DanCar
Well-known member
Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
It will never be "settled", but we have the big picture and from what we know now risk avoidance should be our primary strategy. In other words, if we aggressively pursue mitigation (decreased CO2 emissions) and we find that the risk is not quite as high as we thought (very very unlikely, but it's all about probabilities) we are left with the beneficial side effects: cleaner air from burning fewer fossil fuels, decreased reliance on foreign oil, etc. The risk of not doing anything and finding 20 years down the road that things are as bad as (or worse than) observations and physics are telling us is monumental.DanCar said:Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
That's actually a good point, why is any further funding needed for research?apvbguy said:it is was ever settled what would we do with a bunch of unemployed nerds?
DanCar said:Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
I would :mrgreen:WetEV said:but I'd not suggest jumping off a building.
o00scorpion00o said:Co2 levels have surpassed the 400 ppm that some have said there is no going back from and we will all roast in a hellish fire in the future. But global satellite records show a decline in temps in the last 10 years or more, 1998 having the largest temperature recorded. And gradual reduction since with spikes here and there. So if c02 is the highest it's ever been why are temps getting lower ?
With 2000-2010 the hottest decade on record globally, I would say you have a strange idea about temps getting lower. If you are going to look at the big picture, you can't cherry pick one exceptionally hot year to try to make your point.o00scorpion00o said:But global satellite records show a decline in temps in the last 10 years or more, 1998 having the largest temperature recorded. And gradual reduction since with spikes here and there. So if c02 is the highest it's ever been why are temps getting lower ?
Stoaty said:With 2000-2010 the hottest decade on record globally, I would say you have a strange idea about temps getting lower. If you are going to look at the big picture, you can't cherry pick one exceptionally hot year to try to make your point.o00scorpion00o said:But global satellite records show a decline in temps in the last 10 years or more, 1998 having the largest temperature recorded. And gradual reduction since with spikes here and there. So if c02 is the highest it's ever been why are temps getting lower ?
And it looks like the ice in Anarctica intends to stay there. Sea and land ice in antarctic are both increasing and the average amount in 2012 is higher than the average for the past 33 years when records have been kept. At least one day in 2012 set an all-time record for Antarctic ice for that day of the year.o00scorpion00o said:The polar ice is still there despite it supposed to be gone 10 years ago,...
How does that ice form in the first place? Precipitation?RegGuheert said:So how can Antarctica be setting ice records while the rest of the surface temperatures are at all-time high?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;RegGuheert said:So how can Antarctica be setting ice records while the rest of the surface temperatures are experiencing all-time highs?
Simple version: Yes and CO2 is generally agreed to be the main culprit for the gradual global temperature rise.DanCar said:Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
I understand where you are coming from. But if you look hard at science journals and really take time to understand the process, you will know our common sense understanding is not really a complete picture. Thus real scientists speak in terms of 'probability', 'likelihood' etc. But because there are trying to be accurate, the common person in the street doesn't understand their language of use.o00scorpion00o said:How can ice be as thick in Antarctica as it is or was in the north if it's not been forming as long ? The same as when the ice starts to form again in the north it will take hundreds or thousands of years to reach the thickness it was.
Science can neither confirm or deny anything at this stage, but they do pay too much attention to computer models and we all know the reputation the U.K met have for predicting their warming and drought events in their long term forecast, such that now they don't give any long term forecasts, due to their computer models being very warm biased with too much C02 in the equation.
This is a very, very broad question, Dan. It's HUGE.DanCar said:Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?
o00scorpion00o said:One has to research themselves and be open minded.
I don't disagree with the warming has taken place but I do question that man is responsible, and that man is responsible for the 400 ppm C02.
How can ice be as thick in Antarctica as it is or was in the north if it's not been forming as long ? The same as when the ice starts to form again in the north it will take hundreds or thousands of years to reach the thickness it was.
Enter your email address to join: