It's funny because there's a forest fire going on right now in Alberta because of our warm winter. Luckily all 80,000 people in the area (including my brother thank God) made it out alive. To the few of you reading this thinking global warming is a myth, I'm here to tell you you're wrong as hell
@Duncan5769, tell those little countries over there too, making that sad face
@Duncan5769, right, because forest fires never happened before the 1800s....they're brand new.
@talmet, Well yeah but this one was caused because a lot of insects didn't die because it never got cold enough to kill them. These bugs hollowed out a bunch of trees and pretty much made it a tinder forest. Under those conditions a forest fire was inevitable.
@Duncan5769, and...insects never ate plants before the 1800s? Oh, and there were never war winters before either.
Wasn't climate change supposed to make winters cooler? That's what the "experts" told us a few years ago when there was the polar vortex.
@talmet, Please research the matter fully, or please just be joking
@Duncan5769, I have researched the matter. I know more about the "theory" of climate change than you do (I have a PhD in physics and have collaborated on 4 papers on climate change.
@talmet, this is the internet, you have no power here
@talmet, Hmm interesting. I think I'll listen to the 97% of scientists that say it's real, instead of the the guy on funny pics who speculates on everything. If you really looked at the facts you would know that weather patterns are off the charts all over the world. The earth is dramatically different then it was in the 1800's so I call bs on you PhD. And if you do have a PhD in that then what a waste
@Lettre, oh, I know. I just come here to laugh at ignorant people.
@talmet, hilarious, talking about the 1800s and not even bringing up the year without a winter then saying climate change isn't real. Good job, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge and lack of reasoning skills. Just because someone calls themselves a scientist and says they have disputed empirical evidence doesn't mean they are right or have.
@talmet, appeal to authority, logical fallacy. No goal. Foul, ten points o Gryffindor.
@Duncan5769, yeah, warm weather causes forest fires. That's why we're really just ash down here in Florida. The entire state just ignites every summer
@Duncan5769, yeah as an albertian you should see all the people hoping in to donate and help the fortmac people
@marinebiobry, if I'm not mistaken, there used to be an ice age a while back. I think it might have warmed a bit since then. But that could have been the industries and humans making it warmer
@The Megaton Bomb, I don't know about the Year without a Winter, but the Year without a Summer (1817 if I remember correctly) was caused directly by the eruption of Mt. Tambora the year before, the only VEI 7 eruption of "modern" times.
@Duncan5769, THE STUPID! IT BURNS! (Not you, the people answering you with the worst possible answers about CC not existing)
@Duncan5769, forest fires have almost nothing to do with temperature. Not saying I don't believe in global warming, but forest fires are usually based off of how dry the climate is. Therefore this fire doesn't really support your argument. We had a fairly cold winter this year in Massachusetts but because it was so dry there were a lot of fires from pipes freezing and stuff
@Duncan5769, the hot weather we're having isn't caused by climate change out global warming, it's from an El Niño system that's been sitting off the west coast
@talmet, you're the ignorant one here
@Duncan5769, on the bright side, forest fires are very beneficial to most ecosystems because it kills and brings big trees down and gives plenty of nutrients back to the soil. It also provides the open space and light needed for smaller plants and fungi to flourish in the absence of the solar filtration of the overbearing trees.
I'm glad to hear nobody was hurt and thought I'd add a little bright side (no pun intended) to this grim event taking place.
@Duncan5769, there's no 97% consensus. That was invented by a woman studying for her masters. Her original result was 45% consensus. Look it up.
The earth is different than it was in 1800. 1800 was also different than it was in 1600. You're assuming the earths climate has been mostly stable, it has not.
@I Are Lebo, haha, whatever dude.
