevant?

    We know that all the scientists that tout global warming are only scientists in the field of climatology right? Is Al Gore a scientist? He hypocritical view on global warming is given a huge amount credit.

  24. #24
    kssooner's Avatar
    Posts
    3,603
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Kansas



    From Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert
    The following users like this post: beelzeBob


  25. #25
    Val on the Getner's Avatar
    Posts
    405
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Seminole Territory

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    The climate changes and has for billions of years. It warms and it cools all by itself. The belief that man can control the earth's changing climate by reducing a naturally occurring gas and the huge political agenda of forcing/regulating this, redistributing that to "solve" something man as zero control over is what is being rejected/debated.
    There's no belief that we have control over the climate, just that we're influencing it through the release of greenhouse gases.

  26. #26
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post
    So those 9,000 PHd's are irrelevant?

    We know that all the scientists that tout global warming are only scientists in the field of climatology right? Is Al Gore a scientist? He hypocritical view on global warming is given a huge amount credit.
    "PhDs in what??" Is the point. Actual peer-reviewed, published studies are the gold-standard of "science", not whether people will sign an online petition.

    Who the hell is talking about Al Gore?

    We are talking about the body of science out there.

    I'm not saying it's one way or another, personally. But when the body of peer-reviewed science says "X", and you have a large amount of people saying, "Y", I'm curious as to what causes people to say "Y".

  27. #27
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by kssooner View Post


    From Roy W. Spencer, former NASA climatologist and climate expert
    I don't have time to watch a 10 minute video, but did it somehow negate or dispose of all of the published scientific studies?

  28. #28
    We only base data off around 100 years. When climate has been changing for billions of years before humans even existed. No data that we have really tells us about climate change in the end It's too little amount of data.

  29. #29
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SoonerLibertarian View Post
    We only base data off around 100 years. When climate has been changing for billions of years before humans even existed. No data that we have really tells us about climate change in the end It's too little amount of data.
    Are you qualified to put away the vast majority of unbiased, peer-reviewed published studies?

    I mean, like I said- I don't know one way or the other. It's just crazy that people that have zero credibility or training (myself included) will willy-nilly ignore the body of knowledge we've developed.

  30. #30
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Are you qualified to put away the vast majority of unbiased, peer-reviewed published studies?

    I mean, like I said- I don't know one way or the other. It's just crazy that people that have zero credibility or training (myself included) will willy-nilly ignore the body of knowledge we've developed.
    Even if they are right. Which we don't know because again they don't know how cool or warm it was in the 1500s or 3000 years ago compared to now. That's just not possible to do unless we develop time travel. But even if we agree that global warming is happening what can a government really do to stop it? They have to do something through force and limit others liberty. This is just a bad idea.

  31. #31
    Sancho's Avatar
    Posts
    4,359
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Land of milk and honey

    Originally Posted by wut View Post
    Global climate change. Global. Warming the planet as a whole will alter our oceanic and atmospheric currents and lead to periods of both positive and negative temperature and precipitation anomalies. However, the concern is with the global temperature, which is rising.

    Hopefully we can get it to rise enough to stave off the impending ice age.

  32. #32
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,459
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Several problems...

    1. Based on ice core samples the earth has been worming over the last 30,000 years...the fifth cycle of warming and cooling over the last 500,000 years...even with no man made influence we could expect to see another two degrees of warming based on the previous 4 cycles, it just depends if we are at the peak...

    2. The system is so complex it is nearly impossible to predict what is going to happen over the next 30,000 years

    3. Even with indisputable proof of man being the cause of current warming we have little chance of dropping the climb as long as China, India, and others fail to contorl their CO2 emissions

    4. CO2 emissions in the US are flat over the last 10 years... 1998 we emitted 5,616,170 million metric tons to 5.610.108 in 2010 (latest data available) http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbprojec...010&unit=MMTCD

    5. China has increased their emissions over the last 10 years by an amount that is equal to US annual CO2 emissions...1998 2,967,258 to 8,330,963...and they continue to build coal fired plant after coal fired plant...

    6. US "Clean coal" requires scrubbing of several cubic miles of compressed CO2 each year and then injecting that compressed CO2 into the earth for eternity...yet we can't seem to find a way to store a much smaller amount of nuke waste for less time....
    2 users like pphilfran's post: dainbramage, OU48A


  33. #33
    andymancan20's Avatar
    Posts
    2,840
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Ohio

    is the IPCC peer reviewed? i had heard much of their work does not have to be made public which is a bit odd considering the ideal for science is to review work...not trolling just attempting to learn

  34. #34
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    Several problems...

