PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming



df006
8th August 2008, 6:33 AM
I just read a book called State of Fear by Michael Crighton. It is a novel but its claims and credentials are authentic It states that global warming might be actually beneficial [grass growing in Sahara north of Sahel]and most of the evidence is against it.

What do you think?And please, [I]OPINIONS AND REASONS!

Kyogre35
8th August 2008, 1:47 PM
First can you check this site out...http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

It's pretty good on saying that GLobal Warming doesn't excist.

So um I would like to know who does the author say the "Scientist" there most likely just Scientist while most "CLimatoligist" say that Global Warming is a hoax.

Maspireil
8th August 2008, 2:12 PM
Global Warming is not a hoax. About a month ago, I read in the newspapers and online that this summer Antarctica's ice would ALL melt, or nearly all of it. What do you say about the annual increase in the global temperature? Coincidence? I think not.

Raiburuto
8th August 2008, 3:19 PM
Global Warming is not a hoax. About a month ago, I read in the newspapers and online that this summer Antarctica's ice would ALL melt, or nearly all of it. What do you say about the annual increase in the global temperature? Coincidence? I think not.

You trust what you read in the papers and on the net?

Not the smartest thing I've ever heard.

As for Global Warming being beneficial, it very well could be, although I would like to see some proof...

Strants
8th August 2008, 4:39 PM
First can you check this site out...http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

It's pretty good on saying that GLobal Warming doesn't excist. And he does not appear to have any credentials. He's a lone scientist. And his argument about CO2 going into oceans acts as if oceans are a bottomless hole, when infact, studies have shown that oceans are not able to absorb as much CO2 as they used to. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18723606/.

To the OP, every cloud has a silver lining. In death, for example, you don't have to do chores (wierd example, but most likely true). But then, is dying a good thing? I don't think so.

encas
8th August 2008, 5:18 PM
Global warming, in my opinion, is very real. Whether or not it is caused by humans, there is definate proof that global temperatures have been rising over the last century or so. Personally, I believe that it is caused by man, but whether or not it really is, it is occuring as I type this.

Kyogre35
8th August 2008, 5:43 PM
And he does not appear to have any credentials. He's a lone scientist. And his argument about CO2 going into oceans acts as if oceans are a bottomless hole, when infact, studies have shown that oceans are not able to absorb as much CO2 as they used to. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18723606/.

To the OP, every cloud has a silver lining. In death, for example, you don't have to do chores (wierd example, but most likely true). But then, is dying a good thing? I don't think so.

msnbc is in the tank for liberals so I don't even want to look at that link...


Global warming, in my opinion, is very real. Whether or not it is caused by humans, there is definate proof that global temperatures have been rising over the last century or so. Personally, I believe that it is caused by man, but whether or not it really is, it is occuring as I type this.

Okay yes it may well be happening but I believe that man didn't cause it...but to answer the topic...yes it would be benificul...I mean look at the dinasuar era it was always 80 degrees so it was benifical back then so it should be now.

No more BLizzards and it probably helps other things.

But the thing is there have been...oh a ton of Global WArmings in the past millions of years...so that's what I think.

m15-07
8th August 2008, 7:46 PM
I do think global warming is happening natrualy but with our help whitch is the bit thats making it a bad thing, we are making it happen faster cus global warming has happened in the past and some of those times it change the face of our planet for good reasons.

Its only seen as bad cus its happening too fast and the evioment just cant adjust fast enough, its only going faster cus of us. It is beneficial for somethings but not for most things, i think its happening so the human race will be forced to neither change or die off.

Topaz Archer
8th August 2008, 7:56 PM
msnbc is in the tank for liberals so I don't even want to look at that link...

For Christ's sake. Are you serious? If they have proof, then why the hell does it matter what political stance they have?

For all you people saying it's beneficial, have you EVER seen a farm nowadays?
In California, a ton of them are shriveling up and dying because heat-waves and drought.
Don't you DARE say it's beneficial, because right now we're at the tip of the iceberg, and it sucks.
It's been putting a financial strain on farmers (us), and the explosive population NEEDS the food we grow.


grass growing in Sahara north of Sahel
Enlighten me: What would this grass do?

Edit: Heatwaves in France, guys? Yeah, the ones that killed a bunch of people? That's going to get worse.

Kyogre35
8th August 2008, 8:45 PM
For Christ's sake. Are you serious? If they have proof, then why the hell does it matter what political stance they have?

For all you people saying it's beneficial, have you EVER seen a farm nowadays?
In California, a ton of them are shriveling up and dying because heat-waves and drought.
Don't you DARE say it's beneficial, because right now we're at the tip of the iceberg, and it sucks.
It's been putting a financial strain on farmers (us), and the explosive population NEEDS the food we grow.


Enlighten me: What would this grass do?

Edit: Heatwaves in France, guys? Yeah, the ones that killed a bunch of people? That's going to get worse.


First because MSNBC is Liberal so they carry there agenda. So that's why.

And just one question.....how do you explain the record cold temps this Winter?

Topaz Archer
8th August 2008, 9:51 PM
And just one question.....how do you explain the record cold temps this Winter?

Depends on where you live. I've heard people farther away from me say it has been way cooler, but people around here only have to wear a T-shirt and a very light jacket, even though we all remember when it was freezing.

The La Nina status is why.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071130/cold_winter_071130/20071130?hub=CTVNewsAt11

The weather phenomenon La Nina will bring Canada the coldest winter in nearly 15 years, Environment Canada warned Friday.
Environment Canada's temperature forecast (http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=793255F0-1&news=ED4D7382-B39B-4D23-88B4-17DCEF5F096B) shows the majority of the country will experience a "temperature anomaly" of below-normal temperatures through the months of December, January and February.
Much of Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and parts of British Columbia and southern Ontario will also see above-normal precipitation.
David Phillips, senior climatologist with Environment Canada, told The Canadian Press that the temperature and precipitation abnormalities are likely the result of the weather phenomenon La Nina.
La Nina, meaning the little girl, is the appearance of cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central Pacific Ocean.
"La Nina is thought to occur due to increases in the strength of the normal patterns of trade wind circulation," Environment Canada's website says.
"For reasons not yet fully understood, periodically these trade winds are strengthened, increasing the amount of cooler water."
These cooler waters result in wetter-than-normal conditions in the northern hemisphere and changes to the jet stream over North America.
"The shifted jet stream contributes to large departures from the normal location and strength of storm paths. The overall changes in the atmosphere result in temperature and precipitation anomalies over North America which can persist for several months," Environment Canada says.
In the past, La Nina caused drought and floods around the world. It also whips up more hurricanes in the Atlantic.
The effects of the weather phenomenon have already been felt in parts of Western Canada. Earlier this month, a fierce storm dumped nearly 80 centimetres of snow on Whistler, B.C. over 48 hours. The massive snowfall prompted management at the famous Whistler Blackcomb ski hill to open one week ahead of schedule

This is basically in an easier to understand form, but from a simple Google Search of "Colder Winters Global Warming Proof", I found a couple websites from Climatologists with all sorts of charts and graphs and scientific explanations.

But right now, I'm leaving. Low-blood sugar and sleep deprivation ftl.

Super Shedinja
9th August 2008, 11:51 PM
Depends on where you live. I've heard people farther away from me say it has been way cooler, but people around here only have to wear a T-shirt and a very light jacket, even though we all remember when it was freezing.

The La Nina status is why.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071130/cold_winter_071130/20071130?hub=CTVNewsAt11


This is basically in an easier to understand form, but from a simple Google Search of "Colder Winters Global Warming Proof", I found a couple websites from Climatologists with all sorts of charts and graphs and scientific explanations.

But right now, I'm leaving. Low-blood sugar and sleep deprivation ftl.

For us, that would explain the snow that stayed from December to February (it usually stays only a couple of days).

GoldenArcanine
9th August 2008, 11:54 PM
but the world's temp al way's goe's up naturally, then an ice age counter's it. so by that there will be an ice age soon >.>

HyenaHaze
9th August 2008, 11:56 PM
^^
Edit: Yes, there were a few warming periods in history. However, statisics show that we're not going to have an Ice Age. It will get hotter and hotter and hotter until we're all dead, basically.


There's a record drought in the Southeast right now. There was also no snow this winter where it normally should've snowed in my town. The effects are all around us.

But oops, my word won't make someone happy because I'm a liberal. :rolleyes:

Strants
9th August 2008, 11:57 PM
msnbc is in the tank for liberals so I don't even want to look at that link... Okay then, here's another link. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,483540,00.html. And another http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/22/carbon_sinks_full/.

Also, I'm starting to care less and less about global warming. I'm starting to get annoyed with global warming. Pollution is the real problem. Take acid rain, for example, which destroys plant life.

fredfredburger
10th August 2008, 12:00 AM
I'm sure they called it something liek Climate chaos, for the simple reason that we were heating up then we were cooling down and thye just don't know whats happening

GoldenArcanine
10th August 2008, 12:07 AM
im sure well al be ok O.O
i mean it's not going to kill us for 200 year's, then well all be dead, wevn if we did stop global warming when the sun goe's out were all doomed.... poor us...

HyenaHaze
10th August 2008, 12:15 AM
im sure well al be ok O.O
i mean it's not going to kill us for 200 year's, then well all be dead, wevn if we did stop global warming when the sun goe's out were all doomed.... poor us...

The sun won't go out for billions of years. And unless we move to another planet (and mess that one up) our children or children's children will die.

Unless we reverse the effects of Global Warming ourselves, nothing is going to change.

chuboy
10th August 2008, 12:59 AM
Thing is, as long as there are idiots who believe there is no such thing, and continue to drive their 7.0L truck up and down the street because they have nothing better to do, or fly in their own personal jet or helicopter because they feel above using scheduled transport, or who wear jumpers around the house because the airconditioning is too cold, then there is nothing we can do.

What it would take is a whole lot of laws which make reckless use of fossil fuels illegal - and of course that would be met with a whole lot of opposition.

I know for a fact, for instance, that if climate change continues at the rate its going then Australia's tourism and agriculture industry is going to go down the drain (both of those industries account for a huge percentage of our GDP). The Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed permanently: a whole ecosystem, gone. Our winters will be too warm to have snow in the Aussie Alps. The Murray-Darling River system will dry up and take farming with it.

But still, people are opposed to any sort of action. One of my friends drives to school because she doesn't like the bus. When petrol was more expensive, she went on the bus, but now that its gone down a bit, she drives everywhere again...

Carlisle
10th August 2008, 3:04 AM
I don't believe in Global Warming. I think it's just over hyped nonsense, and that the earth goes through natural heating and cooling cycles. There were most likely hotter periods before in the past. I don't believe in GW, but I do believe in perserving the earth and not polluting.

CosmosSage
10th August 2008, 3:35 AM
Global warming really is past the "debate" point... If the world's leading scientists all claim that global warming is happening and is almost definitely caused by man (IPCC 2007) and all the other side has is a thriller writer with virtually no expertise in climatology and a few conservative talk show hosts, I don't see why this is still even going on... I realize that this is more of an argument by authority, but I'm just stating that there really is virtually no serious support of the idea that global warming doesn't exist and isn't caused by man by any major figures with understanding of the subject.