@talmet, Are you serious right now? No it's 97%. I don't know how long it took you to find that because it's not even on the first 3 pages of Google when I look it up. It is an agreed fact amongst nearly the entire scientific community and do you know why. They see the evidence and come to a conclusion which is there job. The other 3% are scientists too scared too admit it exists to themselves. Seriously you're not convincing me or anyone else on this site it's false. You're convincing yourself. Do some actual research on some actual new source. Not conspiracyeduction.com
@The Megaton Bomb, I brought up the 1800s, as a random year I the past before the burning fossil fuels became common.
Should I also bring up the little ice age, or the warm period of the 1500s? How about bringing up that global temperatures were between 4-6 degrees Celsius higher during Mesopotamia/Babylonia times than they are now?
Natural disasters have occurred in the past, and they will occur in the future as well. Claiming that any natural disagree is purely the result of climate change is illogical.
Appeal to authority?
You mean like claiming there's a 97% consensus every time climate change is brought up??
@Duncan5769, look into who did the 97% consensus. Read their original paper.
Here's some facts for you to check.
-done by a woman studying for her masters. Last name Zimmerman.
-She surveyed 2146 earth scientists.
-she got 45% agreement.
-she then excluded over 98% of her sample without any statistical reason.
-she excluded all but 77 of her sample.
-her "results" 75/77 supported climate change.
@talmet, Yes the climate on earth has shifted between cold and warm throughout its life. I know that. The problem is the earth has never changed climate so quikcly. It's a very slow process normally taking tens of thousands of years to change as much as it has in 150 so far. The amount of natural disasters are way higher then they used to be. Animals are already starting to die off as a result. That is the part that is not natural. Not to mention in the earths cycle it's actual support to be slowly getting cooler. Not warmer as it has been
@Duncan5769, wow....you need to look into geological/glacial evidence of how quickly the climate has changed in the past.
Also, we have no idea what should naturally be happening to the climate, there's to many variables: sun activity (which we don't really understand, let alone be able to predict), changes to earths orbit and tilt (which are effected by numerous things, most of which we can't predict. I.e. The volcano eruption in Iceland a few years ago changed the earths tilt, as did an earth quake in chile about 5 years ago).
@talmet, There have been points in time where the temperature changed rapidly. But this never happened out of the blue. A meteor impact, a super volcano, etc... It takes a lot for the earth to Change as fast as it is now. Like oh I don't know, 14 billion pounds of garbage being dumped into the ocean every year, or billions of pounds more of pollution blanketing the sky. Or losing nearly half our trees to de forestation. Hmm yeah these all seem like man made things that could drastically change our climate. And that volcano and earthquake you mentioned changed the earths rotation so minutley it practically doesn't matter. It's changes the day on earth by fractions of a microsecond
@Duncan5769, it changes the length of the day by a tiny bit. That's not why I mentioned it.
Changes to the angle of the rotation, result in changes to length/intensity of seasons. Remember why the northern hemisphere has summer while the Southern Hemisphere has winter and vice versa? If you don't know, it's the tilt in the axis. We have summer when we are "aimed" towards the sun, and winter when "aimed" away. Changes in the tilt result it either the "aim" being better or worse.
Hmm...as for the causes of the changes to the earths climate in ancient history. Sometimes what you said is correct. Other times we don't know what caused it. Maybe something big happened, maybe just a bunch of little things. Geologic history isn't known very well.
@talmet, except that each of those events happened on a pattern that we have looked at with geology to roughly 50 thousand years ago. What we are seeing now is the pattern speeding up because green house gas traps the heat. The point of the year without a summer isn't that we are hearing up but that it will happen again as ice caps melt and send cooler waters toward the equator. We are destabilizing a cycle and the effects of a years with of crops dying would send governments collapsing, we aren't preparing for an inferno, we are trying to stabilize and lessen the cycles shifts. (We're actually just trying to get the 3% on board so the idiots in government will do something.)
@The Megaton Bomb, thank you I wanted to say that earlier but couldn't find the words. You did it beautifully. And Tamlet I used to be in the same boat as you denying climate change left and right. But I learned that if we all lie to ourselves to make us feel better nothing will get done and that scary scenario comes ever closer. It's one of the biggest threat facing mankind.
