AGW Theory - Discussion

This thread per request and to alleviate debates in the Random P&R thread is for general discussion / debates / graphs / etc. on AGW (man made global warming) Theory.

Want to provide evidence of its existence, question that evidence, etc.?

Do it here.

Let's see how this goes.

Keep it relatively civil so I don't have to de-main it!

Previous Climate Change/AGW Thread for reference.

And introducing the thread mascot!

Far as I"m concerned that is all the proof I need !

You mean that we'll all turn Blue from Cosmic Rays and he's from the future?

k

Anthropogenic global warming theory is a scam fostered on the world in order to promote various statist/autheitarian agendas.

/thread

The effects of Global Warming will not happen even in our great grandchildren's lifetimes.

/thread

I'm glad we're off to a solid evidence based discussion here...

And what exactly were you expecting a dissertation by internet scholars ?

What I hope for and what I expect obviously aren't the same thing.

Hmm, down to 28% now. Come on, buddy. I know you can bring those numbers up!

This isn't true...we already have sweeping changes across the globe that leave most countries completely unprepared to weather conditions they weren't used to before. Including crops.
Many animal species are already migrating/reproducing less depending on where they are cause they can't live in the same conditions anymore.

Like I said last time, go ahead and question man's influence all you want, but let's at least not deny the obvious. Regressing to the basics isn't going to help the discussion.

The weather patterns in New Zealand have changed radically in the past 10 years. During my lifetime, the worst thing about winter was the wind and rain, thunderstorms were usually limited to sheet lightning (actual lightning strikes were unheard of), there were no tornadoes, the only snowfall the North Island experienced was at Tongariro National Park (middle of the North Island), and at best, summer was mildly warm.

Now, tornadoes happen fairly frequently in certain areas, lightning strikes have become common, summer temperatures have increased, winter usually brings some degree of flooding in multiple locations, and the last time I was there, it snowed in the freaking capital city of Wellington. There were people everywhere taking pictures with their cellphones because it never happens.

As Seha said, the degree of mankinds' effect on climate change may be up for debate, but the fact that climate-is-a-changing is not.

I really think this is a bad forum to be discussing climate change. We need to look to our role models, the leaders in the field, for inspiration. Therefore, I propose that we do as they do.

Let's all board our private planes that can burn over 300 gallons of fuel an hour and head to Switzerland to hold a conference about it.

At least they're carpooling!

I kind of wish scientists would stop pissing around with the debate of whether or not mankind is responsible. Whether we are or not, we at least need to formulate how we're going to deal with it, especially if the trend continues.

I thought Pleebo already had a thread for this:
http://www.ffxiah.com/forum/topic/43080/us-climate-has-already-changed-study-finds/

2nd post, and people are ignoring it.

Read carefully over the last few pages and you'll see why and how this thread is different and inevitably needed.

Answer:

Gonna grab my list of links from the other thread, of particular relevance would be the first 3 links. Again, sorry they're just abstracts, but I can try to dig up more if people are interested (and preferably civil).Also gonna bring up the 3 points of contention I think revolve around this whole debate:

1) The media does a shitty job representing the information, which is something I think both sides would agree on. The result is that there's room for people to correct misconceptions through data.
2) Questioning the data and reports, which is valid, but does also require that you actually read the information and understand what is being said. Disregarding it without either pointing out a intrinsic flaw or having sourced data that disproves it is silly on both sides.
3) The economic factors, which I maintain is the real reason there's even a disagreement. Who profits, who loses, the technological developments, the politics behind it all, and ultimately, whether you think our species has become too industrious or not. This is really a million things, I guess, and pretty much revolving around your standpoint on the science and likely your political views.

/needle

this is where I've always been on the topic. Let's not argue about how we got here, let's argue about where we're going.

The reason for why the source matters would be whether or not certain activities (most well-known being fossil fuel combustion) are responsible. By accepting that humans are responsible means that these activities need to be curbed in some manner; if humans aren't to blame, then the argument would be against such curbing, and only respond to the symptoms. This is, of course, disregarding other impacts of these activities, like ocean acidification.

Greenland was called Greenland because it was quite warm when it was discovered.

Climate has been changing throughout human history.

Patently false. The Greenland ice sheet is at least 400,000 years old. It was named Greenland to make it sound more attractive to potential colonists. 1000 years ago, when it was first colonized by Europeans, Greenland was every bit the cold place it is today, possibly even colder.

What the media wont tell you about global warming.