Incidentally, for those of you stating that it's just natural flux in the earth's climate, current climate change is extremely rapid, whereas natural flux takes place over thousands of years... Here's a link showing this (note the extremely rapid temperature spike near the end in comparison to, say, the Little Ice Age's gradual flux):
Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png)
While this is from Wikipedia, all data used to create this image is appropriately sourced below the picture.

BigLutz
10th August 2008, 4:18 AM
We can defenently say that the Earth has warmed. Then again it has been cooling for the past 7 or so years. That being said, there is no doubt that we have been in a warming trend before that.

WHAT has not been proven, and what major scientists DO disagree on, is if it is man made. Thinking the world's leading scientists all agree on it is completely wrong. Even the IPCC disagreed on the final findings.

Those really are the facts. We are warming, we have been since the mini Ice Age of the 1700s. We are due for another Ice Age soon enough, and we will have one. Is it caused by man kind? No one knows for sure.

Pkmnmaster48
10th August 2008, 4:26 AM
Anybody can belive what they want. I don't know but it seems like it's real but where I live it snowed alot in February. So I don't know what to belive.

df006
10th August 2008, 11:41 AM
Global warming, in my opinion, is very real. Whether or not it is caused by humans, there is definate proof that global temperatures have been rising over the last century or so. Personally, I believe that it is caused by man, but whether or not it really is, it is occuring as I type this.

Listen, you cannot trust the news media. They present the story in a ay as to increase their popularity and get money.And, global warming is real [in a way]but whether it will lead to the Earth being a fiery hell or the next Ice Age- well, that is the dispute.

P.S. I have a theory about this theory to be published here tomorrow.

HyenaHaze
10th August 2008, 7:54 PM
Listen to this. If Global Warming is just some hype, think. That would cause thousands of buisnesses to loose money. And the government doesn't want that.

And just because the news isn't some conservapedia crap doesn't mean it's not truthful.

Pkmnmaster48
10th August 2008, 7:57 PM
Listen, you cannot trust the news media. They present the story in a ay as to increase their popularity and get money.And, global warming is real [in a way]but whether it will lead to the Earth being a fiery hell or the next Ice Age- well, that is the dispute.

P.S. I have a theory about this theory to be published here tomorrow.

I know they here something on TV or the internet and they think it's real.

Ethan
11th August 2008, 1:29 AM
Anybody can belive what they want. I don't know but it seems like it's real but where I live it snowed alot in February. So I don't know what to belive.

Posts like this will get you infracted in the debate forum.

Sorry to make a public spectacle out of you, but people simply aren't taking the hint.

MERELY POSTING YOUR OPINION IS SPAM, YOU MUST MAKE AN ARGUMENT OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE TOPIC.

Ralts Master
11th August 2008, 5:50 AM
But the thing is there have been...oh a ton of Global WArmings in the past millions of years...so that's what I think.
There have... but that's not exactly a mark in its favor. I don't know about you, but I can do without the second coming of the Permian Extinction (aka WHEN 90+% OF LIFE ON EARTH DIED)...

df006
12th August 2008, 11:36 AM
Listen to this. If Global Warming is just some hype, think. That would cause thousands of buisnesses to loose money. And the government doesn't want that.

And just because the news isn't some conservapedia crap doesn't mean it's not truthful.

They are all fooled. As the writer of the novel puts it, it is supported by millions of people, celebrities arond the planet. It has no proof- well, neither there is the proof of eugenics.

PS People have recovered from HIV but never from AIDS. And just read State of Fear once, then you will understand. Most of the evidence was in graphs which showed a decrease in world temp.! And they were authentic.

Raichu4u
13th August 2008, 5:02 AM
No, i dont belive in global warming. I had the coldest winter. it lasted till somtime near the end of school.

BigLutz
13th August 2008, 5:30 AM
Okay guys just to stop all the spamming there is one thing you need to know about Global Warming. USING THE HOUSE/CITY/STATE you live in IS NOT indicuative of Global Warming. Hell just a year ago it snowed in Texas in April. That does not mean we are onward toward the next ice age. So please, lets stop using your personal experience with weather as proof that Global Warming is/isn't occuring.

Raichu4u
13th August 2008, 5:42 AM
Antartica is growing. proof, from I forget where

Ethan
13th August 2008, 5:46 AM
Antartica is growing. proof, from I forget where

...

*twitches*

Check your PM box then.

Raichu4u
13th August 2008, 5:51 AM
All what I am saying is that i dont belive in global warming.

Ethan
13th August 2008, 6:03 AM
All what I am saying is that i dont belive in global warming.


That's exactly it. I hate to be harsh or rude, but I don't give a damn.

You must make an argument or contribute to the topic. If you can't make an argument, you could link to a site and give background information on the subject or something of that sort. Simply posting your opinion is spam, and I'm tired of repeating it over and over.

Please read the rules as they clearly explain my expectations.

Were done here.

bobjr
13th August 2008, 6:04 AM
Antartica is growing. proof, from I forget where

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1109_041109_polar_ice.html

However, the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate.

poke poke
13th August 2008, 7:54 AM
There are many articles which both encourage and discourage the existence of Global Warming. I don't know which to believe right now.

The fact remains that Global Warming or not, Earth is being polluted and we have to stop it.

My school teaches us about Global Warming. Every environmental magazine or book I've read contains something about Global Warming. If so many people are talking about it, how can you dismiss it all as government hype?

df006
13th August 2008, 10:37 AM
This is what the book State of Fear says 'The government needs fear to control the people.' So it is funding this project to gain money, control the people and show its advantages. The government shows it wastes million dollars behind it, but where is the proof that it uses t on global warming. My guess is- it just gives a small amount of money on it, yet a substantial amount which is nothing compared to the amount it gets in donations.

Some places are melting at the arctic but not as a whole. And it is true Antarctica is growing. Only some places in it are melting. And this statement is authentic.

PS Reference-State of Fear, Michael Crighton

You're right.

Ethan
13th August 2008, 11:22 AM
Don't triple post again please.

Emperor Giratina
13th August 2008, 11:49 AM
To prevent global warming, people should use 'O-Zone friendly' technology, such as using solar-powered cars, installing catalytic converters in cars, using cars with engines that can not be corroded by ethanol (and obviously they SHOULD run on ethanol since the cars' engine can not be corroded by it), etc. ... If people do not pay attention to this problem and do not take measures to prevent its harmful effects soon, animals and human beings will die of UV (Ultra-violet) radiation. Countries like Bangladesh and all the wet places will be flooded due to the rise in temprature and the Maldives Islands will be no more due to a massive succesion of floods (Well, of course the Maldives Islands will drown due to the succesion of floods! What else do you think will destroy the Maldives Islands, huh?). Even countries like Pakistan, India, the Middle East and all the other hot regions will be even more hotter and will suffer from extremly severe droughts and will adversly affect crop yields... And no, these are not the events from a Sci-Fi movie, these events are already taking place in most countries and they may be at risk... And if measures are soon not taken to prevent all this, human beings may become endangered by their own activities... And I obviously believe in Global Warming, whatever I have said in this post makes it clear that Global Warming DOES exist... And those people who do not believe in Global Warming, please tell me why are the ice caps in Antartica melting at an alarming rate, why countries like Bangladesh always get flooded during the monsons, why there are widespreads of drought in the hotter regions of earth like we've never seen them before!?

poke poke
13th August 2008, 8:30 PM
This is what the book State of Fear says 'The government needs fear to control the people.' So it is funding this project to gain money, control the people and show its advantages. The government shows it wastes million dollars behind it, but where is the proof that it uses t on global warming. My guess is- it just gives a small amount of money on it, yet a substantial amount which is nothing compared to the amount it gets in donations.

It was not created by the government because the whole world, not only USA is talking about it. They wouldn't go through so much trouble just to get some money. That's absurd.

mangaeyes
14th August 2008, 8:52 AM
There is so much people can do to reduce it but I think with this day in age people just won't/can't. I recycle, I share my journey to school by getting on the bus and I don't leave things on standby. There will never be a time in the world where everyone does that altogether because there will always be someone who doesn't care.

Yonowaru in Chaos
14th August 2008, 9:05 AM
I thought the term was 'climate change'.

Its not really the fact that the Earth is warming up, its just that weather is getting much more extreme. If its a drought, chances are its a big one and if its going to rain, expect flash floods, or just long periods of normal rain. There's also been a massive increase in the amount of these natural weather phenomena, not just severity and its all attributed to the 'greenhouse effect'.

Pogolian
14th August 2008, 9:31 AM
i think its wierd, old people cant afford to pay gas bills in the winter so they die but if we sped up global warming we would'nt use up as much gas so we'd save money and the winters would be warmer so old people don't die on the downside however eskimos won't wear their little furry coats :P LOL more seriously i'm not sure i mean it's going to happen eventually any way so why not deal with it sooner rather than later?

squirrel boy
17th August 2008, 1:12 AM
i think global warming is a way to get people's money.
why i say that is because, they only take pics in summer, and in summer its brighter out, thus hotter,

chuboy
17th August 2008, 1:55 AM
^Get out. Just go.

You really think they're basing the whole theory of global warming on photographs?

Global warming is based on years of study and analysing statistics and weather patterns. Even analysing the way sedimentary rocks are layered has contributed to coming up with a conclusion.

It's not just a way to make money - in fact NOT doing something will cost you more in the long run. Please, research before you type in the debate forum... >.<

CharizardBlastoise
17th August 2008, 2:12 AM
The Day After Tomorrow (Movie) Is A Very Good Idea Of What May Happern Were The Ice Caps Melt Cooling The Gulf Stream And The Whole Of The Northern Side Of The Equater Freeze Over

BigLutz
17th August 2008, 4:42 AM
The Day After Tomorrow (Movie) Is A Very Good Idea Of What May Happern Were The Ice Caps Melt Cooling The Gulf Stream And The Whole Of The Northern Side Of The Equater Freeze Over

No no no, not a chance, not even a possibility of that being what would happen during Global Warming. That movie is one of if not the WORST Stupid Science movie of all time.

BloodthirstPriest
18th August 2008, 5:15 PM
I've done my fair share of research, and I'm gladly taking the side that global warming does not exist. The earth goes through these natural cycles, from ice ages to even hotter temperatures. If the earth is hotter, then solar flares are the cause, for they have more of an impact on the earth's temperature than we do.

Here's some proof:

Record high temperatures were recorded in 1998 and were expected to break those records in 2007... hmmm.
It turns out that the winter in South America was the coldest ever recorded that year.
In Australia, they recorded the coldest June ever.
Johannesburg at last got heavy snowfall after 25 years.
New Zealand's spring temperatures also dropped to record lows.

Overall, 2007's temperatures were the same all the way back to 2001.
Meanwhile, the record-high temperatures of 1998 have not been exceeded, and CO2 emissions actually increased 4%, so why did it get colder?

For the full detail go to: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/01/06/br_r_r_where_did_global_warming_go/

dragon_trainer!
18th August 2008, 5:46 PM
Global Warming is not a hoax. About a month ago, I read in the newspapers and online that this summer Antarctica's ice would ALL melt, or nearly all of it. What do you say about the annual increase in the global temperature? Coincidence? I think not.

most of that ice restored itself.