@The Megaton Bomb, 50 thousand years is nothing....it's less than 1% of the life of the earth.
Claiming that because you know the history of the last 50 thousand years, you know the history of the last 4-6 billion years is possibly the most idi0tic thing I've heard since I stopped teaching freshman physics.
@Duncan5769, haha, I don't deny climate change.
As a scientist, I doubt a theory that has yet to have a single prediction come true.
@talmet, I'm not arguing, I'm just calling out obvious fallacies. And before you ask the 97% thing isn't an appeal to popularity, it's scientific consensus. Even if the stat's wrong, the logic isn't.
@talmet, I didn't say you denied climate change. You deny it's man made. You're arguing with the overwhelming majority of scientists who's job it is to figure these things out. You're flat out wrong about this. There is a lot of proof that you're Ignoring. You want to feel safe and don't want to think it's a danger for you or you're kids and grandkids. But we need to all look at the facts and realize we're messing up. And in a hundred thousand years the earth will be fine, it's humans that will be gone.
@Duncan5769, What overwhelming majority. Provide an actual source for this "overwhelming majority."
I'm with 19 of the best scientists of the world, it's just idi0t kids and who haven't figured that out yet.
@Duncan5769, Um... Not saying that global warming is a myth... But that isn't proof of its existence.
@talmet, You want sources sure. Scientificamerican.com, skeptical science.com, and climate.NASA.gov. now where are your sources
@Baileyjrob, It's certainly not something to Ignore, and I gave some proof earlier and didn't want to sound repetitive. But those sites go into depth. Although one of them said the number was close to 95% in their study. Still overwhelming majority
@Duncan5769, none of those are sources of any study or survey of scientists. Provide a study or survey that shows an "overwhelming majority" of scientists agree.
@talmet, wow you managed to check all 3 websites and read everything they said in less than 30 seconds. I'm impressed. The websites talk about this argument saying that what you're saying is a myth. One of them did they're own study and got 95%
@Duncan5769, you provided basic scientific groups main webs pages. That's not a source, a source is a direct link, or the title with the name of the journal it was published in.
Which one did the study? As I've only heard about two "studies" on this. One was by a student who excluded people after she surveyed them. And the other was actually more of a test (the guy sent selected journal articles to scientists and asked them if the articles supported or disproved human caused climate change).
@ReeseBobby, it's an appeal to authority.
"You should believe me, because these 'experts' do."
That's an appeal to authority.
@talmet, It's a bit sad that you apparently have a PhD, yet you're spending your time arguing with a bunch of teenagers about climate change. Obviously there is tons of fear mongering, but the fact is that climate change exists, maybe not at the pace people claim it to be, but all our technological advances have a cost, and that is effecting the planet.
@ExtremelyIndecisive, wait...so because I have a job, I can't take 5 off every few hours to look at funny pics? I don't know what you think people who PhDs do, but it isn't work 24 hours everyday non-stop.
I teach a few classes a week, think a lot, and write stuff down. That's my job. Taking a few minutes to read a comment or have a discussion on the internet isn't something I can't fit in.
If there's a cost, then their should be proof. I've collaborated with colleagues doing climate research. There isn't any proof, and every prediction made hasn't come true.
@talmet, All you've been repeating is about your studies, but they could be completely biased, or completely fake for all we know. You haven't given any real sources either, other than your own personal experience, which again, could be bias or fake. As for why I think you're a bit sad, is because you're how old now, and you're spending your time trying to ridicule a bunch of kids on an app. You should be the mature one, and not putting down people without the same level of education. Simply put your point, and let whoever wants to believe it read it, and those who blindly attack you rant. You're older, set an example. It's hard to take you seriously when you argue like you're in high school, calling people idiots.
@ExtremelyIndecisive, I mentioned my job because someone on here said I didn't know about the theory. Since then I've only mentioned it when people ask about it (like you).
I've given real sources. Look up Zimmerman's 97% consensus. Read what she did yourself and decide if you should believe her results.
