Poor Polar Bears!

[photon]

Are you sure you think the globe is warming? The site you used as a reference takes the position that it's cooling.

We can measure the ratio of isotopes in atmospheric CO2, so we can tell how much CO2 in the atmosphere came from burning fossil fuels. That ratio doesn't care much for what anyone believes.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Exactly, same with the greenhouse gas crowd.

I believe in global warming, I just don't believe it's a man made problem.

You just linked to an article that is full of faulty science (and isn't even about the globe warming -- the FoS holds the opposite stance) and was created by an oil-industry based front group, and you still want to deflect blame to the "greenhouse gas crowd?" Lol, really?

Edit: Just for reference these are the primary points of the FoS:

1. The earth is cooling.
2. The Sun causes climate change.
3. Al Gore was wrong about C02.
4. Violent weather isn’t getting worse.
5. It’s been hotter.
6. Climate computer models are proven wrong.

Basically, it's all good in the hood, so let's burn some more oil.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

You just linked to an article that is full of faulty science (and isn't even about the globe warming -- the FoS holds the opposite stance) and was created by an oil-industry based front group, and you still want to deflect blame to the "greenhouse gas crowd?" Lol, really?

I said I couldn't read it yet...I don't know what's in it yet.

How am I directing blame to anyone ?

I agreed with you that people confirm their own personal beliefs, not just the global warming deniers, but also the people that think greenhouses gases are to blame.

This climate change was happening before man created any significant greenhouse gases, right ?

18,000 years ago the N.Atlantic ocean was frozen, 1,000 years ago the planet was warmer than it is now.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I agreed with you that people confirm their own personal beliefs, not just the global warming deniers, but also the people that think greenhouses gases are to blame.

Nonsense, that makes it sound like there is no right answer and that everyone's opinions are equally valid. Clearly not the case though, do you agree that there is an objective truth that in principle can be determined?

The conclusion that is supported and properly reasoned is the one that prevails, regardless if individuals on either side are subject to cognitive biases. Science by its nature works despite those biases.

Originally Posted by Pinner

This climate change was happening before man created any significant greenhouse gases, right ?

Sure, but that doesn't mean anything more than climate change was happening before. To insinuate that since climate change occurred in the past without humans therefore current climate change is not caused by humans is flawed reasoning.

Originally Posted by Pinner

18,000 years ago the N.Atlantic ocean was frozen, 1,000 years ago the planet was warmer than it is now.

So? "There was change in the past therefore current change is not caused by human activity" is flawed reasoning.

If use up all the water in a river, causing it to dry up, you can't say "rivers have dried up in the past without human intervention, therefore this river drying up is not caused by human intervention".

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by photon

Are you sure you think the globe is warming? The site you used as a reference takes the position that it's cooling.

Nasa amongst others, seems to think we might slip into a cooling period. Global warming causes Global cooling, hmm.

Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze, possibly within only a few decades.
That's the paradoxical scenario gaining credibility among many climate scientists. The thawing of sea ice covering the Arctic could disturb or even halt large currents in the Atlantic Ocean. Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news.../05mar_arctic/

[Pinner]

Maybe I should change my user name to, Flawed Reasoning.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Nasa amongst others, seems to think we might slip into a cooling period. Global warming causes Global cooling, hmm.

No they don't, if you read what they say instead of just trying to find things to support a point of view it would help. Do you understand the difference between North America and the globe?

Hey, it's winter here, must be winter everywhere on earth!

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by photon

No they don't, if you read what they say instead of just trying to find things to support a point of view it would help.

Am I easily misled ?

Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago

[JustAnotherGuy]

Photon, Pinner a question. I am looking for a simple answer to this question.

Do you think that man should take better care of the planet?

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Am I easily misled ?

Yes, you are. Read it again.

The temperatures in Europe and parts of eastern North America would be similar to global temperatures 20,000 years ago.

Without the vast heat that these ocean currents deliver--comparable to the power generation of a million nuclear power plants--Europe's average temperature would likely drop 5 to 10°C (9 to 18°F), and parts of eastern North America would be chilled somewhat less. Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago.

Europe and eastern North America. As the title of NASA article states.

You may also wish to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

[Pinner]

We're working on it, we can't rush things. We've made a great deal of progress, it's coming along.

IMO one of the best things we should be doing is guiding India and China towards a greener evolution into a modern society. Following our path is an environmental disaster.

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Photon, Pinner a question. I am looking for a simple answer to this question.

Do you think that man should take better care of the planet?

Sure, but at what cost? You need to consider the political forces that are behind this idea of "taking better care of the planet".

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Yes, you are. Read it again.

The temperatures in Europe and parts of eastern North America would be similar to global temperatures 20,000 years ago.