HeliosNeri
18th August 2008, 5:57 PM
First can you check this site out...http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

It's pretty good on saying that GLobal Warming doesn't excist.

So um I would like to know who does the author say the "Scientist" there most likely just Scientist while most "CLimatoligist" say that Global Warming is a hoax.

Who ever made that site is well, not very smart. Global warming has happened many times in Earth's history and there is proof of it. In rocks and ice. Same goes with global cooling. The debate is just whether we are causing it or speeding it up. I think we are speeding it up because we are pumping Methane and Carbon Dioxide not to mention other green house gasses into our atmosphere. But even if we weren't we would still be experiencing global warming. Global warming is natural, and real. Who ever says it isn't needs to just stop talking. Its just "Are we causing it?" that is the true debate.

sockyskarmie
19th August 2008, 3:24 AM
Here's an idea: Let's stop driving cars, using factories, and shut down the economy! Yay! Amish Paradise

The Earth naturally goes in a heat-up, cool-down cycle. Rome is supposedly known for their grapes, but now it is too cold to grow them there.

Also, years ago scientists thought that the world would come to an iceage, due to the drop of temperature. Wow, our scientists are pretty accurate

BloodthirstPriest
19th August 2008, 4:50 AM
Who ever made that site is well, not very smart. Global warming has happened many times in Earth's history and there is proof of it. In rocks and ice. Same goes with global cooling. The debate is just whether we are causing it or speeding it up. I think we are speeding it up because we are pumping Methane and Carbon Dioxide not to mention other green house gasses into our atmosphere. But even if we weren't we would still be experiencing global warming. Global warming is natural, and real. Who ever says it isn't needs to just stop talking. Its just "Are we causing it?" that is the true debate.

No we are not causing it or speeding it up, read my post #51, and if you wish for more evidence then here:

The media told us that the antarctic ice was thinning, but what they didn't tell us was that the ice also reached a record high. (Maybe that wasn't qualified as news).
This points to two things: 1. We are not causing global warming 2. The media is not telling us the whole story.

C.S. Lewis wrote that man has no control over nature. And that is true.

df006
19th August 2008, 11:00 AM
No we are not causing it or speeding it up, read my post #51, and if you wish for more evidence then here:

The media told us that the antarctic ice was thinning, but what they didn't tell us was that the ice also reached a record high. (Maybe that wasn't qualified as news).
This points to two things: 1. We are not causing global warming 2. The media is not telling us the whole story.

C.S. Lewis wrote that man has no control over nature. And that is true.


Why should the media tell us the truth? They just present each story ina way so that they get more money and popularity.
It's just good business.

BloodthirstPriest
19th August 2008, 12:32 PM
Why should the media tell us the truth? They just present each story ina way so that they get more money and popularity.
It's just good business.

Do you think I don't know that?
That's why I mention "media" to show that they are not truthful, I could have as easily said that post without the word, "media".

I use "media", because most people who believe that we are causing global warming do so because the news says so, and because they don't want to not fit in.

RedJirachi
22nd August 2008, 1:59 AM
Global Warming does exist.What is happening is a man-made event.After all,the polar ice caps are melting

BloodthirstPriest
23rd August 2008, 6:42 PM
Global Warming does exist.What is happening is a man-made event.After all,the polar ice caps are melting

I agree with your first sentence: "Global Warming does exist." But what I disagree to is with those who say that it is occurring now. I also disagree with your following sentence, for global warming is not a man-made event, it is completely natural, and the world has gone through this and the opposite and has survived. No, the ice caps are not melting, in fact; the antarctic ice grew 20% since observations began in 1979.

To reply to the fact that global warming is occurring now, I'll have to mention several things that were deemed nearly impossible:

In 2007, it snowed in Baghdad; the first time it had snowed in more than a hundred years.

Several months ago, temperatures reached record lows in the capital of Saudi Arabia; Riyadh, and another city called Al Majma'ah. In Riyadh, it reached -8 degrees Celsius and -13 degrees Celsius in Al Majma'ah. I have chosen these two cities in particular, because they have desert climates, and their temperatures can easily be expected to reach 50 degrees in the summer and well over 30 in the winter.

golduck#1
24th August 2008, 5:44 AM
i believe it doesn't exist. evidence is saying it doesn't as well. we are just reading it wrong. ok there was a ice age millions of years ago wasn't their. well before that there was probably a massive drought. so it makes sense that a drought will be coming and then obviously in another 800-1500 years there might be another drought or ice age

chuboy
24th August 2008, 7:38 AM
What you guys are overlooking is that global warming does not necessarily mean every place int he world is going to be hotter all the time - but overall there is a dramatic effect that greenhouse gases are having on climate change and that is proven by the various recent weather extremes everyone has been so kind to point out.

heirokee
24th August 2008, 8:04 AM
I did my research paper on this...

I'm fairly certain it exists do to levels of O3, CO2, and blah blah blah in the environment, but that's not really what matters. The point is that there is certainly no outstanding evidence pointing towards it not existing (other than what essentially amounts to skepticism) and the consequences of allowing it to continue could be catastrophic. What incentive do we, as humanity, have towards not developing technologies that reduce the theoretical impact on the environment? Realistically, we are constantly developing new technologies anyways, why shouldn't we just gear more of them towards being less ecologically harmful? To me it seems like we are actively trying to not progress, which is just ridiculous. It's like somebody giving you a gun and saying "I'm pretty sure there's a bullet in there" and testing that by playing Russian roulette. Even if it wasn't loaded, it's stupid to be pointing the thing at your head. Why not fire it off into the air just to see? At least it's not gonna kill you if you're wrong and it's not any harder to do.

profpeanut
24th August 2008, 8:18 AM
I agree with your first sentence: "Global Warming does exist." But what I disagree to is with those who say that it is occurring now. I also disagree with your following sentence, for global warming is not a man-made event, it is completely natural, and the world has gone through this and the opposite and has survived. No, the ice caps are not melting, in fact; the antarctic ice grew 20% since observations began in 1979.

To reply to the fact that global warming is occurring now, I'll have to mention several things that were deemed nearly impossible:

In 2007, it snowed in Baghdad; the first time it had snowed in more than a hundred years.

Several months ago, temperatures reached record lows in the capital of Saudi Arabia; Riyadh, and another city called Al Majma'ah. In Riyadh, it reached -8 degrees Celsius and -13 degrees Celsius in Al Majma'ah. I have chosen these two cities in particular, because they have desert climates, and their temperatures can easily be expected to reach 50 degrees in the summer and well over 30 in the winter.

Oh dear, you again.

First off: Your first paragraph requires citation. Also, I've been to the Fox glacier in New Zealand, apparently the only one that's slowed down on shrinking unlike its ever-receding cousins, and it seems that 50 years ago the thing was long enough to have reached where the parking lot was located, a length that would have saved me a two hour hike across a cliff side. Nevertheless, glaciers are cool to walk on (no pun intended.)

Second statement: Again, citation required. Had the weather been turning increasingly colder in the region? Has it done that since? Unless it happens again this year, it could be nothing more than a weather abnormality.

Finally: I would have been shocked had I not suddenly remembered that it has always that cold in the desert at night. What's happened to all your citation?

To the OP: The only beneficial thing global warming has so far done is delay the next Ice Age for a while. Everything else has done so much as to have f***ed up the climate.


I did my research paper on this...

I'm fairly certain it exists do to levels of O3, CO2, and blah blah blah in the environment, but that's not really what matters. The point is that there is certainly no outstanding evidence pointing towards it not existing (other than what essentially amounts to skepticism) and the consequences of allowing it to continue could be catastrophic. What incentive do we, as humanity, have towards not developing technologies that reduce the theoretical impact on the environment? Realistically, we are constantly developing new technologies anyways, why shouldn't we just gear more of them towards being less ecologically harmful? To me it seems like we are actively trying to not progress, which is just ridiculous. It's like somebody giving you a gun and saying "I'm pretty sure there's a bullet in there" and testing that by playing Russian roulette. Even if it wasn't loaded, it's stupid to be pointing the thing at your head. Why not fire it off into the air just to see? At least it's not gonna kill you if you're wrong and it's not any harder to do.

You sir are full of win. Let me try a better example as well: If someone gives you a hydro-electric dam and tells you it'll collapse in 20 years time if left alone, do you do nothing and end up trying to hold back about a million cubic pounds of water at the last second, or otherwise?

heirokee
24th August 2008, 9:42 AM
I would like to add to this conversation that global warming is kind of a misnomer. It is correct in that the Earth as a whole increases in temperature, but wrong in that the increase is not proportional. It mostly results in climate change, meaning changes in rainfall, changes in heat (both higher and lower temps), and changes in wind and ocean patterns. If global warming exists, then most of Africa will probably get a little colder and drier, North America will experience significantly less rainfall and will get hotter, South America will get significantly hotter, Europe will be drenched, and Asia and Australia will lose rainfall and will heat up... at least I'm pretty sure that's the order... I'm gonna have to go back and check my research. Even if a few of them are messed up, the point remains. Not all regions will experience simple increases in temperature, actually, rainfall is probably gonna be the most immediate problem.

You might find out more if you look up climate change caused by CO2 or something like that. Global warming tends to result in too many sites debating whether or not it exists and not enough sites that actually give any decent scientific information on it. Also, books are helpful.


I know this was a poor debating post, because I didn't care to read through what I found again and make sure my facts were right, but whatever, it wasn't really meant to debate my point, just to get everybody thinking outside of the "it's not hotter HERE so global warming doesn't exist" mentality.

BloodthirstPriest
24th August 2008, 3:56 PM
Oh dear, you again.

I should be saying that.

First off: Your first paragraph requires citation. Also, I've been to the Fox glacier in New Zealand, apparently the only one that's slowed down on shrinking unlike its ever-receding cousins, and it seems that 50 years ago the thing was long enough to have reached where the parking lot was located, a length that would have saved me a two hour hike across a cliff side. Nevertheless, glaciers are cool to walk on (no pun intended.)

Second statement: Again, citation required. Had the weather been turning increasingly colder in the region? Has it done that since? Unless it happens again this year, it could be nothing more than a weather abnormality.

Finally: I would have been shocked had I not suddenly remembered that it has always that cold in the desert at night. What's happened to all your citation?

Yes, it is cold in deserts at night. Temperatures can reach around the 10 degrees. Also, these record low temperatures occurred in the morning - I did not say night. I have also been to several deserts - even there - but I've seen the temperature and the lowest I recall was 8 degrees and that was at night. Those temperatures in Saudi Arabia and the snow in Iraq happened in daytime. I have pictures of the cold in Saudi Arabia that I got by e-mail, and they show it was at the morning. Even with the cold at night in deserts - it never snows in the middle east. Go to the oldest person living there and he won't remember or he'll think you're crazy.