I'm not ridiculing anyone. I'm telling you guys to find actual studies and read them for yourself. Don't just believe things because your high school biology teacher or whatever said it.
We live in the Information Age, you can find actual first hand sources, actual hard data from scientific studies and surveys with almost no effort. Use it. Don't just believe things because some random person on the Internet said it (myself included).
I come on funny pics to laugh at funny pictures. Laugh at stupid comments. And sometimes engage in diverting discussions. Oh, and sometimes I give some physics knowledge when there's a picture about things like lightning/lasers/etc...
@talmet, scientific consensus isn't an appeal to autthoriy. Degree/expertise flaunting is because you're saying "I'm right because I have a degree. " Scientific consensus is our best understanding of the matter, held by those who actually study it. Scientific consensus is also valuable because it's reached through multiple levels of academic rigor, unlike a physics prof claiming there's a conspiracy.
@Duncan5769, because global warming is the only cause and not allowing foliage to build up in ecosystems that are supposed to have yearly fires, yep
@talmet, I enjoy the joke about freshman physics (made me puke when I took it, it's basically algebra 2.0). On a different note that is also basically algebra 2.0, we can come to a conclusion about what would happen because of basic statistics:
It is a representative sample because they are the years leading up to what we are projecting.
Sampling validity relies on number of tries, not percentage of whole.
It is also an xbar projection of a tangent based graph, which we can show by the random spikes where there are no hot or cold season.
There is no under representation because samples are taken from the crust around the world.
Therefore we can say that this is the pattern, we can't technically generalize to anything before that time period of 50k years but we can expect that's a cycle going on for much longer. I would guess until we actually started having land masses above sea level.
@talmet, "we live in the Information Age" ha, you have easy with physics forums and university networks. The layman have to search through google for an hour to find complete original works.
@ReeseBobby, science isn't up for a vote, so a scientific consensus even if it existed is meaningless.
You should look up the definition of appeal to authority. As appealing to a "scientific consensus" is a perfect example of it.
On the other hand, saying "believe me because of personal experience I have" is not an appeal to authority.
@The Megaton Bomb, the assumption being that there is no cycle longer than 50k years. This is incorrect.
Look up the cycle for the precession of earths orbit.
@The Megaton Bomb, pro-tip: Google scholar.
@talmet, scientific consensus shows that a given theory has gone through peer review process multiple times and represents the best of our current understanding. Personal experience is anecdotal, and irrelevant. It's also not the reason you used earlier when you claimed your degree mattered. You are (supposedly) a physicist, so your personal experience with climate science is no more representative than that of a mechanical engineer or a chemist.
@ReeseBobby, for almost 300 years newtons laws of motion were our best understanding of how the universe worked. It didn't matter, they are wrong.
Why I brought up my degree, is because I have worked on 4 different climate change studies with colleagues (who are climate change scientists). I am not ignorant of the theory, I've studied it extensively to be able to assist on those studies.
In case you were wondering, I assisted in data analysis, model formation, dealing with unknown variables, and statistical analysis of large data sets.
I used to agree with the theory of climate change until I worked on it myself.
@talmet, no, the assumption is that what has been happening for 50k years will continue to happen into the (relative to earth's life) near future. The second assumption is that a big change (once again relative to earth's scale) would cause the cycle(s) to change, which these hiccups of 20* or more, are not. Those hiccups are however a lot for us, and should be taken seriously by us.
@The Megaton Bomb, and what evidence is there to support either assumption.
Can we all agree that climate change deniers should be shot?
@Cpzombie, Do you want to start a flame war? Because that's how you start a flame war
@Glorious Grapefruit, apparently, you can also start one by continuing to cause global warming.
@Glorious Grapefruit, I'm fine with flame wars in general, but I'm pretty sure this isn't a topic people disagree with.
