Man Made Global Warming; Does it exist, Yes and its a fact; Is it bad? Not so much...

[Paulitician]

Here's a good presentation by Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit on how we “know” that 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium. It's an easy and interesting read.

 

[zeke105]

For anyone that still thinks Global Warming is a major issue, just watch this documentary here .

 

[KCandler]

It doesn't require you being a climate scientist (I don't think anyone on this board is)

I am... well... it's sort of a secondary concentration of mine (primary being Geographic Information Systems for what it's worth).
I've been strongly opposed to the ideas of man-made global warming for the longest time, my objections started because I didn't believe it but never really understood enough about the subject until the last couple of years to actually understand.
Regardless, global warming isn't really bad for us, historically speaking. We get to save money on our heating in the winter. Global cooling is much more harmful to us.
The problem with the science behind global warming is that they misrepresent their data to better fit what they want to say. It's a numbers game.
It is important to note that the only professors that I have ran into in my semesters that have claimed global warming as true are human geographers. Most, if not all, of the physical professors have taught global warming by approaching it as either a natural cycle or, in two specific cases, disproving common beliefs/models/graphs that global warming enthusiasts pry on.

 

[Dr.3D]

For anyone that still thinks Global Warming is a major issue, just watch this documentary here .

A very good documentary. It discusses what I was mentioning earlier. Higher atmospherics temperature causes the higher concentration of atmospheric CO2. First the temperature rises then the CO2 concentration rises. As they mentioned, it takes nearly 800 years for the concentration of CO2 to rise after the temperature rises.

 

[LibertyOfOne]

before i put you on my ignore list, id just like to say that ALL scientists don't say this...in fact MANY believe that its BULLSHIT, but thats beside the point.

how am i supposed to take your opinion seriously when every post you make about your opinion includes a sentence that you just make up off the top of your head.

my advice: stop trying to sound smart, its obvious that you force it, but you don't reinforce it with research, or at the very least a dictionary. so either just type how you talk, or REVIEW YOUR POST BEFORE YOU HIT SEND


MHO

-Roxi

OMG!!! Reality!!! I must close my eyes!! IGNORE!

 

[CUnknown]

Paulitician said:

AGW is far from being established theory, say, like evolution.

That is exactly what I'm saying, human-caused global warming is an established scientific theory like evolution or anything else. All respected climate scientists agree. But, I am just repeating myself, you didn't believe me the first time.

I think James Hansen estimates a 25% chance or so of runaway global warming in our lifetimes. That is an unacceptable risk, imo.

I'd like to see how he came to that conclusion. Do you have the paper perhaps?

I'm not sure, I can try to find it if you are interested.

We are entering a cooling period of at least a decade (certain scientists say it could be multiple decades). This appreared in Nature about 1 or 2 months ago.

I will look for this paper, I work at a University and have access to Nature. You don't happen to know the author, do you?


brandonyates said:

Who says that the earth is warming? Here are four recent studies that show the earth is actually in a cooling trend.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com...ast-12-months/

Why do people keep repeating this then show me the same graph over again? Did you look at that graph? What that graph shows is, indeed, a warming trend with an abnormally cool January of '08. You're basing this entire global warming-denial fantasy on an abnormally cool January of '08. Can't you see the problem with doing that?

Take out the warmest year (or month, lol) of the past 20 years, and you will still see a warming trend. Take out the coldest year of the past 20, and we're not even having this conversation because the warming trend would be so obvious it would slap you in the face.

 

[Paulitician]

That is exactly what I'm saying, human-caused global warming is an established scientific theory like evolution or anything else. All respected climate scientists agree. But, I am just repeating myself, you didn't believe me the first time.

No it isn't. We'll have to wait around 30 years to know if current predictions are right, thus supporting the theory, in order for us to say that AGW is established, and even then there is no guarantee. Besides, climate science is still very much in its infancy, unlike evolution. Simply saying "all respected climate scientists agree" doesn't cut it nor is that even factually true.

I'm not sure, I can try to find it if you are interested.

Yes, I'd like to have it that's why I asked for it.

I will look for this paper, I work at a University and have access to Nature. You don't happen to know the author, do you?

