Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Is Global Warming to Blame for Recent Weather

SuzzaneO
Posts: 47
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 9:56:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've never been a believer in global warming. After the recent outbreak of tornadoes across the country, no one can help but wonder if global warming is to blame. 2011 marks the largest outbreak of deadly tornadoes for many states across the nation's midsection. Astronomical floods once again threated the new orleans. Powerful storms have left the nation flooded and in ruins. Isn't it more coincidental than anything?? Is there any scientific proof to show a correlation?
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:01:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 9:56:02 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I've never been a believer in global warming. After the recent outbreak of tornadoes across the country, no one can help but wonder if global warming is to blame. 2011 marks the largest outbreak of deadly tornadoes for many states across the nation's midsection. Astronomical floods once again threated the new orleans. Powerful storms have left the nation flooded and in ruins. Isn't it more coincidental than anything?? Is there any scientific proof to show a correlation?

Global warming would be causing a trend, not a single mass outbreak.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:16:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's funny isn't it? When we are having terrible cold and snow and people mock the global warming advocates they respond in a condescending manner that you are stupid if you don't understand that weather is different than climate, and you cannot make correlations between the two. However....when there is a particularly bad hurricane season, or droughts that of course is global warming. The funniest is when they connect an earthquake to global warming. They remind me a lot of the biblical end of the world people - 'repent and stop your carbon emissions now, or you will feel the wrath of global warming and the end of the world as we know it.'
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 11:29:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
@innomen

Anyone who mixes up weather and climate is wrong no matter which side of the issue they fall on. You remind me of internet atheists mocking Ray Comfort and thinking they've provided a sound basis for rejecting Christianity.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 12:47:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 11:29:37 AM, Kinesis wrote:
@innomen

Anyone who mixes up weather and climate is wrong no matter which side of the issue they fall on. You remind me of internet atheists mocking Ray Comfort and thinking they've provided a sound basis for rejecting Christianity.

I agree. There is no reason to confuse the real issue.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 12:52:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 11:16:30 AM, innomen wrote:
It's funny isn't it? When we are having terrible cold and snow and people mock the global warming advocates they respond in a condescending manner that you are stupid if you don't understand that weather is different than climate, and you cannot make correlations between the two. However....when there is a particularly bad hurricane season, or droughts that of course is global warming. The funniest is when they connect an earthquake to global warming. They remind me a lot of the biblical end of the world people - 'repent and stop your carbon emissions now, or you will feel the wrath of global warming and the end of the world as we know it.'

Global warming, Innomen style:
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 12:57:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 11:29:37 AM, Kinesis wrote:
@innomen

Anyone who mixes up weather and climate is wrong no matter which side of the issue they fall on. You remind me of internet atheists mocking Ray Comfort and thinking they've provided a sound basis for rejecting Christianity.

I'm fairly agnostic on this issue, except how i see the ridiculousness of the behavior of the advocates. The entire issue has been removed from serious debate because of the political/economic implications that are attached to it, and how it has become less scientific and more hyperbolic.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 1:11:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 12:52:47 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/23/2011 11:16:30 AM, innomen wrote:
It's funny isn't it? When we are having terrible cold and snow and people mock the global warming advocates they respond in a condescending manner that you are stupid if you don't understand that weather is different than climate, and you cannot make correlations between the two. However....when there is a particularly bad hurricane season, or droughts that of course is global warming. The funniest is when they connect an earthquake to global warming. They remind me a lot of the biblical end of the world people - 'repent and stop your carbon emissions now, or you will feel the wrath of global warming and the end of the world as we know it.'

Global warming, Innomen style:


GP, be careful, don't get yourself reported.
Extremely-Far-Right
Posts: 248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 3:46:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 9:56:02 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I've never been a believer in global warming. After the recent outbreak of tornadoes across the country, no one can help but wonder if global warming is to blame. 2011 marks the largest outbreak of deadly tornadoes for many states across the nation's midsection. Astronomical floods once again threated the new orleans. Powerful storms have left the nation flooded and in ruins. Isn't it more coincidental than anything?? Is there any scientific proof to show a correlation?

While I am typically "Extremely-Far-Right" on most issues, I take a somewhat moderate stance on Global Warming. I do believe in global warming, but global warming definitely wasn't/isn't caused by humans. Nor are humans accelerating it.