@Glorious Grapefruit, key word: people
@SurgeonSean, Well yeah, I'm not denying the existence of climate change. I just wasn't in a huge hurry to start a flame war or anything
@Cpzombie, Unfortunately, I'm sure you can still find plenty of people who still deny it
@Glorious Grapefruit, I mean, people can disagree about the shooting them part, but I'm pretty sure this community is smart enough to accept climate change.
@Cpzombie, I would hope so, but you never know
@Glorious Grapefruit, do I have to look under dumpsters? Old rocks?
@Cpzombie, Don't forget to check the underground doomsday bunkers
@Glorious Grapefruit, Well the climate change has made the air dryer, priming the environment for fires
@Cpzombie, Climate change isn't real. Also the aliens built the pyramids and all the most powerful people in the world are a reptilian race. Almost forgot, 9/11 was an inside job.
@Cpzombie, You'd be surprised. A couple days ago I was arguing on here with some people who still deny climate change.
@SimonPetrikov, actually, global warming would make the air more humid.
Warm weather melts polar ice caps, which leads to higher sea levels, which leads to larger surface area of the world covered by water, which leads to more water evaporating into the atmosphere.
Cold weather causes dry air.
@CriTiKa1, that'd be me, and I'm still waiting for any sort of proof that what I said was wrong.
This is why I almost failed environmental bio
@Glorious Grapefruit, was it a flame war caused by global warming?
@Cpzombie, hmm. The one time expenditure of the CO2 from gun powder to remove all the wasteful people or 50 more years of wasteful dinosaur burning? Nope, this is still an easy question.
@Glorious Grapefruit, well, one of our presidential candidates has said climate change is a very expensive hoax... *cough trump cough*
@talmet, when you say global warming as if it's limited to the scope that it was taught to you in middle school of ice caps melting, you aren't addressing any of the full issues. A heating of the poles isn't going to make deserts or tundras wetter and it certainly isn't going to make that which isn't right at the poles very different for a while. I wouldn't expect someone who (claims to) work with instantaneously arising issues to understand what happens to a balance if the scales of long run average are tipped even slightly, but that's why we also expect you not to speak on the subject except for when we need to know what a certain particle or item movement does.
(What is your phd, btw, because "physics" isn't a phd, cosmology or meteorology are.)
@The Megaton Bomb, Have an upvote.
@talmet, I gave you proof enough. At this point you're simply delusional and in denial.
@The Megaton Bomb, haha!!
My PhD is in high energy particle physics, which most certainly is physics.
Melting the poles would turn tundras into swamps (they'd heat up too). Deserts would recede as well.
Also...wait. What are you talking about with "instantaneously arising issues"?? The outcome of any sub-atomic system is the result of numerous random events. Any change of the climate is also the result of numerous random events. Finding a meaningful answer to questions about what happens after multiple stages of different probabilistic events is actually what I have collaborated with climate scientists on. As the math is almost identical.
@CriTiKa1, you gave me no proof. You said I was making up numbers which are actually directly from the "97% consensus" study.
But, I understand. Climate change isn't science, it's a religion. That's why people say they believe it, you don't hear people saying "I believe in Gravity." It's also why people say things like "Climate change is settled science", or "the time for debate is over."
-Science isn't debated. It's tested.
-nothing is ever "settled science," anything in science can and should be questioned, constantly.
@talmet, so you're calling 97% of scientists... Just a religon. You are possibly the most ignorant person ever. Right beside trump
@Duncan5769, read my reply to you on the other thread of this picture.
There is no 97% consensus. It was faked by an idiot trying to get her masters degree. Look it up.
@talmet, NO IT WASNT! Read my reply where I told you that. It is CO.plrtly agreed by most scientists. I have heard Neil Degrasse Tyson, Stephan Hawking's and other big scientists reference the 97% study. I trust them more than you to be fair. You've proven you don't know how to do real reasearch
@talmet, physics isn't a name they put on a phd, they put a field of physics but not just physics. Don't see how you didn't get that that was my point... (Instantly arising means a particle showing up in a collider for a nanosecond then decaying, something there for a second, not a longevity issue.)