It's this one by Noel Keenlyside et al: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf

 

[electronicmaji]

No it isn't. We'll have to wait around 30 years to know if current predictions are right, thus supporting the theory, in order for us to say that AGW is established, and even then there is no guarantee. Besides, climate science is still very much in its infancy, unlike evolution. Simply saying "all respected climate scientists agree" doesn't cut it nor is that even factually true.

We already waited 30 years. Early Global Warming theories extend past the early 70s and most of those charts have remained faithful to the outcome of weather development of the past years.

You people really ARE blind. You're the same people who were denying evolution 5 years ago. You're the same people who though the earth was flat. The same kind who locked Galileo up for saying that the sun was the center of the universe. No wonder there are still people who CLAIM that the sun is the center of the unvierse and the earth is flat.

 

[brandon]

Why do people keep repeating this then show me the same graph over again? Did you look at that graph? What that graph shows is, indeed, a warming trend with an abnormally cool January of '08. You're basing this entire global warming-denial fantasy on an abnormally cool January of '08. Can't you see the problem with doing that?

Take out the warmest year (or month, lol) of the past 20 years, and you will still see a warming trend. Take out the coldest year of the past 20, and we're not even having this conversation because the warming trend would be so obvious it would slap you in the face.

It's not the same graph, it is four graphs. And they all show that current average temperature is at the end of 2007 average temperature was lower then it was a decade ago.

Your hypothesis is that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the main cause of "global warming." Emissions have increased every year since 1998, yet the average temperature is now lower then 1998. If you were really such a big fan of the scientific method you would accept that the evidence rejects your hypothesis.

 

[torchbearer]

We already waited 30 years. Early Global Warming theories extend past the early 70s and most of those charts have remained faithful to the outcome of weather development of the past years.

You people really ARE blind. You're the same people who were denying evolution 5 years ago. You're the same people who though the earth was flat. The same kind who locked Galileo up for saying that the sun was the center of the universe. No wonder there are still people who CLAIM that the sun is the center of the unvierse and the earth is flat.

characterize much? you are obviously not going for the appeal method of friendship.
A man always looking for a fight on the internet must be a complete pussy in real life.

You haven't added one productive thing to any discussion, you can't even get your own arguments right... its retarded. Are you 13 or something????

 

[brandon]

We already waited 30 years. Early Global Warming theories extend past the early 70s and most of those charts have remained faithful to the outcome of weather development of the past years.

You people really ARE blind. You're the same people who were denying evolution 5 years ago. You're the same people who though the earth was flat. The same kind who locked Galileo up for saying that the sun was the center of the universe. No wonder there are still people who CLAIM that the sun is the center of the unvierse and the earth is flat.

Actually, during the 70's the big hyped up issue was global cooling. We were in a cooling trend for two decades prior to this, and people feared the next ice age was coming.

Remember the people who thought y2k was going to be the end of times? History will view you global warming alarmists similarly.

 

[hypnagogue]

Are you 13 or something????

My money's on 17.

 

[Paulitician]

We already waited 30 years. Early Global Warming theories extend past the early 70s and most of those charts have remained faithful to the outcome of weather development of the past years.

And you've backed up your statement completely... your examples are truly compelling.

 

[torchbearer]

Actually, during the 70's the big hyped up issue was global cooling. We were in a cooling trend for two decades prior to this, and people feared the next ice age was coming.

Remember the people who thought y2k was going to be the end of times? History will view you global warming alarmists similarly.

True. Let us not forget our history of alarmisms.

 

[Paulitician]

True. Let us not forget our history of alarmisms.

They're centuries old. Here's a great article by Bob Hoye about it: Intellectual Hysteria. It puts things in prospective (thought it doesn't get into the science of climate change, it's not intended to).

 

[CUnknown]

I will look for this paper, I work at a University and have access to Nature. You don't happen to know the author, do you?

It's this one by Noel Keenlyside et al: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/nature06921.pdf

I read the abstract of that paper. Nature is one of the best and most respected scientific journals in the world. I am definitely inclined to believe it. And, if ithis paper is right, this is just wonderful news! That would mean we've got an extra decade or so to find solutions before the really bad effects of global warming start to hit. It's not a global warming-denial paper by any stretch.