If Global Warming was/is currently being caused by humans (Which i'm not saying it is), movies like "An Inconvenient Truth" and documentaries about Global Warming are definitely presenting their "facts" in a wrong way and/or have too many inaccuracies within them to even be considered as evidence.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 4:04:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
@innomen

I entirely agree that in political and media circle the issue has become politicized to the point of utterly obscuring the issue; however, that isn't to say it can't be profitably explored in scientific circles and an effort should be made to produce and publicize a scientific consensus on the issue. As far as I'm aware, most internationally respected scientific organisations support the existence of man caused climate change to some high degree of probability, while a few hold neutral positions.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 4:13:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 4:04:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
@innomen

I entirely agree that in political and media circle the issue has become politicized to the point of utterly obscuring the issue; however, that isn't to say it can't be profitably explored in scientific circles and an effort should be made to produce and publicize a scientific consensus on the issue. As far as I'm aware, most internationally respected scientific organisations support the existence of man caused climate change to some high degree of probability, while a few hold neutral positions.

The problem with this is, a solution of the problem that a specific side of this debate requires is massive changes to the economy which just so happenss to coincide with a political agenda of a certain side, conversely those who would be adverse to that political agenda have a stake in it not being implemented. Therefore, as soon as the discussion leaves the scientific circle (and often while still in it) the objectivity of the debate is gone, and it is just one more polarizing issue that get's muddled in any look with objective clarity.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 4:27:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 4:13:32 PM, innomen wrote:
At 5/23/2011 4:04:17 PM, Kinesis wrote:
@innomen

I entirely agree that in political and media circle the issue has become politicized to the point of utterly obscuring the issue; however, that isn't to say it can't be profitably explored in scientific circles and an effort should be made to produce and publicize a scientific consensus on the issue. As far as I'm aware, most internationally respected scientific organisations support the existence of man caused climate change to some high degree of probability, while a few hold neutral positions.

The problem with this is, a solution of the problem that a specific side of this debate requires is massive changes to the economy which just so happenss to coincide with a political agenda of a certain side, conversely those who would be adverse to that political agenda have a stake in it not being implemented. Therefore, as soon as the discussion leaves the scientific circle (and often while still in it) the objectivity of the debate is gone, and it is just one more polarizing issue that get's muddled in any look with objective clarity.

Not really. It only requires a massive change if we believe that a sudden change in our lifestyles is needed to combat the "global warming." If we believe that it is something that can be addressed slowly and gradually, then there isn't a huge change to our economy that really needs to happen.

A bigger issue is the limited oil supply. I'm not going to argue whether it will last for a decade, or several, but I think we can acknowledge that it won't be around for another 200+ years. That in itself is going to cause a massive change to our economy and society, and the only way to minimize the impact of it, is to stretch the change out over as many years as possible (meaning to start as soon as possible).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 5:30:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Putting a stop to environmental damage is not just a political agenda. If anything, it's only the resistance to it that truly is enveloped totally in that terminology; the only politics involved concern the stagnation and moderation of those ideals. If I said that your ill health, as a result of being punched in the face all day, is a result of such activities? It would only become political as we try to find common ground between both interests when we really should just defer to the objections of the scientific community, in either case. Science =/= politics. Economics doesn't factor into whether or not carbon release is causing damage to our ability to enjoy our resources.
kfc
Rob1_Billion
Posts: 1,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 5:36:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
furthermore, why economists even have a say in this matter, as well as many other matters that are not economic in nature, chaps my a55 to no end
kfc
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/23/2011 5:45:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 5:36:36 PM, Rob1_Billion wrote:
furthermore, why economists even have a say in this matter, as well as many other matters that are not economic in nature, chaps my a55 to no end

Sadly, everything does have a value. X amount of damage is only worth Y amount of cost. Scientists can handle the "X amount of damage" and economicts handle the "Y amount of cost."
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Aaronroy
Posts: 749
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 5:08:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/23/2011 9:56:02 AM, SuzzaneO wrote:
I've never been a believer in global warming. After the recent outbreak of tornadoes across the country, no one can help but wonder if global warming is to blame. 2011 marks the largest outbreak of deadly tornadoes for many states across the nation's midsection. Astronomical floods once again threated the new orleans. Powerful storms have left the nation flooded and in ruins. Isn't it more coincidental than anything?? Is there any scientific proof to show a correlation?