    1. Based on ice core samples the earth has been worming over the last 30,000 years...the fifth cycle of warming and cooling over the last 500,000 years...even with no man made influence we could expect to see another two degrees of warming based on the previous 4 cycles, it just depends if we are at the peak...

    2. The system is so complex it is nearly impossible to predict what is going to happen over the next 30,000 years

    3. Even with indisputable proof of man being the cause of current warming we have little chance of dropping the climb as long as China, India, and others fail to contorl their CO2 emissions

    4. CO2 emissions in the US are flat over the last 10 years... 1998 we emitted 5,616,170 million metric tons to 5.610.108 in 2010 (latest data available) http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbprojec...010&unit=MMTCD

    5. China has increased their emissions over the last 10 years by an amount that is equal to US annual CO2 emissions...1998 2,967,258 to 8,330,963...and they continue to build coal fired plant after coal fired plant...

    6. US "Clean coal" requires scrubbing of several cubic miles of compressed CO2 each year and then injecting that compressed CO2 into the earth for eternity...yet we can't seem to find a way to store a much smaller amount of nuke waste for less time....
    I don't think we need to worry about 30,000 years as much as the next 300.
    The following users like this post: dainbramage


  35. #35
    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    Several problems...

    1. Based on ice core samples the earth has been worming over the last 30,000 years...the fifth cycle of warming and cooling over the last 500,000 years...even with no man made influence we could expect to see another two degrees of warming based on the previous 4 cycles, it just depends if we are at the peak...

    2. The system is so complex it is nearly impossible to predict what is going to happen over the next 30,000 years

    3. Even with indisputable proof of man being the cause of current warming we have little chance of dropping the climb as long as China, India, and others fail to contorl their CO2 emissions

    4. CO2 emissions in the US are flat over the last 10 years... 1998 we emitted 5,616,170 million metric tons to 5.610.108 in 2010 (latest data available) http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbprojec...010&unit=MMTCD

    5. China has increased their emissions over the last 10 years by an amount that is equal to US annual CO2 emissions...1998 2,967,258 to 8,330,963...and they continue to build coal fired plant after coal fired plant...

    6. US "Clean coal" requires scrubbing of several cubic miles of compressed CO2 each year and then injecting that compressed CO2 into the earth for eternity...yet we can't seem to find a way to store a much smaller amount of nuke waste for less time....

    Are you qualified to put away the vast majority of unbiased, peer-reviewed published studies?
    The following users like this post: OU48A


  36. #36
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Are you qualified to put away the vast majority of unbiased, peer-reviewed published studies?

    I mean, like I said- I don't know one way or the other. It's just crazy that people that have zero credibility or training (myself included) will willy-nilly ignore the body of knowledge we've developed.
    What's funny too me is people believing that man has the power to change the climate. What's even more funny is folks that are making a shitload of money off these people. Science is big business and if you don't believe that then I've got a product that will automatically help you collect 100% of the green energy around you no matter where you are located. Cost is only 4 installments of 29.99.

  37. #37
    OUMallen's Avatar
    Posts
    6,551
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1500
    Location
    City of Nompton

    Originally Posted by SoonerPT View Post
    Are you qualified to put away the vast majority of unbiased, peer-reviewed published studies?
    You moron, there's nothing in that post from pphilfran that says we aren't impacting the environment. ::sigh

  38. #38
    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    You moron, there's nothing in that post from pphilfran that says we aren't impacting the environment. ::sigh
    Shall I sign you up? Remember only 4 installments.

  39. #39
    brokebacksooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,810
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    2500
    Location
    Miami, FL

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    You moron, there's nothing in that post from pphilfran that says we aren't impacting the environment. ::sigh
    Why do you bother? They are going to continue their circle jerk regardless of the facts. Our time is better suited making a difference elsewhere.

  40. #40
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,459
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Originally Posted by brokebacksooner View Post
    Why do you bother? They are going to continue their circle jerk regardless of the facts. Our time is better suited making a difference elsewhere.
    Care to point out the inaccuracies in my post?

  41. #41
    KABOOKIE's Avatar
    Posts
    1,798
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    The DooDah

    I recall the planet Venus went through this same argument just before its inhabitants were scorched with summer highs of 900 degrees C.