Here are my citations:
For the Antarctic ice growth: http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.48
For the Baghdad snow: http://www.belch.com/blog/2008/01/11/global-warming-makes-it-snow-in-baghdad/
For the freezing temperatures in Saudi Arabia: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080220/99684389.html
For pictures of the freezing temperatures:
Temperature on thermometer in Riyadh. (http://aaber2008.googlepages.com/ICE5.jpg)
Snow-covered car in Riyadh. (http://aaber2008.googlepages.com/ICE1.jpg)
Frozen water pipe in Riyadh. (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload/prof001/mk1_cold01.jpg)
Thermometer in Al Majma'ah. (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk35857_a.jpg)
Frozen lake in Al Majma'ah (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk35857_h.jpg), here (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk35857_img_0267.jpg).
Frozen water in Al Majma'ah. (http://file5.9q9q.net/local/thumbnail/74617411/600x600.jpg)
Water in cup frozen onto palm tree (there is a Saudi in this picture for proof) in Al Majma'ah. (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk20245_al5bob6.com.jpg)
Frozen flower in Al Majma'ah. (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk20245_al5bob.com.jpg)
Frozen fields in Al Majma'ah (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk20245_al5bob3.com.jpg), here (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk20245_al5bob222.jpg).
Snow in Al Majma'ah. (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk43360_img_22623.jpg)
Thunderstorm in Al Majma'ah over frozen field. (http://www.mekshat.com/pix/upload02/images59/mk43360_2323.jpg)

Do you want more proof? I can give you more.

May I ask about your citations for the above paragraphs; that is if it is not too hard. Where's your proof that all the glaciers are receding?

chuboy
25th August 2008, 6:11 AM
I can refute all relevent citations simply by pointing out that deserts frequently get much colder than that at night, well below zero degrees C, depending on their distance from the nearest large body of water. Deserts aren't hot all the time you know <_<

But that would be pointless. Global warming is just another name for climate change - on the whole the average temperature of the world is increasing. But calling it global warming causes problems, because fools often think 'wait a minute, global warming can't be happening because it was cold yesterday'.

Handy Hint: global warming doesn't stop seasons, or weather. If a part of the world experiences a lot of heat, it causes a chain weather reaction as the atmosphere tries to balance itself out - the heat causes air to rise into the atmosphere, meaning that air from another cell must move towards it, etc etc. There's more to it than a thermometer reading.

BloodthirstPriest
25th August 2008, 6:52 AM
I can refute all relevent citations simply by pointing out that deserts frequently get much colder than that at night, well below zero degrees C, depending on their distance from the nearest large body of water. Deserts aren't hot all the time you know <_<

Did the pictures look like it was night - no, you can see shadows, there is light, and the clouds are covering the sunlight. Please pay more attention to detail before you make pointless claims. Have you been to a desert to know how cold it goes? I've been and the coldest was 8 degrees ABOVE zero.


But that would be pointless. Global warming is just another name for climate change - on the whole the average temperature of the world is increasing. But calling it global warming causes problems, because fools often think 'wait a minute, global warming can't be happening because it was cold yesterday'.

Global Warming is not another name for climate change - climate change is the change of temperature: either up or down - Global Warming is a form of climate change. Global Warming, as the name clearly points out, but it seems I must define it, is the GLOBAL increase of temperature or WORLDWIDE. If some countries are getting hotter, it does not mean all the other places are getting hotter as well. What people think is Global Warming is only a mere change of regional temperatures that are naturally going higher. I've pointed out in other posts that temperatures are actually decreasing in a lot of places.


Handy Hint: global warming doesn't stop seasons, or weather. If a part of the world experiences a lot of heat, it causes a chain weather reaction as the atmosphere tries to balance itself out - the heat causes air to rise into the atmosphere, meaning that air from another cell must move towards it, etc etc. There's more to it than a thermometer reading.

Please explain to me what you're trying to say, because what you're saying does not really make a point. If Global Warming is occurring then why can't we take thermometer readings; I mean, it is "Warming" isn't it. So, we MUST be able to see the thermometer readings, and if not, then why? So, yes, we can take thermometer readings. But, I've given you more than thermometer readings if you refuse to take that evidence, I've posted that the antarctic has actually grown in nearly 30 years. That's for SURE not a thermometer reading, is it?

I found this on the website below.


Dr. Fred Singer, the inventor of the ozone measurement instrument, the most eminent environmental scientist of the last 40 years says, "The actual measurements (those instruments we have in the oceans and the heavens) taken with weather satellites, show conclusively that the climate is not warming."

http://morganhilltimes.com/news/234176-global-warming-is-hoax-that-has-become-dogma

chuboy
25th August 2008, 7:13 AM
Did the pictures look like it was night - no, you can see shadows, there is light, and the clouds are covering the sunlight. Please pay more attention to detail before you make pointless claims. Have you been to a desert to know how cold it goes? I've been and the coldest was 8 degrees ABOVE zero.
Fascinating. I can drive 20km inland from my house (on the coast) and already the average night temperature has plummeted to around the zero mark. Drive further, over the Great Dividing Range and into the Aussie desert, you easily see negative temperatures in the night time, even though temperature during the day soars over 40 degrees C and climate change is contributing to a drought which has seen the lack of any meaningful rainfall in most of the country for decades.



Global Warming is not another name for climate change - climate change is the change of temperature: either up or down - Global Warming is a form of climate change.When people refer to global warming, they are also talking about climate change since if the first happens so is/will the second.

Global Warming, as the name clearly points out, but it seems I must define it, is the GLOBAL increase of temperature or WORLDWIDE. If some countries are getting hotter, it does not mean all the other places are getting hotter as well.Hence, your claims that global warming isn't happening because it snowed in Baghdad are thusforth refuted.


If Global Warming is occurring then why can't we take thermometer readings; I mean, it is "Warming" isn't it. So, we MUST be able to see the thermometer readings, and if not, then why?Because as you just pointed out, just because it snowed in Baghdad doesn't mean the world isn't warming up. I'm fairly sure it was cold when it snowed, therefore if you were going by thermometer readings alone you could conclude that no, global warming isn't happening.

But you have already said otherwise...


But, I've given you more than thermometer readings if you refuse to take that evidence, I've posted that the antarctic has actually grown in nearly 30 years. That's for SURE not a thermometer reading, is it?I suppose that explains why hordes of polar bears are dying in the Arctic Circle because their habitat is melting, and why communites in the Pacific are being destroyed because their island-homes are being submerged by rising sea levels, and that the death of the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world's most diverse ecosystems, is imminent and happening because the oceans have warmed?

BloodthirstPriest
25th August 2008, 8:27 AM
Fascinating. I can drive 20km inland from my house (on the coast) and already the average night temperature has plummeted to around the zero mark. Drive further, over the Great Dividing Range and into the Aussie desert, you easily see negative temperatures in the night time, even though temperature during the day soars over 40 degrees C and climate change is contributing to a drought which has seen the lack of any meaningful rainfall in most of the country for decades.

I've been to Australia, and to the desert (more specifically Ayers Rock and the King's Canyon) in it's summer. I've been to what you call the "outback" but by no means while I was there did it get into the 40s. Just another point; I wouldn't compare the Middle Eastern deserts to the Australian deserts. I'll tell you why. Australian deserts are completely different, firstly because it is actually not that hot to kill off life there. Secondly; it was much cooler than the Middle Eastern deserts. Also, I found this funny; after getting used to the massive sand dunes in the middle east, I went to Australia, and the tour guide pointed to a "sand dune" which was actually a little lump of dirt that was not higher then the shrubs that grew around it. You cannot compare two deserts that are so far apart with such different weathers, geography and ecosystems and then say that because it is so in this desert it must be so in another: No.

Here are pictures of the 2 deserts:
Australian (http://www.colonialvoyage.com/viaggi/P9300612.JPG)
Middle Eastern (http://www.eial.org/mesp/images/DESERTW1.jpg)
Clearly these two deserts cannot be put on the same level. While a few plants survive in the deserts of the Middle East, a large and diverse amount of greenery thrive in the Australian desert.


When people refer to global warming, they are also talking about climate change since if the first happens so is/will the second.

Yes, but I said climate change is not a synonym to global warming; global warming is a more specific form. I did not challenge anybody by saying that.


Hence, your claims that global warming isn't happening because it snowed in Baghdad are thusforth refuted.

I don't think you can say that as you really have not given me evidence that it is actually getting hotter in a specific place.


Because as you just pointed out, just because it snowed in Baghdad doesn't mean the world isn't warming up. I'm fairly sure it was cold when it snowed, therefore if you were going by thermometer readings alone you could conclude that no, global warming isn't happening.

But you have already said otherwise...

I fail to see your point.


I suppose that explains why hordes of polar bears are dying in the Arctic Circle because their habitat is melting, and why communites in the Pacific are being destroyed because their island-homes are being submerged by rising sea levels, and that the death of the Great Barrier Reef, one of the world's most diverse ecosystems, is imminent and happening because the oceans have warmed?

I'd just like to say that the infamous pictures if polar bears holding onto ice in the Arctic circle were actually taken in August. So? The ice melting in August is normal. Also, the polar bears aren't dying and aren't facing extinction or anything of the sort. In fact the polar bear population has increased tremendously in the past few years. Saving the polar bears? They are already safe. Also, the ice that was claimed to be lost has returned; it is a cycle, and I'm afraid people ignorantly look at only point of the cycle to justify their claims. Go look here:
http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/massive-growth-in-polar-ice/
http://mindlessandspineless.blogspot.com/2008/02/real-science-declares-global-warming-is.html
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/so-much-for-global-warming/

The above sources show that the world as a whole is getting colder - not hotter. Let me summarize it:
-Northern hemisphere experiences coldest weather for decades and most snow cover since 1966 - 42 years ago. Surely Global Warming would have prevented this? 42 years is more than enough time for it to work its wonders.
-Only West Europe experienced hotter than normal temperatures, which after those temperatures the cold arrived and the temperature plummeted to 10 degrees below zero.
-China, US, and Canada hit by heavy snowstorms.
-Jerusalem, Damascus, Northern Saudi Arabia experience heaviest rainfalls in years, as temperatures dropped below zero.
-A record long cold hits Northern Vietnam killing nearly 60,000 cattle.
-UK's temperature plummets to -10 degrees in January and February was expected to be coldest in 10 years.
-Most of Greece is covered by a blanket of snow - strange for a Mediterranean country.
-Coldest temperatures recorded on Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina.

profpeanut
25th August 2008, 9:17 AM
Extremely late, as I had to go somewhere before I could post this. So:



May I ask about your citations for the above paragraphs; that is if it is not too hard. Where's your proof that all the glaciers are receding?

Well, you could have just wiki'd it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850), but you can also look here (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html), there (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010605072007.htm), that too (http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/37794), uh, and this as well (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/nzglacier.html), hey what about this pic (http://www.pc.gc.ca/canada/pn-tfn/images/03c_Glacier-Margins.jpg), or this one (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/usa/photosvideos/photos/a-greenpeace-activist-stands-b.jpg), or this (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/files/images/shrinking-glaciers-global-warming.jpg), or that one (http://www.firstscience.com/home/images/stories/glacier.jpg). And you don't take my words for it? I've been there.

It's funny how you point out all the snow phenomena around the earth in an act of saying global warming doesn't exist when all you're really doing is backing it up. It's also funny how you say global warming refers only to hotter temperature when you mention repeatedly that words have more than one meaning (It's in your signature after all), which also includes phrases.

All those things about colder weather are just adding more to the pile of evidence. If the heat is spiking astronomically somewhere, it also makes sense that the cold will go elsewhere to spike there. If it's blistering hot in Europe, it'll be freezing cold in the Middle East.