In the 1970s, scientist were saying we were bound for an Ice Age. Now, apparently, we're bound for a Water World. Political science is too unstable to thoroughly debate about. Why one would so feverishly give accordance to the theory of global warming being knowledgeable of all the contradictory evidence at hand is beyond me.
turn down for h'what
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 5:24:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
While there is no doubt in my mind our carbon emissions and expansive mining has an effect on our environment, I also remember that we have great evidence to suggest the Earth also goes through cycles of significant weather changes.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
smc_gamer
Posts: 48
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 6:16:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Probably not. I agree with OreEle and innomen more than anyone else in this thread, but I do have something to contribute.
OreEle
A bigger issue is the limited oil supply. I'm not going to argue whether it will last for a decade, or several, but I think we can acknowledge that it won't be around for another 200+ years. That in itself is going to cause a massive change to our economy and society, and the only way to minimize the impact of it, is to stretch the change out over as many years as possible (meaning to start as soon as possible).

Will we (this generation and next) be here in 200 years? When oil runs dry, people will find alternatives somewhat quickly. Though, I don't really like current alternatives, because they don't quite work very well.
"If good things lasted forever, would we appreciate how precious they are?"
-Hobbes
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/24/2011 6:22:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/24/2011 5:08:21 PM, Aaronroy wrote:

In the 1970s, scientist were saying we were bound for an Ice Age. Now, apparently, we're bound for a Water World. Political science is too unstable to thoroughly debate about. Why one would so feverishly give accordance to the theory of global warming being knowledgeable of all the contradictory evidence at hand is beyond me.

More to the point, the HISTORY of false conclusions. That alone should make anyone skeptical, especially people that love to listen to apocalypse predictions.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/25/2011 10:13:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think the debate has moved on a bit. It used to be that people would just deny climate change; then came the riposte that it was cyclical; then it wasn't man-made (at least predominately). Now (as far as I understand it)most sceptics on global warming are willing to concede that it exists, but either deny that it isn't feasible to do anything about it (usually because of China and India's emissions) or that advocates politicise and exaggerate the problem.

If we want an analogy, it's kind of like evolution: one extreme thinks it disproves God, while the other denies it happening at all. Like evolution, the expert opinion is pretty decided on the issue (although the nature of the subject isn't as clear-cut), but some of the finer details (while vitally important, such as the level of human culpability and so on) are still controversial, but there isn't much debate any more about whether it exists
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 12:23:56 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I was just about the make a thread on this. There were tornadoes in California today. It also snowed recently..in may.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 1:14:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/25/2011 10:13:04 AM, unitedandy wrote:
Now (as far as I understand it)most sceptics on global warming are willing to concede that it exists, but either deny that it isn't feasible to do anything about it (usually because of China and India's emissions) or that advocates politicise and exaggerate the problem.

Eh not really. It breaks down into two main areas, firstly, by what is climate change measured, and how accurate are any given measurements that give rise to conclusions either for or against a degree of change/stability. Secondly, by what degree can that change be accounted for as a direct result of human action.

The politics, i.e., the measures a government makes/advocates as necessary, are generally argued against on those prior two areas of contention as basis. That is, policy is unnecessary/falsely advocated due to <insert concerns about premises that led to it>.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 1:19:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Everyone knows global warming exists. The question is whether CO2 emissions have had a serious effect on global warming. I'm agnostic on the issue as well.

However, a massive change to reduce greenhouse gases could cause negative effects on the economy. Using wind and solar energy isn't sound since you need smart grid technology and traditional coal plants, since wind and solar energy is unreliable (the wind doesn't always blow and the sun isn't always out). Nuclear fuel or storing carbon dioxide is a much better solution.

Either way, no single nation can "solve" the green house gas problem. The Kyoto Protocol doesn't do squat to solve the problem, so the United States was actually correct to solve the problem.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2011 11:44:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/25/2011 10:13:04 AM, unitedandy wrote:
I think the debate has moved on a bit. It used to be that people would just deny climate change; then came the riposte that it was cyclical; then it wasn't man-made (at least predominately). Now (as far as I understand it)most sceptics on global warming are willing to concede that it exists, but either deny that it isn't feasible to do anything about it (usually because of China and India's emissions) or that advocates politicise and exaggerate the problem.
...