Maybe over the course of thousands of years deserts and tundras would change like that, plants don't just roll in like its manifest destiny and neither do different species just take over.
(On to your reply to critical) You just said climate change isn't confirmed then follow saying everything should be questioned as if the former isn't a result of the latter. The difference between questioning to question and questioning to "science" is that it's not science when you are assuming it's wrong before doing field research. To say "studies" of the earths climate isn't science is like saying neurology isn't a science because we aren't allowed to do full blown experiments on the human brain.
@Duncan5769, look it up for yourself. Or look up the letter signed by 19 Nobel prize winning scientists debunking climate change.
@The Megaton Bomb, wait...you think particle physics only deals with virtual particles???? Hahahaha, wow...here's a hint. Look up how microprocessors actually work.
I never said plants/animals would instantly evolve/adapt.
As for your response about questioning. Incorrect. The default position should be skepticism. Doubt everything, until numerous experiments fail to disprove the idea...then continue doubting.
As Feynman said "science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Or if you don't like that "It was a shocking discovery of course that Newton's laws are wrong...we now have a much more humble point of view of our physical laws...EVERYTHING CAN BE WRONG"
@talmet, I was able to find literally one Nobel prize winner who said that. 19 though? I'm really interested where you're getting your information from. Seriously you make no sense
@Duncan5769, try google search 19 Nobel scientist letter climate change....
@talmet, I did. Those scientists didn't really disprove anything. They mostly said oh well the changes are tiny, it's not a big deal. But they're not taking consideration on the environment just humans. Yeah maybe 2 Celsius won't do much to humans, but it will impact our environment to such a degree it becomes unlivable for us too.
@Duncan5769, hey! You found it! Good job! Now, can you use some critical thinking skills?
An maybe, just maybe, give 19 of the best scientists in the world more credibility than your high school biology teacher...
@talmet, Hi, it's me, the creator of this post. I've noticed you've been posting lots of flame, and I just want you to know that this post is not meant take a political stance. It's a joke. And while I may disagree with you, I'm sure an intellectual person like yourself can figure out that, no matter how much you post, you're not really going to change anyone's mind. That's how it is in all flame. Please learn to take a joke.
@ericb, I'm not flaming. I'm giving facts. Grow up and learn the difference.
@talmet, OOOOH! I FOUND THE GUY UNDER A ROCK!
@Cpzombie, I know, talking to people on here about climate change is like talking to people from the 1990s. Wake up guys, most of climate change is a hoax put on by communists. Look at any "green" protest and you'll see them protesting capitalism.
@Cpzombie, you'll find that a good amount of people who don't believe in global warming DO believe in climate change. They just believe it's natural, rather than man made.
@talmet, I agree with you for the most part, not necessarily for your views but because you're being reasonable (guys, you are all flaming him. Not the other way around.) However, I do disagree on your view of science. Yes, the default view is skepticism, but that's not the same as denial. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
@Baileyjrob, thank you.
Skepticism is the default view of any new theory.
It is also impossible to prove any scientific theory.
Therefore, you should never accept any theory as "true."
At most, accept it as "not disproven yet."
I.e. Newtons laws of motion weren't disproven for hundreds of years (sub-atomic particle behavior disproves them).
@talmet, I absolutely agree. My point is that you've been saying global warming is false because there's no proof. I am saying, assuming there is actually no proof (which is debatable,) that simply makes it unproven, rather than false. Unless I'm misunderstanding, and either that isn't your viewpoint or you DO have proof.
@Baileyjrob, it's a new theory. If there's no proof of it, then it's an untested theory. Which everyone should view as probably false.
@talmet, but that isn't how science should be. It is untested, not false. Like, if I look at a dice and say "If I roll right now, I'm going to get a three," but then I stand up and walk away, it's unproven. I can't say I was right, but that doesn't mean I was wrong.
It's basically the same thing. Without any evidence in its favor or contrasting it, it's neither true nor false. It's a theory.