  42. #42
    okie52's Avatar
    Posts
    6,733
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    vCash
    1000
    Location
    Edmond, OK

    Originally Posted by KABOOKIE View Post
    I recall the planet Venus went through this same argument just before its inhabitants were scorched with summer highs of 900 degrees C.
    Wasn't krypton also having some issues?

  43. #43
    the govt should buy everyone a wind turbine

  44. #44
    SoonerAmongThePack's Avatar
    Posts
    3,927
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1200
    Location
    In The Clouds

    I'm an atmospheric scientist. One of my grad school advisors wrote and served on panels with the IPCC.

    The planet is warming. It's possible to likely that we are contributing. It is also possible to likely that humans aren't the SOLE cause of it.

    Should we do more to limit emissions and keep CO2 down? Sure. We all breathe oxygen last I checked anyway.

    Will we all die in a fiery pit of flames in the next 50 years if we don't spend billions and billions of dollars tomorrow to put the brakes on industrial sources of CO2? Not likely.

    What really irks me is when every day weather events (like Hurricane Sandy) get blamed on global warming. It's really turned me off to the hard-core environmental crowd. Get out of here with that crap. There's a difference between weather and climate, and I hate when people try and link the two every time there's a natural disaster to push their own agenda.
    8 users like SoonerAmongThePack's post: brokebacksooner, dainbramage, KCRuf/Nek, okie52, OU48A, OUMallen, Sancho, Tundra


  45. #45
    SoonerAmongThePack's Avatar
    Posts
    3,927
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1200
    Location
    In The Clouds

    Originally Posted by andymancan20 View Post
    is the IPCC peer reviewed? i had heard much of their work does not have to be made public which is a bit odd considering the ideal for science is to review work...not trolling just attempting to learn
    Yes and no. The panel's recommendations and reports are NOT peer reviewed outside of the said panel members, but a large majority of the research and modeling that goes into the reports are part of other peer-reviewed work.

  46. #46
    SoonerAmongThePack's Avatar
    Posts
    3,927
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    vCash
    1200
    Location
    In The Clouds

    The other point I'd like to make is that we are a civilized and thriving species. There are side affects to our evolution and development as the dominant species on the planet. It's possible this is one of them. I'd like to hope that we can adapt to what the planet throws at us as a result.

    That said, this is something we can have a measure of control over, so smarter decisions should be made. I'm not for breaking the bank to do it, because an imminent threat to the human species or the planet at large has yet to be definitively proven. Impact events, changes to the sun, etc. are things we have very little to no control over and would change or end our rule pretty abruptly.
    The following users like this post: dainbramage


  47. #47
    pphilfran's Avatar
    Posts
    10,459
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    vCash
    1000

    Three quality posts all in a row....
    2 users like pphilfran's post: andymancan20, SoonerAmongThePack


  48. #48
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    2,651
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1476
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    Several problems...



    3. Even with indisputable proof of man being the cause of current warming we have little chance of dropping the climb as long as China, India, and others fail to contorl their CO2 emissions
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

  49. #49
    Dexa's Avatar
    Posts
    2,651
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    1476
    Location
    Moore

    Originally Posted by OUMallen View Post
    Are you qualified to put away the vast majority of unbiased, peer-reviewed published studies?

    I mean, like I said- I don't know one way or the other. It's just crazy that people that have zero credibility or training (myself included) will willy-nilly ignore the body of knowledge we've developed.
    Didn't you know? Your knowledge is equal to my ignorance.



    edit: to the people convinced that man could not change the climate..

    Do you mean.. like.. forever? or like.. at all?

    Are you on the fence to what a nuclear holocaust would do to the environment and climate? Just wondering honestly.

  50. #50
    brokebacksooner's Avatar
    Posts
    1,810
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    vCash
    2500
    Location
    Miami, FL

    Originally Posted by pphilfran View Post
    Care to point out the inaccuracies in my post?
    you and Cub are two of the smartest posters here. on this topic you are wrong.

Similar Threads

  1. How about that global warming?
    By NTXSooner13 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 7th, 2013, 05:48 PM
  2. Global warming - Guess we are screwed
    By pphilfran in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: September 2nd, 2013, 11:51 PM
  3. Global warming is real
    By oucub23 in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: April 9th, 2013, 10:39 PM
  4. Global Warming?
    By SoonerBounce in forum ThunderDome
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2013, 11:17 AM