Every one of your assertions about the history of the controversy is wrong. The CO2 crisis theorists have said that climate is simple, and it is now dominated by CO2-induced warming. The 2000 IPCC hockey stick graph claimed that nothing happened since the year 1000 except recent exponential warming. The exponential showed that in 2010 it would be more than six degrees warmer than it actually turned out to be. The skeptic position has been that climate is complex, not simple. Climate is proved complex because it isn't obeying the simple predictions of crisis advocates.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 12:31:45 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Is Global Warming to Blame for Recent Weather

Man made climate change is a joke, no evidence what so ever. So what is causing climate change you ask ? well since we don't know, this clearly proves that.....GOD.....DID ........IT.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 8:22:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/26/2011 11:44:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/25/2011 10:13:04 AM, unitedandy wrote:
I think the debate has moved on a bit. It used to be that people would just deny climate change; then came the riposte that it was cyclical; then it wasn't man-made (at least predominately). Now (as far as I understand it)most sceptics on global warming are willing to concede that it exists, but either deny that it isn't feasible to do anything about it (usually because of China and India's emissions) or that advocates politicise and exaggerate the problem.
...

Every one of your assertions about the history of the controversy is wrong. The CO2 crisis theorists have said that climate is simple, and it is now dominated by CO2-induced warming. The 2000 IPCC hockey stick graph claimed that nothing happened since the year 1000 except recent exponential warming. The exponential showed that in 2010 it would be more than six degrees warmer than it actually turned out to be. The skeptic position has been that climate is complex, not simple. Climate is proved complex because it isn't obeying the simple predictions of crisis advocates.

It is confirmed though that CO2 is a greenhouse gas though. Do you think that the effects of CO2 on the earth is smaller then estimated?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2011 8:34:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 8:22:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/26/2011 11:44:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 5/25/2011 10:13:04 AM, unitedandy wrote:
I think the debate has moved on a bit. It used to be that people would just deny climate change; then came the riposte that it was cyclical; then it wasn't man-made (at least predominately). Now (as far as I understand it)most sceptics on global warming are willing to concede that it exists, but either deny that it isn't feasible to do anything about it (usually because of China and India's emissions) or that advocates politicise and exaggerate the problem.
...

Every one of your assertions about the history of the controversy is wrong. The CO2 crisis theorists have said that climate is simple, and it is now dominated by CO2-induced warming. The 2000 IPCC hockey stick graph claimed that nothing happened since the year 1000 except recent exponential warming. The exponential showed that in 2010 it would be more than six degrees warmer than it actually turned out to be. The skeptic position has been that climate is complex, not simple. Climate is proved complex because it isn't obeying the simple predictions of crisis advocates.

It is confirmed though that CO2 is a greenhouse gas though. Do you think that the effects of CO2 on the earth is smaller then estimated?

Co2 is a catalyst greenhouse gas. The vast majority of protection we enjoy from the sun is from water vapor.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2011 1:23:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/27/2011 8:22:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It is confirmed though that CO2 is a greenhouse gas though. Do you think that the effects of CO2 on the earth is smaller then estimated?

Yes. There is an effect of CO2 that is pure physics, and no one denies that path of it. However, that part is not enough cause concern. Global warming crisis theory is that CO2 effects are multiplied. Warmth causes more water vapor in the air, and water vapor is by far the dominant green house gas. However, more water vapor might also produce more clouds, and cloud cover has a dramatic cooling effect. Also, there is a question about how efficient other mechanisms are for getting rid of heat. The weakest area in climate research are convection models of the atmosphere tat are fundamental to the heat equations.

Data since the 1990's has been slightly below the bottom edge of the very wide range of predictions mad by the 20-some climate models. It's about what it would be if there were no multiplying effect.

A separate issue is that of the consequences of warming. The Holocene Optimum, 5000 to 9000 years ago, was a lot warmer than the present. It was the time of the rise of the great civilizations of the Middle East, India, and China. The Medieval Warm Period, somewhat warmer than now, was a very prosperous time in Europe.