But I've said it before: Does global warming have to exist for you to take care of the environment? Do the polar ice caps have to be melting for you to stop wasting gasoline? Do the animals have to be dying out for you to start recycling your trash? Does there have to be some catastrophic tropical storm claiming the lives of thousands for you to turn off the lights when you aren't using them? I've always seen global warming as a reminder that we've got responsibility of this planet, and it's gonna punish us pretty badly if we don't take care of it.

BloodthirstPriest
25th August 2008, 10:23 AM
Extremely late, as I had to go somewhere before I could post this. So:

Well, you could have just wiki'd it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850), but you can also look here (http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html), there (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010605072007.htm), that too (http://www.enn.com/sci-tech/article/37794), uh, and this as well (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/nzglacier.html), hey what about this pic (http://www.pc.gc.ca/canada/pn-tfn/images/03c_Glacier-Margins.jpg), or this one (http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/usa/photosvideos/photos/a-greenpeace-activist-stands-b.jpg), or this (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/files/images/shrinking-glaciers-global-warming.jpg), or that one (http://www.firstscience.com/home/images/stories/glacier.jpg). And you don't take my words for it? I've been there.

I'm not sure if you read the wikipedia article, but it says that the Fox glacier is growing. Also, I thought wikipedia was not allowed, here:


4. Wikipedia is off limits. Don't use it.

-You're third link has the support of a geophysicist. A geophysicist - I believe - studies the Earth through quantitative physical procedures, but most importantly through seismic, electromagnetic and radioactivity methods. How is he able to say that all the glaciers are receding?
-I'm interested in seeing the months these pictures were taken, and some pictures have no name of the glacier, I would like the name too. It is not hard to take a picture in winter twenty years ago and compare it with a picture in summer today, now is it? People have tricked others with that. Al Gore did.

I've decided to do my own research on the glacier, and guess what... It has been receding for over a hundred years. How is Global Warming to blame? I also discovered that the Fox Glacier is now GROWING slowly. And then really, you're talking about a glacier that was formed in the Ice Age. Sure it's gonna recede since then. It has been noted that most of the glaciers have begun receding since the end of the "Little Ice Age" which was an abnormally cold period around the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries that had helped the glaciers to grow, so of course pictures over a hundred years will show a lot of glacier. In fact the current size of glaciers now are what they should be nowadays. Just because they were bigger in the "Little Ice Age" it does not mean that they should be so now.

Here is some text from this website (http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm):

NEW ZEALAND
All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.
The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)
Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend - New Zealand's two best-known
glaciers are still on the march

This CLEARLY SHOWS that you're wrong: the Fox glacier AND the Franz Josef are not receding. Also, on that website you'll see all the glaciers that are growing.


It's funny how you point out all the snow phenomena around the earth in an act of saying global warming doesn't exist when all you're really doing is backing it up. It's also funny how you say global warming refers only to hotter temperature when you mention repeatedly that words have more than one meaning (It's in your signature after all), which also includes phrases.

What I don't understand is how I'm backing that Global Warming is occurring. Please tell me how I am doing so - don't just claim stuff that are as light as air. So then tell me how "Warming" can also be defined. I think I'm quite sure to tell you that "warming" DOES NOT MEAN COOLING. Look it up. Also, I said words, not phrases. Phrases include words - words do not include phrases. Please get your facts straight. Please give me the alternate definitions of Global Warming if you are so kind.


All those things about colder weather are just adding more to the pile of evidence. If the heat is spiking astronomically somewhere, it also makes sense that the cold will go elsewhere to spike there. If it's blistering hot in Europe, it'll be freezing cold in the Middle East.

Then explain to me how it is freezing all over the world. In China, USA, Canada, Vietnam, Australia, South Africa, the Middle East, Brazil, UK, Greece and so much more. All these occurrences happened at around the same time. So what you're saying is that there is no Global Warming? It's just a transfer of weather? What are you arguing again?


But I've said it before: Does global warming have to exist for you to take care of the environment? Do the polar ice caps have to be melting for you to stop wasting gasoline? Do the animals have to be dying out for you to start recycling your trash? Does there have to be some catastrophic tropical storm claiming the lives of thousands for you to turn off the lights when you aren't using them? I've always seen global warming as a reminder that we've got responsibility of this planet, and it's gonna punish us pretty badly if we don't take care of it.

On this last part I agree with you somewhat. Yes we should live cleaner lives and whatnot, whether there is Global Warming or not, but that's not my point, nor is it the point of this debate. My point is that Global Warming is natural and it is not occurring now.

profpeanut
25th August 2008, 12:55 PM
I'm not sure if you read the wikipedia article, but it says that the Fox glacier is growing. Also, I thought wikipedia was not allowed, here:


*slaps forehead* That's the one I've been to; I should know it's the only one not receding. I don't have to bring out my vacation photos, do I? Also be aware that one, as in, one growing glacier does not mean all. I acknowledge it could foreshadow that the rest could grow back, but that's only a possibility, and a somewhat weak one. Also, I hadn't been too aware of that rule, sorry.



-You're third link has the support of a geophysicist. A geophysicist - I believe - studies the Earth through quantitative physical procedures, but most importantly through seismic, electromagnetic and radioactivity methods. How is he able to say that all the glaciers are receding? You did notice the part of the article that said "satellite data"? And would it really matter what occupation you have in order to compare two photographs and say "It's gotten smaller?"

-I'm interested in seeing the months these pictures were taken, and some pictures have no name of the glacier, I would like the name too. It is not hard to take a picture in winter twenty years ago and compare it with a picture in summer today, now is it? People have tricked others with that. Al Gore did. Proof. Now.

I've decided to do my own research on the glacier, and guess what... It has been receding for over a hundred years. How is Global Warming to blame? I also discovered that the Fox Glacier is now GROWING slowly. Thanks form pointing out that ONE glacier has been growing back, which as I've mentioned before, I've been too. And then really, you're talking about a glacier that was formed in the Ice Age. Sure it's gonna recede since then. It has been noted that most of the glaciers have begun receding since the end of the "Little Ice Age" which was an abnormally cold period around the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries that had helped the glaciers to grow, so of course pictures over a hundred years will show a lot of glacier. Proof would help here too. In fact the current size of glaciers now are what they should be nowadays. Just because they were bigger in the "Little Ice Age" it does not mean that they should be so now. Let me tell you a scientific fact. Glaciers are extremely sensitive to climate change, as noted here (http://nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/climate.html). Now, I'm not doubting that they were bigger back then, nor am I doubting that the Little Ice Age occurred, but that was back in the 1800s, or the 19th century. The glaciers have been receding bit by bit since then, but suddenly melted back about a kilometer or so in the last few decades. Just look at that link I posted: Care to explain?

Here is some text from this website (http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm):


This CLEARLY SHOWS that you're wrong: the Fox glacier AND the Franz Josef are not receding. See above again. And when did I say they weren't receding? Alright, so maybe not the part about Franz Josef.Also, on that website you'll see all the glaciers that are growing.

Hang on, that's GOOD news! That could mean we've slowed down the temperature spike enough! Or, it could just be the result of that sudden cool that made it snow in Baghdad.

Last question though: You do have more websites reporting the same thing, right?

What I don't understand is how I'm backing that Global Warming is occurring. Please tell me how I am doing so - don't just claim stuff that are as light as air. So then tell me how "Warming" can also be defined. I think I'm quite sure to tell you that "warming" DOES NOT MEAN COOLING. You're removing things out of context: this is Global Warming, not Warming. And Global pretty much refers to "everything". And like I said, if you've got a huge temperature spike, Mother Nature will balance it with a huge temperature drop. Look it up. Also, I said words, not phrases. Phrases include words - words do not include phrases. And why shouldn't they? Phrases are a group of words with context. Words are a group of letters with context. Please get your facts straight. Please give me the alternate definitions of Global Warming if you are so kind. Not alternate, but the same context with different usage. By this definition, it mean "drastic changes in the earth's climate". Also, mind explaining the alternate definitions of response and reaction in which they are not synonymous?



Then explain to me how it is freezing all over the world. In China, USA, Canada, Vietnam, Australia, South Africa, the Middle East, Brazil, UK, Greece and so much more. All these occurrences happened at around the same time. So what you're saying is that there is no Global Warming? It's just a transfer of weather? What are you arguing again? -Already explained: A spike will result in a drop, and drastic change will not necessarily mean hotter. Think of it a bit more as a temporary cool down before things heat up again.

However, it's also too early to say at this point that the world is out of it's fever. Remember this is recent times, as in, as of now. Unless this trend continues, and I can't believe I'm the one being the skeptic here, this could be nothing more than temporary abnormality. I'm serious: It's certainly not cold here in the Philippines, and I know when it's cold, and it's always been cold in those Northern Hemisphere countries except the Middle East. Also, why are South Africa and Australia the only Southern Hemisphere countries on the list? (though I'm assuming the list is bigger.)

On this last part I agree with you somewhat. Yes we should live cleaner lives and whatnot, whether there is Global Warming or not, but that's not my point, nor is it the point of this debate. My point is that Global Warming is natural and it is not occurring now.

Hey, even if the train isn't crashing yet, it doesn't mean we should sit back and do nothing.

BloodthirstPriest
25th August 2008, 5:30 PM
*slaps forehead* That's the one I've been to; I should know it's the only one not receding. I don't have to bring out my vacation photos, do I? Also be aware that one, as in, one growing glacier does not mean all. I acknowledge it could foreshadow that the rest could grow back, but that's only a possibility, and a somewhat weak one. Also, I hadn't been too aware of that rule, sorry.

Heck, if I didn't know the rule it would make my life much easier than traveling to site after site just to get one bit of information that wikipedia offers and more.


Proof. Now.

That was when I said Al Gore did so. I will post proof:
http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/massive-growth-in-polar-ice/
And here's the picture that goes with it. (http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/polarbeartruthcaption.jpg)


Thanks form pointing out that ONE glacier has been growing back, which as I've mentioned before, I've been too.

If you read the quote it said 48 glaciers in the southern Alps of New Zealand have grown - not just one or two.


Proof would help here too.

Here's the proof of the Little Ice Age:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/climate_change/older/Little_Ice_Age.html


Let me tell you a scientific fact. Glaciers are extremely sensitive to climate change, as noted here. Now, I'm not doubting that they were bigger back then, nor am I doubting that the Little Ice Age occurred, but that was back in the 1800s, or the 19th century. The glaciers have been receding bit by bit since then, but suddenly melted back about a kilometer or so in the last few decades. Just look at that link I posted: Care to explain?

First, that link didn't lead me to any pictures, but I took it upon myself to look at the gallery link. From there it led me to Muir Glacier in Alaska. Those two pictures were taken 63 years apart. 1941-2004, and were on the same month - which is good. But the 20th century had just really started to emerge from the Little Ice Age. Substantial change in anything after 60 years can be expected. Heck, 63 years ago the USSR was in its pride and Europe had the beginnings of its "iron curtain". Now the USSR has had its dissolution long ago and we now have many countries in its place. Of course you can expect serious change over 60 years. If you want to show me evidence of the receding glaciers then show me evidence of the same glacier a year apart on the same month with substantial difference. If you can do that, then that makes your argument a whole lot stronger.


See above again. And when did I say they weren't receding? Alright, so maybe not the part about Franz Josef.

