Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sandvol]

I think with all the 150,000 papers there'd more evidence on evolution than there is. What is amazing to me is the lack of evidence. I'm not Christian but I tend to believe a Creator is the best explanation for why we're here. And, since I was raised and live in a Christian society most of my morals are Christian based. You have to have some basis for your morality.

 

[Sandvol]

i havent met a person in the field of geology or atmospheric science that didnt support global warming and the influence that man is having on it.

and i am pretty sure the number of papers that reference evolution is in that ball park. i did not say any of them proved it. i said 0 have disproven it.

Seems like they're just spinning their wheels. It is amazing all the crap research we fund in this country.

 

[Sandvol]

Climate scientist are the ones being used by politics to advance an adgenda. Their funding comes from that adgenda and they agree at a 97% rate. They are the ones being referd to as junk scientist.


Did you know that alcoholics who drink coffee have a healthier liver?
It was in a study paid for by Folgers so it must be true.

Now that kind of research can help some people.

 

[Orangeslice13]

who said anything about climate change? It's obvious that happens, what isn't so obvious or settled is how much of a role man is playing in it.

Agreed. This place gets hotter. It gets colder. It has long before us and will again long after us.

 

[MG1968]

i havent met a person in the field of geology or atmospheric science that didnt support global warming and the influence that man is having on it.

what will you do when you do meet a geologist who is an AGW skeptic? Call them a shill for the oil companies? That is the usual line of attack when folks like you and Bart encounter someone with scientific credentials who doesn't toe the party line on AGW.

 

[Sandvol]

I have a friend who has a PhD in Geology and works for an oil company. What do you think he believes?

 

[zreeves]

what will you do when you do meet a geologist who is an AGW skeptic? Call them a shill for the oil companies? That is the usual line of attack when folks like you and Bart encounter someone with scientific credentials who doesn't toe the party line on AGW.

i am hoping to work for an oil company. i just have not seen evidence to make me think that humans are not having a large influence.

 

[Sandvol]

i am hoping to work for an oil company. i just have not seen evidence to make me think that humans are not having a large influence.

What evidence have you seen that supports humans are having a large influence?

 

[Orangeslice13]

Now that kind of research can help some people.

It was quickly disproven as juck by and independent study.
Now if we only had some indipendent group to study the climate.



Oh wait, we do, but clearly they can't be trusted because their results don't agree with the 97

 

[zreeves]

I think with all the 150,000 papers there'd more evidence on evolution than there is. What is amazing to me is the lack of evidence. I'm not Christian but I tend to believe a Creator is the best explanation for why we're here. And, since I was raised and live in a Christian society most of my morals are Christian based. You have to have some basis for your morality.

Seems like they're just spinning their wheels. It is amazing all the crap research we fund in this country.

id consider myself a christian as well. religion and science do not have to be mutually exclusive. why is it crap research to try to understand the planet we live on better?

 

[zreeves]

What evidence have you seen that supports humans are having a large influence?

all of the same things that bart has been telling you about with decreased pH levels in the ocean, rising sea levels, increasing the amount of energy in the ocean, temperatures being higher than they are supposed to be regarding milankovitch cycles etc.

 

[zreeves]

I have a friend who has a PhD in Geology and works for an oil company. What do you think he believes?

could he help get a job and as i said before. i wouldnt guarantee anything regarding man's influence, but i dont see a reason that we shouldnt hedge our bets. if scientists are wrong, then who cares, we have prolonged our resources. if scientists are right and we wait until it is proven to be true, it might be too late.

 

[Sandvol]

You and Bart tell me where I'm wrong:
1) We have surface temperature record that indicates we have warmed but we don't know how accurate the temperatures are.
2) If we have actually warmed we don't know the percent contribution of green house gases. And, we don't understand why we haven't warmed more given that CO2 levels continue to rise.
3) We have atmospheric and satellite data that doesn't really support the surface data.
4) We have proxy data that shows temperatures have fluctuated for thousands of years. Some of the proxy data doesn't support the recent temperature data.
5) We have some data that indicates polar ice might be less over the last 40 years but not really sure. But, we also know that polar ice fluctuates between ice ages.
6) We have some data that the sea levels have been rising but we know they have been for 18,000 years. We also know sea levels tend to rise and fall between ice ages.

 

[BartW]

You can apply that to anything but theories do become laws of science. AGW isn't even at a high confidence right now. Even if some day they can show that the surface temperature data is fairly accurate they still haven't shown a high confidence as to what might be contributing and whether or not randomness isn't the best explanation.

Also, there are 150,000 papers that haven't proven it either.

AGW is now a theory. It's on par with the theory of evolution and theory of gravity, which is not a law. Even Newton's "law" is really just the low-limit solution of relativity. Scientific laws are mathematically derived, not empirically.