So that means, the rest of the world will get hot enough to offset the ice age like temps in N. America and Europe and would result in a net increase of global temperature. ?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Am I easily misled ?

I don't know, but you're intentionally or unintentionally conflating issues.

You said:

"Nasa amongst others, seems to think we might slip into a cooling period. Global warming causes Global cooling, hmm."

While the article you quoted said

Global warming could plunge North America and Western Europe into a deep freeze

So either you misread the article and thought it supported whatever point you were trying to make, you intentionally ignored it, or you don't know the difference between North America and Europe and the globe. I ordered those in order of likelihood that I'll give them.

Then after you ask if you're easily misled (which I really can't answer) you bring out this quote:

"Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago"

I don't understand how that's relevant to conflating global temperature with local temperature.

[Pinner]

I made the assumption that if N.America and Western Europe were in an Ice age, it would mean the whole whole globe would be cooler.

And this:
"Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago"

This makes me think they are talking about "Global Temperatures".

[photon]

Originally Posted by JustAnotherGuy

Photon, Pinner a question. I am looking for a simple answer to this question.

Do you think that man should take better care of the planet?

Sure, but it's a question of benefit and cost. We could reduce the human population to 1/50th its current level and all live a simple agrarian lifestyle, or not do anything and preserve our current population and future growth through technological means without worrying about any impacts to other species. Two ends of a spectrum, we can choose either or something in between or something else.

I think we could fairly easily do a lot better job with what we have and know currently without having to sacrifice much in the way of how we live currently.

Originally Posted by Pinner

So that means, the rest of the world will get hot enough to offset the ice age like temps in N. America and Europe and would result in a net increase of global temperature. ?

Every year temperatures across the globe go up and down to offset each other to result in an average global temperature that doesn't fluctuate wildly. The total energy reaching the earth, and the earth's ability to either keep or get rid of that energy is what impacts the globe's temperature.

But more local conditions can vary wildly. Global ocean currents have a huge impact on local weather, if those change then the total energy gets shifted around, resulting in different local conditions, but the energy doesn't just disappear or get created from nothing, so in general things have to balance.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

I made the assumption that if N.America and Western Europe were in an Ice age, it would mean the whole whole globe would be cooler.

Assumptions have to be examined and validated, or at least identified, because they may be right, but they may be wrong.

Originally Posted by Pinner

And this:
"Such a dip in temperature would be similar to global average temperatures toward the end of the last ice age roughly 20,000 years ago"

This makes me think they are talking about "Global Temperatures".

Right before "global average temperatures", there's "similar to", which means that they're talking about is similar to the thing they're comparing what they're talking about with, which necessarily implies that they aren't the same thing.

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by photon

Global ocean currents have a huge impact on local weather, if those change then the total energy gets shifted around, resulting in different local conditions, but the energy doesn't just disappear or get created from nothing, so in general things have to balance.

If much of N.America and Europe and well much more of the world is covered in ice/snow, a lot more of that energy will be reflected back into space rather than be absorbed as it is now. That's what my simple minds thinks.

[krynski]

From my classes, either way, the Green-House gases may not be producing a warming effect, but may be producing a cooling effect. Although many statistics have shown the warming of not only oceanic temperatures as well as land temperatures, it is still unknown whether warming or cooling will occur. Both theories have some interesting details to them, for sure. one thing, without a doubt, is a substantial CO2 rise is occurring. CO2 is generally the main emmission, since methane and other compounds are considered less dangerous to the environment. This is why when the gulf oil spill occurred, a bunch of the surface oil was burned. CO2 is considered one of the least harmful gases that is easily obtainable, but still contributes to atmospheric CO2.

The CO2 causes a barrier. Whether this will be an insulative effect and keep the heat in, or a deflective effect by deterring suns rays, nobody knows.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Pinner

If much of N.America and Europe and well much more of the world is covered in ice/snow, a lot more of that energy will be reflected back into space rather than be absorbed as it is now. That's what my simple minds thinks.

Sure, snow coverage affects albedo, that's one of the factors. And if you get enough, you can shift into a different balance where the other warming factors aren't sufficient, and be in a global ice age. Which would be bad.

But the increased snow coverage is an effect, not a cause, because of shifts in ocean currents or whatever.. so the energy that would have normally gone to keeping NA and Europe warm necessarily has to go somewhere else first in order for it to get cooler in NA and Europe.. then the snow coverage increases, changing things further, etc.

Positive and negative feedback loops.

You also have more CO2 in the atmosphere, and CO2 is a greenhouse gas so less of that reflected energy would make it to space, more of it would be contained within the earth's system, decreasing the effect of the increased albedo.