This is the last sentence of the abstract:

Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.

"temporarily offset" -- meaning that this is not a long-term cooling trend they're seeing.
"projected anthropogenic warming" -- meaning: yes, they believe in global warming, and yes they believe it is caused by humans.

 

[Paulitician]

I read the abstract of that paper. Nature is one of the best and most respected scientific journals in the world. I am definitely inclined to believe it.

And yet they've published papers on climate science (and on other sciences in general) that have turned out to be wrong. Science progresses, which is why I'm not going go to be an apologist for either side of the debate. I just know that I'm not convinced of catastrophe yet, if I ever will.

And, if ithis paper is right, this is just wonderful news! That would mean we've got an extra decade or so to find solutions before the really bad effects of global warming start to hit.

So they say...

We've been emitting excess CO2 for over two centuries but only the past quarter century was "out of the norm" which is why it couldn't be explained mainly by non-human forces? I don't think that would necessarily make a trend, but we'll find out and see in the following decades I suppose.

It's not a global warming-denial paper by any stretch.

I never said it was. I'm not even a "global warming denier." I'm just not alarmist one bit about it. Not until I see some conclusive proof of humans being the main cause of continuing warming and reasons to be absolutely concerned. You couldn't even tell me how much of last century's rise in global temperature were caused by human activity. C'mon now. How is that not essential for an AGW position?

 

[CUnknown]

Your hypothesis is that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the main cause of "global warming." Emissions have increased every year since 1998, yet the average temperature is now lower then 1998. If you were really such a big fan of the scientific method you would accept that the evidence rejects your hypothesis.

All four graphs show the warming trend.

Okay ... so you pick arbitrary start and end points for something that has high year-to-year variation, show that the start point is higher than the end point, and claim that it shows a decreasing trend. You can't do that.

Is this:

1
110
2
220
3
330
0

an increasing trend or a decreasing trend?


About the global cooling / ice age thing. Yes, it's true, from looking at the periodic repetition of ice ages, we're actually due for one to happen any century now. The fact that we are seeing gradual warming instead of gradual cooling is even more cause for alarm and maybe even more evidence of human-caused warming.

 

[brandon]

All four graphs show the warming trend.

Okay ... so you pick arbitrary start and end points for something that has high year-to-year variation, show that the start point is higher than the end point, and claim that it shows a decreasing trend. You can't do that.

Is this:

1
110
2
220
3
330
0

an increasing trend or a decreasing trend?


About the global cooling / ice age thing. Yes, it's true, from looking at the periodic repetition of ice ages, we're actually due for one to happen any century now. The fact that we are seeing gradual warming instead of gradual cooling is even more cause for alarm and maybe even more evidence of human-caused warming.

I don't think it shows a decreasing trend. I'm not sure if I said that. If I did I was wrong. I don't think it shows an increasing trend either. You can't extrapolate anything from those graphs.

My point was, emissions increased over a ten year period, and at the end of that period it was colder then it was to begin with. I think this clearly rejects the notion that GHG emissions are the driving force behind climate change.

 

[CUnknown]

I'm not even a "global warming denier." I'm just not alarmist one bit about it. Not until I see some conclusive proof of humans being the main cause of continuing warming and reasons to be absolutely concerned.

Well, maybe I have been mentally lumping you together with the others ... perhaps you are more reasonable than them. Let's see what facts we can agree on, shall we?

1) The earth's atmosphere has been warming over the past couple decades.
2) At least some of this is due to human causes.

I'd continue, but can we agree on at least this much, first? At least give me #1, seeing as the very graphs people seem to think supports denial actually show a clear warming trend.

Even if we just agree on these two points, I think you have placed yourself firmly in electronicmaji's moderate camp.

You couldn't even tell me how much of last century's rise in global temperature were caused by human activity. C'mon now. How is that not essential for an AGW position?

I suppose I would estimate 95% of it is caused by human activity, but I have no idea so I was reluctant to throw a guess out there. Why would this be essential? It's only essential that a significant fraction be caused by humans.