Did you check the website I posted earlier? Here it is again. (http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm)


Hang on, that's GOOD news! That could mean we've slowed down the temperature spike enough! Or, it could just be the result of that sudden cool that made it snow in Baghdad.

I'll take that as sarcasm. Really: HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE SNOW? It never snowed there in over 100 years. Not all glaciers are receding; for every receding glacier, there is at least a growing glacier.


Last question though: You do have more websites reporting the same thing, right?

Yes, but do you REALLY want me flooding my post with websites? Fine, here goes nothing. Here are all the websites that I was bothered to post that show that some glaciers are growing:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_glaciers.htm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/are-greenland-s-glaciers-expanding-temperatures-cooling
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/Jan08/10/glaciers.html
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.31
http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/texgreen/2005-May/000164.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624950.100-glaciers-are-cool.html

Do you still want more sites? It was really no trouble (yeah...)


Hey, even if the train isn't crashing yet, it doesn't mean we should sit back and do nothing.

I'm not saying that we should sit back. I'm not saying because Global Warming isn't happening then we shouldn't care. All and ALL I am saying is that Global Warming is only natural and IT IS NOT happening now.

profpeanut
29th August 2008, 7:41 AM
...What? I call a ceasefire to study for my term exams, and now everyone thinks the battle's over? Or it could just turn out that half of this board doesn't feel like debating over a topic that's probably been debated a lot for quite some time. Or it could just be this is a 1-on-1 brawl.

Anyway...*puts on clear-glasses*


Heck, if I didn't know the rule it would make my life much easier than traveling to site after site just to get one bit of information that wikipedia offers and more.


Though I've only just read the rules now, (silly me) you realize why Wikipedia is banned, right?

Example:
Guy: Paris Hilton has ten Ferraris. (FYI, I don't know whether this is true or not, alright? For the sake of the example, let's assume it's false.)
Gal: Where's your proof?
Guy: Uh... *goes to wikipedia, changes the text in the page about Paris Hilton so that it says she has ten Ferraris, then links the page to here* There!



That was when I said Al Gore did so. I will post proof:
http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/massive-growth-in-polar-ice/
And here's the picture that goes with it. (http://scottthong.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/polarbeartruthcaption.jpg)


Scare mongering? Personally, if they wanted people to recycle and use less gas, all they'd have to do is point out the part that says "You'll save money!". Human nature is predictable like that.

*goes back to the topic* Well, that's interesting. While i couldn't find the London Daily Express article that the site claims exists, despite that the newspaper's own site has a search engine, it did lead me to some interesting articles about Al Gore acting like a crazed religious activist. This is the part where I admit that Catholicism has made bad choices for their leaders before and is full of people who take the message too far, though I didn't suppose the green activists did the same thing (The new term is alarmist here). I can guess, however, that their defense is that not enough people are listening so that they'd have to exaggerate, like how the same site you linked to had an article where the greens said nuclear power caused global warming too. (Which is stupid. Nuclear energy is dangerous, but not climate changing.) But like I said before, they'd just have to point out the "Save money" part, and there'd be just as much response with far less controversy and pointless bickering. Fluorescent lights are an example of this.

But anyway, I still find it a bit of a far cry to say that An Inconvenient Truth is a complete lie, unless that isn't what you're saying. In this scenario, you have to stick to the truth, the entire one that is. Don't leave details out, admit the faults, be honest. People will listen.


If you read the quote it said 48 glaciers in the southern Alps of New Zealand have grown - not just one or two.


*cough, cough*


I've decided to do my own research on the glacier, and guess what... It has been receding for over a hundred years. How is Global Warming to blame? I also discovered that the Fox Glacier is now GROWING slowly.

That's what I was responding too.



Here's the proof of the Little Ice Age:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/little_ice_age.html
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice_age.html
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/climate_change/older/Little_Ice_Age.html

Accepted.



First, that link didn't lead me to any pictures, but I took it upon myself to look at the gallery link. From there it led me to Muir Glacier in Alaska. Those two pictures were taken 63 years apart. 1941-2004, and were on the same month - which is good. But the 20th century had just really started to emerge from the Little Ice Age. Substantial change in anything after 60 years can be expected. Heck, 63 years ago the USSR was in its pride and Europe had the beginnings of its "iron curtain". Now the USSR has had its dissolution long ago and we now have many countries in its place. Of course you can expect serious change over 60 years. If you want to show me evidence of the receding glaciers then show me evidence of the same glacier a year apart on the same month with substantial difference. If you can do that, then that makes your argument a whole lot stronger.


First, that wasn't supposed to lead to pictures; you were supposed to read the article. Second, I'm pretty sure 63 years is a good long time period to turn into a lake. Third, I highly doubt you could say a receding glacier wasn't receding regardless of whether it wasn't supposed to be this massive or not; it's still receding. I shall now admit at this point that receding glaciers are not exactly stone-cold evidence of global warming; people just use them because they reflect the climate a lot.



Did you check the website I posted earlier? Here it is again. (http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm)


Of course I did. Unfortunately, that list is still dwarfed by the total number of glaciers in the world. I can't provide a link because I can't link to Wiki and this place (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g01130_glacier_inventory/) seems to be closed up, or just won't let me see that list like how an older brother makes sure a sibling doesn't pilfer through his personal belongings.



I'll take that as sarcasm. Really: HOW WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE SNOW? It never snowed there in over 100 years. Not all glaciers are receding; for every receding glacier, there is at least a growing glacier.


I'll take that as "You just ignored everything I just said in my previous posts". I've already said: There are two possibilities. The first is that it is a temporary weather abnormality, nothing more. The second is that the drop that follows the spike is already happening here. I also take that your last statement was made from observations in your research. But this balance set-up doesn't work; a growing glacier and a receding one do not equal two stable glaciers. Lastly, I never said all of them were shrinking.



Yes, but do you REALLY want me flooding my post with websites? Fine, here goes nothing. Here are all the websites that I was bothered to post that show that some glaciers are growing:
http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_glaciers.htm
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20073
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/are-greenland-s-glaciers-expanding-temperatures-cooling
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/Jan08/10/glaciers.html
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.31
http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/texgreen/2005-May/000164.html
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18624950.100-glaciers-are-cool.html

Do you still want more sites? It was really no trouble (yeah...)


Explained above.

Here's something else to consider: If you put a bag of popcorn kernels in a microwave and heat it , then open it without shuffling the contents, where do you see all the un-popped kernels? Scattered, right? Think about that before posting anything going along the lines of "It's happening worldwide."

BloodthirstPriest
29th August 2008, 11:12 AM
...What? I call a ceasefire to study for my term exams, and now everyone thinks the battle's over? Or it could just turn out that half of this board doesn't feel like debating over a topic that's probably been debated a lot for quite some time. Or it could just be this is a 1-on-1 brawl.

Anyway...*puts on clear-glasses*

Seeing that there are only 2 people participating in this debate then I would suggest that this belong in a 1 v 1 challenge. That is if there is nobody else that is participating. Anyway, there was no need for you to be so dramatic or panicky. There really is no point for that.


Though I've only just read the rules now, (silly me) you realize why Wikipedia is banned, right?

Example:
Guy: Paris Hilton has ten Ferraris. (FYI, I don't know whether this is true or not, alright? For the sake of the example, let's assume it's false.)
Gal: Where's your proof?
Guy: Uh... *goes to wikipedia, changes the text in the page about Paris Hilton so that it says she has ten Ferraris, then links the page to here* There!

Yes I know why it is not allowed. That's why it would make my argument a whole lot easier. Anyway...


Scare mongering? Personally, if they wanted people to recycle and use less gas, all they'd have to do is point out the part that says "You'll save money!". Human nature is predictable like that.

*goes back to the topic* Well, that's interesting. While i couldn't find the London Daily Express article that the site claims exists, despite that the newspaper's own site has a search engine, it did lead me to some interesting articles about Al Gore acting like a crazed religious activist. This is the part where I admit that Catholicism has made bad choices for their leaders before and is full of people who take the message too far, though I didn't suppose the green activists did the same thing (The new term is alarmist here). I can guess, however, that their defense is that not enough people are listening so that they'd have to exaggerate, like how the same site you linked to had an article where the greens said nuclear power caused global warming too. (Which is stupid. Nuclear energy is dangerous, but not climate changing.) But like I said before, they'd just have to point out the "Save money" part, and there'd be just as much response with far less controversy and pointless bickering. Fluorescent lights are an example of this.

But anyway, I still find it a bit of a far cry to say that An Inconvenient Truth is a complete lie, unless that isn't what you're saying. In this scenario, you have to stick to the truth, the entire one that is. Don't leave details out, admit the faults, be honest. People will listen.

Please forgive me, but... What are you trying to say again? I didn't leave out details just for the record.


*cough, cough*

What is the point of that? Are you trying to relay a message? A sentence wouldn't hurt would it?


That's what I was responding too.

Yes??


Accepted.

Good. Let's move on.


First, that wasn't supposed to lead to pictures; you were supposed to read the article. Second, I'm pretty sure 63 years is a good long time period to turn into a lake. Third, I highly doubt you could say a receding glacier wasn't receding regardless of whether it wasn't supposed to be this massive or not; it's still receding. I shall now admit at this point that receding glaciers are not exactly stone-cold evidence of global warming; people just use them because they reflect the climate a lot.

Yes, I read the article, but I wanted some visual proof. Ok, so are we dropping glaciers or not?


Of course I did. Unfortunately, that list is still dwarfed by the total number of glaciers in the world. I can't provide a link because I can't link to Wiki and this place (http://nsidc.org/data/docs/noaa/g01130_glacier_inventory/) seems to be closed up, or just won't let me see that list like how an older brother makes sure a sibling doesn't pilfer through his personal belongings.

One of my links (http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/texgreen/2005-May/000164.html) at the bottom says exactly this:


For the past three weeks, a set of figures has been working a hole in my mind. On April 16, New Scientist published a letter from the famous botanist David Bellamy. Many of the world's glaciers, he claimed, "are not shrinking but in fact are growing. ... 555 of all the 625 glaciers under observation by the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich, Switzerland, have been growing since 1980."

555 out of 625 since 1980. If you tell me, then in fact, the receding glaciers are the scattered ones.


I'll take that as "You just ignored everything I just said in my previous posts". I've already said: There are two possibilities. The first is that it is a temporary weather abnormality, nothing more. The second is that the drop that follows the spike is already happening here. I also take that your last statement was made from observations in your research. But this balance set-up doesn't work; a growing glacier and a receding one do not equal two stable glaciers. Lastly, I never said all of them were shrinking.

Oh no, I didn't disregard your point. I'll say this: If the drop of temperatures are weather abnormalities, then "Global Warming" could be so too. Only, the temperatures haven't risen. There is more proof in saying that "Global Warming" is not occuring then there is proof in saying that "Global Warming" is occurring. Also, you never said all the glaciers were receding, but you did use the receding glaciers as evidence, so most of them should be receding, which in fact, is the contrary.


Explained above.

Here's something else to consider: If you put a bag of popcorn kernels in a microwave and heat it , then open it without shuffling the contents, where do you see all the un-popped kernels? Scattered, right? Think about that before posting anything going along the lines of "It's happening worldwide."

