by just telling us what the climate is going to be like in 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 5 years from now? And telling us how they came to their conclusions so we could check their math?
If they were able to do that, what basis would anyone have to deny their findings?
I think that would just shut up all the deniers, wouldn't it?
2007-08-26 17:13:34 · 9 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
You don't even have to be exact. Just be in the ball park.
2007-08-26 17:29:55 · update #1
Ingela - Now we just have to see if they are right.
It wasn't long ago that the predictions were that we were going to have more frequent and stronger hurricanes. That prediction didn't pan out. I'm not expecting that any prediction will. However, if they make enough predictions, they will get a couple right. Probably just as often as flipping a coin.
2007-08-27 07:56:18 · update #2
I think all the manmade global warming cultists should just do what they feel is right and let us deniers live our lives. Why do the cultists feel it's is their right to tell me what car to drive, how to heat my home, what type of lightbulbs I can use, etc.? If they would do something with the masses of people they claim to believe the same as them then the world would be saved.
2007-08-26 23:42:00 · answer #1 · answered by Splitters 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
No, I think it is a serious question and we need to keep studying, analyzing, and asking questions. I am glad to see believers and deniers discussing it. There is nothing wrong with being on either side as long as it is based on honest reason.
Your point is a good one. Believers should be willing to quantify their belief, and be willing to address questions regarding how they came to their conclusions. Deniers also should keep their reasons factual. Many Believers just believe because it is like a religion and do not want to discuss it. Many deniers act the same. It is best for everyone to study the others factual data and argue from that base.
I see it this way: Global temperature change is a very difficult thing to measure. The rate of change is so small (1 degree every 100 years?) it takes almost a lifetime to get changes that are even measurable by most instrumentation. Add to that we don't really have direct accurate data before maybe 50 years ago even in the most advanced countries. We are basing past warming and cooling cycle temperatures on analysis of ice cores, tree rings, etc. that are thousands of years old, and trying to estimate very small changes. I am sure with this complexity and degree of difficulty getting data, there is going to be studies that get differing results, and many questions.
On top of this, we have the Al and Oprah preists of the masses showing pictures of a Polar Bear on a little boat of ice and a glacier melting with the title "The World is Ending NOW" and scaring the hell out of everyone. Of course they don't disclose that those pictures could have been taken any summer period any past year, and that glaciers come and go as part of nature. I understand they believe that man's CO2 is warming the earth, but they should keep it factual and be willing to address the deniers questions. Here are some specific questions:
Just how accurate are those 10,000 year old ice core samples temperature data? How did they prove the accuracy?
Why is it that some areas of the worlds temperature data show no warming over the last 30-40 years where we know we had good accurate measuring instruments?
Why do "Environmentalists" show photos of glaciers melting and greenland ice receding as their evidence of CO2 pollution when Galciers melt and Polar Caps retreat normally?
Why did Al Gore say that if drastic changes were not made by 2016, it was to late, and millions would die? Is this true? I don't believe it is possible to change the culture and direction of the world that fast, so is it already over? Are we just spinning our wheels for nothing?
2007-08-27 01:40:09 · answer #2 · answered by GABY 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No. I wish the deniers would crack open a scientific journal and shut themselves up.
Maybe then they'd learn that "climate" is an average of at least 30 years -- and that therefore, anyone speaking of climate in 6 months is someone who's talking about meteorology, not climatology.
Maybe then they'd learn that EVERY peer-reviewed scientific paper shows the reader how they came to their conclusions, so that anyone can check the math.
If any denier would do that, he wouldn't have any basis to deny the findings.
And then, if he were honest, he'd shut up all by himself.
2007-08-27 20:00:35 · answer #3 · answered by Keith P 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The IPCC gives several projections of future climate. With a rise of approximately 1.1 to 6.4 °C expected by 2100 (the range in the figures given is due to different emissions scenarios, and not any uncertainty in the projections). Thus far, the projections have been very accurate.
Of course, scientists also hindcast climate models to see how well they compare to the actual temperature record. Any that don't match up with a high degree of accuracy are modified or scrapped.
2007-08-27 01:03:19 · answer #4 · answered by SomeGuy 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋
I would settle for a believer just making a crude attempt at describing just a couple of climatic events in the past. I mean, they obviously have the whole thing figured out, so please tell me what caused the medieval warm period and the little ice age.
But oh, I forgot, they deny those things happened.
2007-08-27 07:48:19 · answer #5 · answered by Tomcat 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't think it's possible to predict that with absolute accuracy.
That being said, I'm really tired of the believer/denier game. It's incredibly childish and it gets us nowhere. There's nothing wrong with not believing in AGW, but it would be nice to see real, thought-provoking questions instead of finger-pointing and name-calling. You're only sinking to the level of the opposition and becoming the other side of the same coin.
2007-08-27 00:23:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Here's the forecast:
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0837368420070809
It says:
"Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record..."
Is this exact enough? If it is, I'm just sad that we have to wait several years before you believe us.
2007-08-27 14:34:42 · answer #7 · answered by Ingela 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They're already doing that, with the expected accuracy.
Hansen has missed for over 20yrs.
2007-08-27 00:41:00 · answer #8 · answered by Snoonyb 4 · 3⤊ 1⤋
global cooling, exhausting fossil fuel reserves, overpopulation, famines, et. al. have already occurred by the year 2000.
just as they predicted.
how many times must they prove how accurate they are?
more importantly, who are you to question them?
2007-08-27 11:12:48 · answer #9 · answered by afratta437 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