Thread: GLOBAL WARMING/CLIMATE CHANGE TRUE/FALSE

Originally Posted by thehekler

If I remember correctly it gave a random stat on temp and a random level of CO2 without any other data or a explanation of how the data was established.

The graph was of rising CO2 levels. It was based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements.

It wasn't random.

And that was only one bit of evidence. It also had stats on Sea level rise, Global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice and glacial retreat.

Originally Posted by thehekler

I fear you have confused the terms quality and quantity. Just because more people support one side does not mean that side gas better quality, only quantity.

That might be true if this was a selection of just random people. But we are discussing scientist who actually study the climate and the majority of them agree.

So I'm not confused. I'm referring to quality opinions.

Originally Posted by thehekler

If their is any field where majority should be ignored it is science where a single individual has been proven right over the institution over and over again.

Can you give an example of that? One that has happened recently?

If the evidence points to a certain conclusion it shouldn't be ignored.

Originally Posted by thehekler

On another note I am disappointed that this thread has taken another turn. It started out as a question of belief which I supported, then it turned into a debate which I participated in, it has now moved to an arguement which I will refrain from participating in any further.

I don't know why you're disappointed. The OP said in the first post that he enjoys a great debate. So that was the intention from the start.

Originally Posted by heirkb

Those first few sentences are exactly what I was going to post in this thread a few days ago. One side generally trusts the scientific community and the other thinks that it's corrupted and bad and that we need truth. So they then take up the positions of nut job pseudo-scientists who are significantly worse than the scientific community when it comes to bias, caving in to biased funding, etc...but I guess you guys would call the 97% (or something close to that) of climate scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming pseudo-scientists and use the exact same point I just made against me...well, I'll still go with the 97% of climate scientists and the scientific community here. For all of you saying that not all scientists agree, that number I just gave has been studied. The percentage of climate scientists that believed that global warming is anthropogenic was in the high 90%'s.

Honestly, not a single one of us has done first hand research on the issue, and therefore nobody here is even close to being qualified to actually give an opinion on the issue in a more important setting than an online forum (e.g. in the senate). When I'm in this type of situation, I look at the research of others and the points of view of experts in a given field. Then I make up my mind about what I can and can't safely assume...so go ahead and pick and choose your 3 poorly conducted "studies" to "prove" that global warming is not anthropogenic.

The weak point on the science is the how much has the current natural warming period been influenced by man. Some climatologists that aggree claimed upward of 300% other that agree have it in single digits. Kind of like the spaghetti plots, and add to that we were warming before pollution.
The next question is, do we want the government to fix this problem just like they fix all of the other problems??????That is the part that worries me.
It makes good economic sense to make things more effecient, hence less polluting. The best we can hope from our government is infrastructure to promote. WHERE TO HELL IS THEIR PLAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They can't even maintain the interstates and bridges that where built from scratch. Bloated beaurocratic Charlatans, all of them, and in Italy it aint the ancient stopping progress, its is the Mothers And Fathers Italian Association.
And don't think for a minute they are not laughing at our division.

Enjoy the warm weather while it lasts, it will get cold again sooner than later. I said it, and I don't have a "climatology" degree. But nether did Arrhenius when he discovered the greenhouse effect with respect to CO2.
He was one of those lesser scientist that worked at an inferior institution.You can read here about him and whatever you "believe" in as far as Anthropogenic Warming , Arrhenius used the CO2 argument to help explain what broke glacial periods over 100 years ago.http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and...s-2893679.html I wonder what he would think about the 3% contribution we have made to the total CO2 and other GHGs.

http://www.articlesbase.com/news-and...s-2893679.html

One more thing, would it not make sense to put the enormous national fortunes spent on this thesis on buying and restoring living carbon recycling habbitats? At least our kids would have something tangible rather than to grow a bigger group of resource sucking charlatans flying around in jets telling us dummies how to protect ourselves.

3%?
Seriously?
The whole of the industrial revolution and you only attribute 3% of the increase in CO2 levels to man?

I suppose the drastic increase in CO2 levels in the past hundred years was just a coincidence due to sun spots or volcanoes.

I believe that number is very close and good estimate. Add that to the fact that warmer oceans are unable to absorb as many gases because of Henry's law and it really is not a new idea that the end of warming periods temps rise quick.
Look at climate graphs and you can see, it looks more like a stock market than a straight line. Then it always gets cold quick, not gradual, again these are geological facts and well documented. Solar cycles have greatest impact on earths climate not man.

Could we stop an ice age with CO2? Well let's see, less energy, less evapration, oh yeah forgot to mention water vapor, the biggest greenhouse gas. Yes that is a positive feedback mechanism too, the hotter we get the more evaporation the more water vapor ,more rise in global temp then WACK it get cold as a witches...you know whatever gets cold on them part.
Happens over and over throughout geological history, with or without us.

People that play into this we are making the earth mad remind me of primitives throwing virgins into volcanoes. Man's basic nature always makes him think he is so important, I just can't think that way anymore. The more I learned the less I know.

Originally Posted by Kingfish

I believe that number is very close and good estimate.

And what makes you think that 3% is a good estimate?

Isn't it obvious?

Originally Posted by Utopian

Isn't it obvious?

yes - everything I read in this thread is true!
(click for source and more charts over different time periods)



Looks like the dinosaurs were really tearing up the atmosphere with their poor conservation habits

And just to show another graph with the time period of that in the one Ron posted - which data is correct? This one shows historic peaks well over 300 ppm (click for source)

I'm out of my depth. Normally I debate stem cell research and have a better track record there, though Iowa's soon to be former governor is a glaring exception.

HERE is a website that addresses many of the arguments made by skeptics.

I'll limit my discussion to this. The number of people who understand why the seasons change is disturbingly low. Sarah Palin, our dreaded potential future president, had no concept of why fruit flies would have any benefit for scientific research so I'm pretty sure she falls in the category of seasonal ignorance. Solar exposure changes the seasons and those seasons cause cyclical slight changes in CO2 levels. The ice ages have been caused by cyclical changes in solar exposure as well and that solar exposure change has also affected CO2 levels, primarily by altering the amount of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. The planet has been merrily cycling along this way for millennia.

Skeptics claim it is arrogant of us to believe we can harm the planet, but we have drastically altered the equilibrium of CO2 levels by burning the products of the millions of years of accumulated solar energy. Go ahead, chant "drill baby drill" and go right on blaming the sun, but the waste products of all that burning has to go somewhere. The planet will survive, but a lot of the life on it won't.

Originally Posted by Utopian

we have drastically altered the equilibrium of CO2 levels by...

That's basically the question being asked here in this thread and one that a lot of people aren't satisfied with current answers for

Have we really? I'm not even sure what it would take to convince me if we have, being way over my head already in understanding specifically in detail what causes what in the total atmosphere