Global warming

Status
Not open for further replies.

Frank

Certified not a majority
Veteran
So, I suggested about a year ago, that we had reached the top of the historic graph, that the climate would be a bit more violent than normal, and that the global temperature would go down a bit.

And I was wondering, how you all feel about that.

Yes, the global temperature will keep on rising slowly and steadily in the longer term for the near future, until we get to the sharp decline for the next (minor or major) Ice Age. Which is (AFAIK) unpredictable.


Oh, and _xxx_: please keep it civil in this one, because I tend to skip any thread where you post regularly about this, and I would really want to discuss it here.
 
So you were wrong about reaching the peak then?


  1. How did you come to that conclusion back then? How did you pick a certain date (1 yr later) or temperature back then?
  2. What makes you think it will decrease?
 
I believe _xxx_ left the forum after a disagreement over the particulars of gun maintenance.

Yeah, that's the most insane thing about it. He's been called a nutcase like a billion times, and the one time he's not being insulted(Rightfully insulted, mind you), he gets pissy and leaves.
 
2-3 years ago, the skeptics were saying that were already on a declining trend (and by cherry picking the 10 years prior to that, that's how the trendline fit). The sun was due for a cycle of inactivity (completely true), and that would make the cooling even stronger.

However, we had a rather sharp turn in fortunes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Note that this is a skeptic site. Sorry, Frank, but there was no topping off a few year ago. As expected, the sun's variation in output contributes very little to the variation we see here.

Even with my acceptance of the existence of AGW, however, my position is quite different from that of the environmentalists. I say go nuclear and encourage PHEV, but don't subsidize solar/wind until they get within a penny or two per kWh after considering all costs (including storage or natural gas to fill in the gaps). The impact we can make on global warming per dollar spent pays orders of magnitude too few dividends for humanity compared to third world sustainable development. I have no problem with tens of billions going to R&D, but hundreds of billions going to contruction is a waste.
I believe _xxx_ left the forum after a disagreement over the particulars of gun maintenance.
Which makes this the perfect time to start a new thread :cool:
 
So, I suggested about a year ago, that we had reached the top of the historic graph, that the climate would be a bit more violent than normal, and that the global temperature would go down a bit.

And I was wondering, how you all feel about that.

Yes, the global temperature will keep on rising slowly and steadily in the longer term for the near future, until we get to the sharp decline for the next (minor or major) Ice Age. Which is (AFAIK) unpredictable.


Oh, and _xxx_: please keep it civil in this one, because I tend to skip any thread where you post regularly about this, and I would really want to discuss it here.
The next ice age will certainly not come in our lifetimes, or those of our grandchildren. Global temperatures will continue to increase for the forseeable future.
 
The next ice age will certainly not come in our lifetimes, or those of our grandchildren. Global temperatures will continue to increase for the forseeable future.

Nope. I opened the door today and it was really cold.
[does it matter that it was the door to my freezer?]
 
:LOL:

Anyway, on a slightly more serious note, if you've ever heard some argument against global warming, and weren't sure if it was reasonable or not, check this website out:
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

They've got quite the comprehensive list, and I found it just a really good way to get my feet wet into climate science when I first started to investigate this stuff seriously a little while back.
 
So you were wrong about reaching the peak then?


  1. How did you come to that conclusion back then? How did you pick a certain date (1 yr later) or temperature back then?
  2. What makes you think it will decrease?
In short: this one.

image054.jpg
 
2-3 years ago, the skeptics were saying that were already on a declining trend (and by cherry picking the 10 years prior to that, that's how the trendline fit). The sun was due for a cycle of inactivity (completely true), and that would make the cooling even stronger.

However, we had a rather sharp turn in fortunes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Note that this is a skeptic site. Sorry, Frank, but there was no topping off a few year ago. As expected, the sun's variation in output contributes very little to the variation we see here.
Then again, I was asking about the last year, which isn't in that graph you linked.

;)

Even with my acceptance of the existence of AGW, however, my position is quite different from that of the environmentalists. I say go nuclear and encourage PHEV, but don't subsidize solar/wind until they get within a penny or two per kWh after considering all costs (including storage or natural gas to fill in the gaps). The impact we can make on global warming per dollar spent pays orders of magnitude too few dividends for humanity compared to third world sustainable development. I have no problem with tens of billions going to R&D, but hundreds of billions going to contruction is a waste.
I agree, I'm all for looking for alternatives, but they have to make a difference.

Then again, one of the most important developments over the last decade have been LiPo batteries: they would be cheap to mass-produce, are very efficient (especially compared to their weight), but require mass-production to make them cheap and useable.

At the moment, they're still very expensive (although a lot less than even a year ago). But any alternative energy source depends on cheap and efficient electrical storage to make it feasible as a big energy source.

Which makes this the perfect time to start a new thread :cool:
Cool. :cool:
 
The next ice age will certainly not come in our lifetimes, or those of our grandchildren. Global temperatures will continue to increase for the forseeable future.
"Certainly"? No, because nobody knows how that works. "Very likely"? Yes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:LOL:

Anyway, on a slightly more serious note, if you've ever heard some argument against global warming, and weren't sure if it was reasonable or not, check this website out:
http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

They've got quite the comprehensive list, and I found it just a really good way to get my feet wet into climate science when I first started to investigate this stuff seriously a little while back.
Yes, but do they look at the big picture? I can hype or debunk any argument as well, if I want to.

Which is the important thing: where do we find a comprehensive and especially objective view of the whole system?

We won't, because nobody knows. Which makes the simple historic graph I posted the most dependable outlook.
 
Which makes the simple historic graph I posted the most dependable outlook.
Aye?
but anyways offtopic somewhat
Man whoever done that site needs a kick in the ass
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming

I had a look at a few pages + a lot/most of the graphs are like the one above, i.e. nearly unreadable

eg the images are saved at very high compressed jpeg's not only do the pictures look worse, but since theyre mostly graphs etc which when saved as png's compress well the files are actually bigger as well!
 
But I like warming. As a New Zealander I see no reason to do anything about it. Since it don't effect me that much then its someone elses problem. :)
 
readibilty != understandability.
BTW what are you having trouble with understanding? Ill fix it
 
Which is the important thing: where do we find a comprehensive and especially objective view of the whole system?
The IPCC reports. They're long and involved. It's quite a complex system, after all. But they are a good collection of the available science on the issue.

Unfortunately, they do seem to have a slight but apparent bias towards underrepresenting the effects of warming. This would seem to stem from Science's inherent conservatism.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top