I think you should have read all the links I posted, because:

1. You asked for more than one source, then you should accept what you asked for

2. If you did read all the links, one of them says that 555 of the total 625 glaciers are growing. So it seems that the scattered un-popped kernels are actually the receding glaciers. Hmmm...

chuboy
30th August 2008, 1:33 PM
So what you are really saying is, the hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide that have been emitted into the atmosphere are having absolutely zero effect on our climate?

BloodthirstPriest
30th August 2008, 2:14 PM
So what you are really saying is, the hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide that have been emitted into the atmosphere are having absolutely zero effect on our climate?

Hundreds of millions of tons?
How true is that figure?

Well, apparently they are having very minimal effects if they are actually affecting our climate.

Now please tell me how badly the CO2 is affecting our climate. If our climate is getting hotter, then tell me: What is the REAL temperature of the Earth?

chuboy
31st August 2008, 5:14 AM
Hundreds of millions of tons?
How true is that figure?
Considering that the USA's annual CO2 emissions are sitting at just over 6 billion metric tons, I'd say it's reasonably true.


Well, apparently they are having very minimal effects if they are actually affecting our climate.
Why, because it still gets cold at night?


Now please tell me how badly the CO2 is affecting our climate. If our climate is getting hotter, then tell me: What is the REAL temperature of the Earth?
Temperature is just a point in time; to get a true reflection of whether anything is happening you have to take the climatic patterns and the consensus at this stage is that there has been an increase in mean temperature over the world since the period between 1940-1980.

I've been to Australia, and to the desert (more specifically Ayers Rock and the King's Canyon) in it's summer. I've been to what you call the "outback" but by no means while I was there did it get into the 40s. Just another point; I wouldn't compare the Middle Eastern deserts to the Australian deserts. I'll tell you why. Australian deserts are completely different, firstly because it is actually not that hot to kill off life there. Secondly; it was much cooler than the Middle Eastern deserts. Also, I found this funny; after getting used to the massive sand dunes in the middle east, I went to Australia, and the tour guide pointed to a "sand dune" which was actually a little lump of dirt that was not higher then the shrubs that grew around it. You cannot compare two deserts that are so far apart with such different weathers, geography and ecosystems and then say that because it is so in this desert it must be so in another: No.

Here are pictures of the 2 deserts:
Australian (http://www.colonialvoyage.com/viaggi/P9300612.JPG)
Middle Eastern (http://www.eial.org/mesp/images/DESERTW1.jpg)
Clearly these two deserts cannot be put on the same level. While a few plants survive in the deserts of the Middle East, a large and diverse amount of greenery thrive in the Australian desert.
Therefore, the Australian Outback is not a desert? All of these facts about your trip to Australia are interesting and all, but they are totally irrelevant. I said, 'deserts CAN be colder than than 0 degrees at night, easily. Aussie ones are all the time', and you said, "Sand dunes in Middle-Eastern deserts are bigger than than Australian ones, therefore the climate of the outback cannot be considered one of a desert."

Also, at no stage did I ever say the climate of the Middle East and that of the Outback were the same. How it was that you deduced that from my post is curious indeed.



I don't think you can say that as you really have not given me evidence that it is actually getting hotter in a specific place.
That's because if it was getting hotter in a specific place, it wouldn't really be Global warming, would it? The average temperature of the Earth is rising, but it can still be cold. The differences between the weather extremes just become wider that's all.



I fail to see your point.

Rather than explain it to you, I'll just take this chance to remind you that this is a bulletin board and as such you are free at any time to read back over my post if you don't understand any part of it.


I'd just like to say that the infamous pictures if polar bears holding onto ice in the Arctic circle were actually taken in August. So? The ice melting in August is normal. Also, the polar bears aren't dying and aren't facing extinction or anything of the sort. In fact the polar bear population has increased tremendously in the past few years. Saving the polar bears? They are already safe. Also, the ice that was claimed to be lost has returned; it is a cycle, and I'm afraid people ignorantly look at only point of the cycle to justify their claims. Go look here:
http://hypsithermal.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/massive-growth-in-polar-ice/
http://mindlessandspineless.blogspot.com/2008/02/real-science-declares-global-warming-is.html
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/so-much-for-global-warming/

The above sources show that the world as a whole is getting colder - not hotter. Let me summarize it:
-Northern hemisphere experiences coldest weather for decades and most snow cover since 1966 - 42 years ago. Surely Global Warming would have prevented this? 42 years is more than enough time for it to work its wonders.
-Only West Europe experienced hotter than normal temperatures, which after those temperatures the cold arrived and the temperature plummeted to 10 degrees below zero.
-China, US, and Canada hit by heavy snowstorms.
-Jerusalem, Damascus, Northern Saudi Arabia experience heaviest rainfalls in years, as temperatures dropped below zero.
-A record long cold hits Northern Vietnam killing nearly 60,000 cattle.
-UK's temperature plummets to -10 degrees in January and February was expected to be coldest in 10 years.
-Most of Greece is covered by a blanket of snow - strange for a Mediterranean country.
-Coldest temperatures recorded on Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina.
Global warming does not mean it can't get cold. The plain and simple fact is, if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth would be far too cold to be habitable. Thus, if follows that if more greenhouse gas is emitted, the effect is magnified. We already know that greenhouse gases are being emitted every second, and there is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing as a result. As you have said, the extreme colds which would occur in hand with greater hots are happening. There have been increased incidences of heatwaves. Need I say more?

profpeanut
31st August 2008, 10:23 AM
A failed Internet resulted in a late post, but good to see you've been vigilant. I don't think I can say the same for chuboy, though.


Seeing that there are only 2 people participating in this debate then I would suggest that this belong in a 1 v 1 challenge. That is if there is nobody else that is participating. Anyway, there was no need for you to be so dramatic or panicky. There really is no point for that.

You mean like that one going on right now debating on evolution? Nah, I don't feel like it.



Please forgive me, but... What are you trying to say again? I didn't leave out details just for the record.


Always keep your eyes on the main path, my friend, though I wasn't aware I was leaving false trails. My point is this: If a few details turned out to be false, does that mean the whole film's a lie? Or were you just referring to the melted ice photos?


What is the point of that? Are you trying to relay a message? A sentence wouldn't hurt would it?


Yes??

First, don't quote too much out of context; it's bad for a debate's health. Second, it would really help if you read what I was talking about. You didn't just quote my whole response and respond from there without referring to previous posts, right?


Yes, I read the article, but I wanted some visual proof. Ok, so are we dropping glaciers or not?

Ah, alright, let's drop the glaciers. Just to check though: How much credibility to you give National Geographic?


One of my links (http://lists.gp-us.org/pipermail/texgreen/2005-May/000164.html) at the bottom says exactly this:

555 out of 625 since 1980. If you tell me, then in fact, the receding glaciers are the scattered ones.

*gives a look of slight bewilderment* Uh, you did read the entire page, right? You do know it's actually quite pro-global warming, right? You did read the part that said the sources turned out to be unreliable, and that the numbers resulted from a typo, right?


Oh no, I didn't disregard your point. I'll say this: If the drop of temperatures are weather abnormalities, then "Global Warming" could be so too. Only, the temperatures haven't risen. There is more proof in saying that "Global Warming" is not occuring then there is proof in saying that "Global Warming" is occurring. Also, you never said all the glaciers were receding, but you did use the receding glaciers as evidence, so most of them should be receding, which in fact, is the contrary.

Since we're dropping the glacier argument at this point, I'd also like to point out you left out the second possibility. I'd probably be citing references to blazing summers at this point like here (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-09-13-hottest-summer_x.htm) and here (http://www.metro.co.uk/home/article.html?in_article_id=20424&in_page_id=1&ct=5), but I'm currently a bit pressed for time. And I"m aware of the date of those links; but notice how they occur before the big chills you cited.


I think you should have read all the links I posted, because:

1. You asked for more than one source, then you should accept what you asked for

2. If you did read all the links, one of them says that 555 of the total 625 glaciers are growing. So it seems that the scattered un-popped kernels are actually the receding glaciers. Hmmm...

I think it's a good idea to recheck your logic, because:

1. I already explained that the number of growing glaciers does not counter the number of receding glaciers. Also, wouldn't you find that only 625 glaciers in the entire world is perhaps a small number, especially considering the recent Little Ice Age.

2. If you would re-read your link, you would find that it contradicts the point you are trying to deliver. You will also find that a kernel not heated as much as its fellow popcorn mirroring a melting glacier surrounded by frozen ones is a metaphor in need of reversing.

Yet that was hardly even the point. The point was, if a couple of kernels weren't popped, does that mean the microwave wasn't hot? Since they were scattered, does that mean the microwave was cold in one section? But I prefer we dismiss this, seeing as we're dropping the glacier argument.

Also, I am interested in seeing as to how you'll counter chuboy's argument.

BloodthirstPriest
31st August 2008, 2:55 PM
Considering that the USA's annual CO2 emissions are sitting at just over 6 billion metric tons, I'd say it's reasonably true.

Confirmation, please. You should be the one to back it up with sources. You don't expect me to go running after everyone of your claims, do you?


Why, because it still gets cold at night?

Oh the ignorance of people. Did you read my posts properly? Did you even read them? I said those occurred at the morning. You know, the time when the sun rises. That's called day, not night.


Temperature is just a point in time; to get a true reflection of whether anything is happening you have to take the climatic patterns and the consensus at this stage is that there has been an increase in mean temperature over the world since the period between 1940-1980.

Again, I expect you to back this up. As I have said, can you tell me the REAL temperature of the Earth - not from 60 years ago. I said that the 19th century had just started to emerge from the Little Ice Age, and the drop of temperature is to be expected and completely normal.


Therefore, the Australian Outback is not a desert? All of these facts about your trip to Australia are interesting and all, but they are totally irrelevant. I said, 'deserts CAN be colder than than 0 degrees at night, easily. Aussie ones are all the time', and you said, "Sand dunes in Middle-Eastern deserts are bigger than than Australian ones, therefore the climate of the outback cannot be considered one of a desert."

I never said the Australian desert isn't a desert. I said they weren't similar and therefore you cannot compare that desert to the other desert. When I posted about the sand dune, I said: "Also, I find this funny;" It was more of a way to put the two deserts into contrast environment-wise. And why are you putting quotation marks on those words? Nobody said them. Or are you so knowledgeable to be able to read thoughts that were never thought of?


Also, at no stage did I ever say the climate of the Middle East and that of the Outback were the same. How it was that you deduced that from my post is curious indeed.

Well, you did give the example of your Australian desert after I posted about the Middle Eastern deserts, so it is only natural to assume what I assumed.


That's because if it was getting hotter in a specific place, it wouldn't really be Global warming, would it? The average temperature of the Earth is rising, but it can still be cold. The differences between the weather extremes just become wider that's all.

Is it really that hard to bring some sources to at least make an attempt to support these claims? Is the Earth's temperature REALLY rising. Can you provide evidence? Or do you want me to assume that every word you type is holy and unquestionable and therefore I must accept it?


Rather than explain it to you, I'll just take this chance to remind you that this is a bulletin board and as such you are free at any time to read back over my post if you don't understand any part of it.