AGW has predictive properties that have been repeatedly verified, as demonstrated throughout this thread. It predicted phenomena that we didn't expect or know about, all of which turned out to be true. Phenomena that presently have no alternative explanation.

A web of science search right now gets over 25,000 hits for global warming and over 100,000 for climate change. Evolution has been studied for almost 200 years, global warming just a few decades. There is an enormously robust body of evidence supporting AGW theory, which is why there is a 97%+ consensus among climate scientists.

 

[Sandvol]

could he help get a job and as i said before. i wouldnt guarantee anything regarding man's influence, but i dont see a reason that we shouldnt hedge our bets. if scientists are wrong, then who cares, we have prolonged our resources. if scientists are right and we wait until it is proven to be true, it might be too late.

Sorry,
I haven't talked to him in years. He got his undergrad at UT and his Masters at UT and then went to I believe to Texas or A&M to get his PhD. The last time I heard was about 20 years ago. He was doing some research for Exxon-learned that through a mutual friend.

 

[BartW]

Climate scientist are the ones being used by politics to advance an adgenda. Their funding comes from that adgenda and they agree at a 97% rate. They are the ones being referd to as junk scientist.


Did you know that alcoholics who drink coffee have a healthier liver?
It was in a study paid for by Folgers so it must be true.

Anyone who uses the term "junk science" is in all likelyhood themselves dealing in pseudoscientific BS. Most climate scientists get paid **** just like in every other field. Al Gore is not a climate scientist.

 

[zreeves]

Sorry,
I haven't talked to him in years. He got his undergrad at UT and his Masters at UT and then went to I believe to Texas or A&M to get his PhD. The last time I heard was about 20 years ago. He was doing some research for Exxon-learned that through a mutual friend.

that is pretty awesome. sounds like he is doing really well for himself. exxon pays very well (as do most oil companies) i am hoping to get an interview with them

 

[Sandvol]

AGW is now a theory. It's on par with the theory of evolution and theory of gravity, which is not a law. Even Newton's "law" is really just the low-limit solution of relativity. Scientific laws are mathematically derived, not empirically.

AGW has predictive properties that have been repeatedly verified, as demonstrated throughout this thread. It predicted phenomena that we didn't expect or know about, all of which turned out to be true. Phenomena that presently have no alternative explanation.

A web of science search right now gets over 25,000 hits for global warming and over 100,000 for climate change. Evolution has been studied for almost 200 years, global warming just a few decades. There is an enormously robust body of evidence supporting AGW theory, which is why there is a 97%+ consensus among climate scientists.

I wouldn't call it a robust body of evidence. I think a lot of it is crap. Also, they're not even sure how the whole process of energy absorption with green house gases even works and if they really understand the mechanism.

Oh, wait, I forgot Bill Nye covered a box with some plastic wrap.

 

[Sandvol]

that is pretty awesome. sounds like he is doing really well for himself. exxon pays very well (as do most oil companies) i am hoping to get an interview with them

I believe he did his Master at UT with the professor who was studying the moon rocks. Of course this was about 1980. Don't remember his name.

I do remember what the moon rock was called: Armalcollite.

 

[BartW]

that is pretty awesome. sounds like he is doing really well for himself. exxon pays very well (as do most oil companies) i am hoping to get an interview with them

If you want to get in with Exxon I'd recommend doing one of their short field courses or an internship. That's essentially their extended interview process.

 

[zreeves]

I believe he did his Master at UT with the professor who was studying the moon rocks. Of course this was about 1980. Don't remember his name.

yea that is a little before my time. wonder if it was hap mcsween. he is pretty old and been at tennessee for a long time. really good teacher and nice guy.

 

[Sandvol]

If you want to get in with Exxon I'd recommend doing one of their short field courses or an internship. That's essentially their extended interview process.

In the early 80-'s petroleum geology was big because oil was so high then it proceeded to decline for two decades. Now it is on top again. Very cyclical endeavor.

 

[BartW]

I believe he did his Master at UT with the professor who was studying the moon rocks. Of course this was about 1980. Don't remember his name.

Haha I think you're talking about Larry Taylor. Never had a course with him but I've heard he's been carrying that moon dust sample around with him for decades.

Could also be Hap McSween who's in the UT commercials during football games

 

[Sandvol]

yea that is a little before my time. wonder if it was hap mcsween. he is pretty old and been at tennessee for a long time. really good teacher and nice guy.

I almost want to think his name was Taylor. Took one of his classes. Made an A in it but only because I was good at math. It was like a calculus class. That was the only geology class I ever took.

 

[zreeves]

I almost want to think his name was Taylor. Took one of his classes. Made an A in it but only because I was good at math. It was like a calculus class. That was the only geology class I ever took.

could be larry taylor who bart just mentioned. i have heard his name but never met him. planetary people are crazy though because they have to know so much about geology, physics and chemistry.