press release 869

[dcb]

guys, like it or not, the pin has been pulled on a grenade here in this discussion here.

[luvit]

al gore. lol.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...no-o-o-o-o, just stating that humankind is not 100% infallable, ie: there's a finite error level in all of our "observations" and their ensuing conclusions.

...ever heard of the Heisenberg Principle? You don't say "...it IS, or it ISN'T..." but rather "...it has a probability or uncertainty of XX or YY..."

...or, in simpler words--there is no BLACK nor WHITE, just percentages of GRAY(s)!

Easy there killer. The Heisenberg uncertainty principle just states that at the quantum level, specific pairs of physical properties cannot both be known w/ arbitrary precision. Measuring position with greater precision will reduce the precision of a measurement of the particle's momentum, and vice versa. It doesn't mean that everything is uncertain to some extent, that's a given w/o complete a priori info AFAIK, but that there are trade-offs in measuring stuff that's linked.

Maybe GW is just raptorjesus hugging the planet extra hard. It's possible because we don't know everything about the universe, but it's not probable given what we do know about the universe.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Christ

I reserve judgement on any Global Warming "facts" until a determination is reached about cosmic effects on planetary climate change.

Um, welcome to 2005? The increase in solar irradiance has been about a fifteenth of the total increase in radiative forcing. About 14 parts emissions due to human activities and about 1 part the sun.

Originally Posted by Christ

It has also been suggested that to truly understand global temperature changes, air and water temperatures shouldn't be the metrics, rather using the more steady temperatures found several feet or hundreds of feet underground.

So if we're interested in the behavior of the climate, we shouldn't study the climate? Heck, if we all stuck thermometers up our butts, maybe we could use that temperature info to study cosmology.

*throws grenade*

[bestclimb]

Originally Posted by Christ

There is evidence that our problem is far beyond our control, and has been since before it even became a problem.

Still waiting to be convinced that global warming, pardon me climate change, oops i mean climate disruption (or is their an other name for it now?) is actually the problem that the arm wavers claim it to be...regardless of where it is coming from. Other than the sun we are pretty much a closed system, all the carbon we have right now we had way back in the day. At some times more was in the atmosphere than now or some of even the most generous projections, yet earth was still around for us to come onto the scene. Me thinks there are bigger players in this game than us.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

Um, welcome to 2005? The increase in solar irradiance has been about a fifteenth of the total increase in radiative forcing. About 14 parts emissions due to human activities and about 1 part the sun.
So if we're interested in the behavior of the climate, we shouldn't study the climate? Heck, if we all stuck thermometers up our butts, maybe we could use that temperature info to study cosmology.

*throws grenade*

Did you notice how I said "Cosmic" not "Solar"?

There are 1,000 kinds of radiation happening at the same time, and everyone seems to focus on the one closest to us.. nevermind the huge black hole that noone fully understands at the center of the galaxy, nor the 15 other ones approaching it at speeds that we can't begin to fathom. Nevermind the fact that Earth's orbit is not a perfect ellipse, and changes with cosmic distortion, so that over the course of a few thousand years, the Earth's orbit around the sun may have changed to put it a few thousand miles closer to the Sun than it was previously.

I'm not suggesting that Global blahblahblah doesn't exist, nor am I dismissing it (fully). I just wish that people who discount one input or another would actually consider them all before opening their gloat holes.

On a micro scale, it's very easy to say that the difference that has been caused by humans is the sole reason for the global temperature to change, but when ALL the inputs are considered, you may be surprised by what comes to light. The existence of inputs beyond our control is a certainty, I can assure you that. To what extent those inputs are effecting our potential eventual demise, I do not know.

Regarding whether or not we should use temperatures outside the realm of air temps and sea surface temps, there is a compelling point for it - namely, that Earthen temperature can't change in minutes. If you're looking for basic temperature information, it's perfectly fine to look at the temperature elements directly around you. If you're looking for trending, either increasing or decreasing, you'll want to look at something that doesn't change on a daily and biannual basis, and doesn't have real-time input from solar radiation or changes in air-temp.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by bestclimb

Still waiting to be convinced that global warming, pardon me climate change, oops i mean climate disruption (or is their an other name for it now?) is actually the problem that the arm wavers claim it to be...regardless of where it is coming from. Other than the sun we are pretty much a closed system, all the carbon we have right now we had way back in the day. At some times more was in the atmosphere than now or some of even the most generous projections, yet earth was still around for us to come onto the scene. Me thinks there are bigger players in this game than us.

There are components of study that physics does not currently understand. There are even components that physics no longer applies, or breaks down entirely. This isn't one of them. All things strive to equilibrium, regardless of starting points.

[luvit]

gloat holes sounds... dirty

[jamesqf]

Most if not all of you have got the science exactly backwards. It's not a matter of looking at climate records and trying to tease out the signal of global warming from all the natural variation. Instead, you start from basic science: CO2 blocks infrared, the amount of CO2 has increased due to human activity (and we can prove that the increase is due to fossil fuel burning in a lot of different ways, starting with the fact that it matches what's been burned). That says that the world WILL get warmer, though like a pan of water placed on a stove, the warming takes time. Simple, basic science, and pretty well undeniable.