@Baileyjrob, it's an untested theory that's been around since the 1970s....that's a little suspicious don't you think?
@talmet, I do, but you claim to be a scientist. You should understand that, no matter how long it's been untested, it is still that: untested.
@Baileyjrob, however, there have been predictions made from the theory. None of them has come true.
- the polar ice caps were supposed to have melted by 2015
-the last snow fall ever was supposed to have occurred by 2010
-more hurricanes were supposed to have made landfall than ever before, every year.
@talmet, but... That's still not conclusive proof. Those are just miscalculations albeit major ones.
@talmet, no, it's was an example, didn't think I needed the eg.
You did say that would come into vacated zones like a. Desert or most of a tundra because a little water shows up.
Skepticism is what I am saying, I am also saying your earlier points didn't follow that pattern and we have numerous "experiments" (on both sides) that have different conclusions but only one side has consistently used the earth as their sample population. (Fancy quotes don't mean anything, you should know that.)
Because something can be wrong, doesn't mean everything is wrong and we should think in bubbles that the universe is out to trick us. Newton's laws still work fine for in atmosphere models, but we need something new when we go out of atmosphere and Einstein's rules don't help when we even further. This point is irrelevant to showing a trend in earth about earth.
@talmet, "untested since 1970's" did you forget it hasn't been tested because it's a study and if we were to test the thing we would be using so much energy that it would likely fry half the earth in a mishap.
@The Megaton Bomb, climate change is a theory, and from that theory people have many predictions about the state of the climate years in the future. All predictions have failed.
I listed out a few already in this thread. But because the theory has been around for decades, there have been predictions from decades ago about what the climate should be like today. It isn't. We still have snow, the polar ice caps haven't completely melted (in fact the Antarctic ice cap has grown), etc...
If all the old predictions from the theory have been false, why should we believe the new predictions?
@Baileyjrob, they are predictions that failed to come true.
In actual science, if you have a theory that produces predictions that are wrong. The theory is wrong. Period. It doesn't matter how much you like the theory, or how logical the theory is. It's wrong.
@talmet, I was unaware that global warming did anything but predict a rise in temperature and the other half about different parts of the world's affects was anything more than ecologists and meteorologists speculating about what could happen. If that is not the case then we can simply throw out those meteorologists and ecologists and keep the part that has accurately predicted rising temperatures and an acceleration of pace. If so, then merely strike the part of the theory that is basically codified speculation (the glacial movements, floods, etc.).
@The Megaton Bomb, nope, you can't just "throw out parts of a theory."
A scientific theory is something you have to deal with in total. You have to check everything that it predicts, and if some of its predictions fail, then the entire theory is incorrect.
Also, according to NASA's satellite data there has been no increase in temperature over the past 19 years.
@talmet, wasn't saying throw out part, I was saying ignore people speculating beyond the theory. The calculations and models only predict temperature not it's immediate effects.
Since you decided to cite nasa, I'd like you to comment on all this "not evidence". (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)
(Also, this is a good chance to condense the two threads into one, so just reply here from now on.)
@The Megaton Bomb, check the IPCCs report from 2012.
Some things to look at:
- the fact that global average temperatures haven't gone above the level recorded in 1998.
-the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998-2012) is smaller than the trend since 1951.
And "speculation beyond the theory"??? That's really not what occurred.
In science, you have a theory. You work out all possible effects of that theory. You then check and see if those effects actually occur. If they don't, then the theory is wrong.
The predictions I listed are basic predictions, resulting in first or maybe second approximations from the theory. That isn't "speculation beyond the theory".
An analogy to the theory of gravitational attraction:
The theory says mass attracts mass. A prediction on the same level as the prediction that the polar ice caps would have melted by now, would be something like "if I let go of a ball at a height of 10 meters, it should hit the ground before 5 seconds have passed."
@The Megaton Bomb, I realized that you might not know what a first or second approximation is.
The theory of climate change is actually an equation. That's how they make predictions like "the temperature in 50 years will go up by X amount"
Unfortunately it is an impossible to solve equation, even for super computers, it would take months or years to get an answer. This isn't an isolated thing, most of today's science, in all fields, deals with equations that are that difficult.
Therefore, people figured out a way to get approximate answers.
To illustrate, let's say I want to solve the equation x+sin(x)=e
There is no algebraic way to solve that equation.
However, I can use a Taylor expansion for sin(x) and for e to get an approximate answer.
-The first approximation of sin(x) is x in radians
-the first approximation of e, is 1
Therefore the equation is x+x=1, and I get the answer x=1/2
It isn't correct, but it's somewhere close.
@talmet, so if something is off we can know it's off but not to what degree it's off. In the math above we know that it can only be between 0 and 2pi, noninclusive, off the true answer and because we have been doing this for millennia we know that it is actually much smaller than that. We don't know the scale of inaccuracy for earth, we know it can be anywhere between frozen planet to boiling magma and logic beyond the hard math only takes us to "flooded earth". If we know flooded earth is too inaccurate then we simply correct our corrections.
As a not meteorologist, I can see many reasons why effects wouldn't be clear in this immediate of a future: for example, if the world is hearing up, the air is hearing up which just pushed the layers further away from the surface and would weaken the green house affect should the carbon content at lower levels not be cyclically refreshed. Is this proof, no,...
@The Megaton Bomb, ...but we know too little to know one way or another, we just know there are more reasons than just potential disaster to be concerned.
If global warming does ultimately wind up just being an excuse to be energy efficient, I can still live with that. Can you live with the alternative?
@The Megaton Bomb, ah yes, the climate change fall back position.
"If it's wrong, we'll still be making the world less polluted."
What a load of dung. This is science I thought. Not wishy washy "even if we're wrong, that's still ok" crap.
You should look more into how approximations work.
In the example I gave, I also have created a lower bound for the answer. It's a lower bound because of the way that sin(x) and e^x converge.
In the climate change equation, the approximations give a lower bound on the amount of heating that will occur at the poles. That means they create an upper bound on the time before the poles have melted.
And please, explain where the water for the "flooded earth" would come from?
The southern ice cap doesn't have enough ice to "flood" the earth.
@Slayers Den1, I was going to ask the same thing...
@Slayers Den1, Great Britain
Meh it snowed here in Colorado just a week ago so idk what to think
This pic has been downvote trolled. Dropping upvote nuke now.
@Ajunta Pall, so it looks like someone is reverse trolling me. Not gonna lie, that's brilliant but oh well.
But seriously, NASA's JPL said that the ocean swallowed up the global warming we didn't experience a few years ago... Completely defying the law of thermodynamics....
@The Hawks Eye, I also heard that the Earth is heating up by 2 degrees Celsius a month and in order to reverse the effects, we would have to decrease CO2 emissions by 80%.
@The Tower Of Pimps, it's not going up 2 degees C a month. If it did we would be dead.it's that much in 100 years. That doesn't sound like much but it's a lot trust me
@The Hawks Eye, or... maybe you don't understand the laws of thermodynamics at all or else you would understand that that is completely legitimate considering due to the mass of the ocean it could absorb very large amounts of energy with no noticeable change in average temperature, or maybe you're right and physics just broke
@The Hawks Eye, It's not that it's swallowing it up. Water is much more efficient and absorbing heat than earth is. So logically, most of the heat that reaches the planet will be absorbed by the oceans. This energy doesn't disappear.
@Duncan5769, it is a lot when you realize it's a global average. From the poles to the equation all averaged out, and rise means one end of the spectrum or the other is getting warmer
@Leprechaun Giant, yes I forgot to mention that. Thanks
The fvck is Britain gonna care?
And thus WW3 started. And ended the day after when Canada apologized.
Naw were not producing enough to kill the environment. Blame china they produce so much that its a perpetual smog in their cities. They produce so much that california gets blankets of their smif rolling in.
I'm American and I believe in global warming. I think most Americans do.