You see, I did read over your post, quite more than one would expect. I can now assume that you have no point, as you really haven't presented me with one, even after asking you. You know, I'm sure you could've explained your point in less then the words you bothered to post as an excuse. A sad attempt at an excuse I might add.


Global warming does not mean it can't get cold. The plain and simple fact is, if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Earth would be far too cold to be habitable. Thus, if follows that if more greenhouse gas is emitted, the effect is magnified. We already know that greenhouse gases are being emitted every second, and there is plenty of evidence that the climate is changing as a result. As you have said, the extreme colds which would occur in hand with greater hots are happening. There have been increased incidences of heatwaves. Need I say more?

This is more than annoying. I don't see why I bother... I won't even bother to slaughter that paragraph. PLEASE GIVE ME SOME SOURCES. Even if the source is unreliable, it shows you have actually attempted to go through your claims, apparently you are just blowing air on a concrete structure.

Now, onto somebody's posts that are more decent.


A failed Internet resulted in a late post, but good to see you've been vigilant. I don't think I can say the same for chuboy, though.

Yes, Chuboy, I suggest you read all the posts and links a hundred times. At least a hundred times.


You mean like that one going on right now debating on evolution? Nah, I don't feel like it.

Fine, since Chuboy is participating...


Always keep your eyes on the main path, my friend, though I wasn't aware I was leaving false trails. My point is this: If a few details turned out to be false, does that mean the whole film's a lie? Or were you just referring to the melted ice photos?

I didn't give a few scattered inconsistencies, but instead, I actually gave you a mountain of evidence against Global Warming.


First, don't quote too much out of context; it's bad for a debate's health. Second, it would really help if you read what I was talking about. You didn't just quote my whole response and respond from there without referring to previous posts, right?

Well, coughing can be a sign of bad health. Anyway, I read the post and your previous posts and the entire debate's posts, and I could not see what you were referring to, to be truthful.


Ah, alright, let's drop the glaciers. Just to check though: How much credibility to you give National Geographic?

Well, national geographic can exaggerate certain things, but I do give it credibility to some point.


*gives a look of slight bewilderment* Uh, you did read the entire page, right? You do know it's actually quite pro-global warming, right? You did read the part that said the sources turned out to be unreliable, and that the numbers resulted from a typo, right?

Yes, I read the article, and well, the first time I posted the link nobody even TRIED to reply to that link. So, I assumed you didn't read those links, which you asked for, and so I decided to see to exactly what extent you head to the links I posted. I would congratulate you, but, you failed to point that out earlier. And anyway, even with the typo, it is 55%, as the writer suggests. Quite fair, and not really enough to support the claims of Global Warming. You might say, well maybe he meant 55, without the percentage. That is highly unlikely, seeing that in the Southern Alps of New Zealand ALONE, 48 glaciers are growing. Also there are more than 7 other glaciers growing as well.


Since we're dropping the glacier argument at this point, I'd also like to point out you left out the second possibility. I'd probably be citing references to blazing summers at this point like here (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-09-13-hottest-summer_x.htm) and here (http://www.metro.co.uk/home/article.html?in_article_id=20424&in_page_id=1&ct=5), but I'm currently a bit pressed for time. And I"m aware of the date of those links; but notice how they occur before the big chills you cited.

Hmmm... Do you know what El Nino, exactly is? Firstly, in your first link, it was the second-hottest, the first was 1936, but wouldn't 72 years of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere easily break that record? Secondly, El Nino, in the first link, is accredited to the hot temperature - not global warming. I won't waste my time explaining what that Pacific phenomenon does.

About the temperatures in the UK, shouldn't Global Warming keep the temperatures hot, unless the CO2 is removed? If I am correct, the temperatures in the UK have returned to their "normal" levels.

On top of that, seeing as the chills occurred after those incidents only goes to prove that the hot temperatures were weather abnormalities, because the temperatures there did not return to that high level after the chill.

Also, that is only one place. I have given more than one, and I'd also quote what you said way back:


There are two possibilities. The first is that it is a temporary weather abnormality, nothing more.

Unless you can prove to me that temperatures all over the world have increased, then your "Global Warming" is merely a natural and regional shift of temperatures.


I think it's a good idea to recheck your logic, because:

1. I already explained that the number of growing glaciers does not counter the number of receding glaciers. Also, wouldn't you find that only 625 glaciers in the entire world is perhaps a small number, especially considering the recent Little Ice Age.

2. If you would re-read your link, you would find that it contradicts the point you are trying to deliver. You will also find that a kernel not heated as much as its fellow popcorn mirroring a melting glacier surrounded by frozen ones is a metaphor in need of reversing.

Yet that was hardly even the point. The point was, if a couple of kernels weren't popped, does that mean the microwave wasn't hot? Since they were scattered, does that mean the microwave was cold in one section? But I prefer we dismiss this, seeing as we're dropping the glacier argument.

Also, I am interested in seeing as to how you'll counter chuboy's argument.

Oh, countering Chuboy's argument? He made an argument? Where? Oh... those unsupported claims...

Anyway, I find 625 quite a reasonable number. Let us narrow it down:

From the equator till well past the tropics the climate is unsuitable for glaciers; however, there are high enough points to produce suitable conditions. Considering that, then, 625 is, in fact, a decent figure.

So, I shall restate, 55% then, seems the correction of 555. The microwave metaphor isn't suitable for that, but I'm not gonna bother coming with a suitable metaphor, since we are dropping the whole glacier subject, are we not? Even so, why are we bickering over such little things (like that metaphor) that are really not affecting this debate. Unless, that is, if you want to become a politician.

heirokee
31st August 2008, 10:31 PM
I would just like to make a point that the ozone and greenhouse gases are responsible for both trapping and repelling heat. When they disperse two problems occur. 1. The Earth receives more heat from the sun because there are less gases to repel it. 2. The Earth loses more heat because there are less gases to absorb it.

To this effect, shiny spots on the Earth (deserts being the most prominent ones, and yes, they are shiny, at least enough to reflect light) experience the most extreme effects of global warming. Not only do they receive a lot of heat, but they lose whatever ability to retain that heat that they may have had before. In other words, deserts will get significantly hotter in the middle of the day into evening, and they will get significantly colder at night and in the early morning. Australia's deserts are a little different because they are dealing with the ozone hole over the antarctic as well, but they still experience roughly the same effect.

To the same effect, areas which are able to retain a lot of heat on their own, like rain forests for example, will become consistently hotter... until all the plants die of the significant climate change and they turn into deserts.


This post doesn't really debate whether or not it exists, I'm just telling you what some of the symptoms would be should it occur. If I ever feel like putting forth the effort, I'll probably put up a post explaining the mechanics of greenhouse gases and things which would probably help you all out, but it's long and complicated and I don't feel like doing that now.

profpeanut
3rd September 2008, 3:14 PM
I didn't give a few scattered inconsistencies, but instead, I actually gave you a mountain of evidence against Global Warming.

I was referring to Al Gore's film, in which you pointed out that the picture's context was erroneous.


Well, national geographic can exaggerate certain things, but I do give it credibility to some point.

Good, that means I can partially use its articles.


Yes, I read the article, and well, the first time I posted the link nobody even TRIED to reply to that link. So, I assumed you didn't read those links, which you asked for, and so I decided to see to exactly what extent you head to the links I posted. I would congratulate you, but, you failed to point that out earlier. And anyway, even with the typo, it is 55%, as the writer suggests. Quite fair, and not really enough to support the claims of Global Warming. You might say, well maybe he meant 55, without the percentage. That is highly unlikely, seeing that in the Southern Alps of New Zealand ALONE, 48 glaciers are growing. Also there are more than 7 other glaciers growing as well.

Sorry 'bout that, but then again this is a bit irrelevant at this point since we're dropping the glacier argument.



Hmmm... Do you know what El Nino, exactly is? Firstly, in your first link, it was the second-hottest, the first was 1936, but wouldn't 72 years of accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere easily break that record? Secondly, El Nino, in the first link, is accredited to the hot temperature - not global warming. I won't waste my time explaining what that Pacific phenomenon does.

I live in the tropics, of course I know what El Nino is, but I also know how it affects the North American climate seeing as it's a Pacific Ocean phenomena. You also have to regard how the CO2 spreads across the atmosphere rather than limiting itself to its original area, though it may seem like that.


About the temperatures in the UK, shouldn't Global Warming keep the temperatures hot, unless the CO2 is removed? If I am correct, the temperatures in the UK have returned to their "normal" levels.

I thought we went over this already; spikes are followed by drops. Didn't you already post links referring to freezing temperatures in the UK recently?


On top of that, seeing as the chills occurred after those incidents only goes to prove that the hot temperatures were weather abnormalities, because the temperatures there did not return to that high level after the chill.

Which is again somewhat flawed as these chills just occurred last year and we have yet to accumulate enough data on this year's weather to determine whether it's still the temporary drop or whether we're back in the heat. You have also noticed how these temperatures were slowly climbing upward rather than just a one-year spike, right?


Also, that is only one place. I have given more than one, and I'd also quote what you said way back:

Unless you can prove to me that temperatures all over the world have increased, then your "Global Warming" is merely a natural and regional shift of temperatures.

And unless you can prove that the temperature drop isn't the one that follows the spike and that temperatures all over the world, and that includes more of the Southern Hemisphere, aren't going to rise again, then your "Global Cooling" is just a temporary cold stage GW just went through. Give it time, like how the tourneymen should give brawl time.

Perhaps the data is still insufficient at this point; your data is still recent, remember (in terms of climate analysis) and therefore would probably need the backup of this year's data. *waits for a dozen links leading to last month's temperatures*.



Oh, countering Chuboy's argument? He made an argument? Where? Oh... those unsupported claims... Here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/13/carbonemissions.climatechange), I'll (http://news.mongabay.com/2005/1124-climate.html) do (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm) it (http://www.naturalnews.com/022947.html) for (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=39824) him. Oh yes, and aren't you aware mornings are often cold? It's in the noontime that the land really heats up.

Anyway, I find 625 quite a reasonable number. Let us narrow it down:

From the equator till well past the tropics the climate is unsuitable for glaciers; however, there are high enough points to produce suitable conditions. Considering that, then, 625 is, in fact, a decent figure

So, I shall restate, 55% then, seems the correction of 555. The microwave metaphor isn't suitable for that, but I'm not gonna bother coming with a suitable metaphor, since we are dropping the whole glacier subject, are we not? Even so, why are we bickering over such little things (like that metaphor) that are really not affecting this debate. Just correcting a misinterpretation here. Unless, that is, if you want to become a politician. Hell no. I'd quote Zero Punctuation now, but that would take space.

To be honest, I feel like at this point we're just playing an eternal game of Pong with no clear winner in sight yet, what with the entire internet at our sides. And seeing that other thread concerning global warming is up, (which does not intend to debate over its existence, so don't fill the thread with posts arguing so) perhaps we should call a tie for now, until another debate shows up with more people in it than now. Just a thought. But if you prefer to continue the fight, so be it.

Tokin
3rd September 2008, 4:17 PM
Global warming is happening, and to contribute to this thread, I won't go very long, and I won't use a tl-dr post full of sources, but from my personal experiences, first of all, it's normally cold on winter, but for the past few years it hasn't been so cold compared to how it was when I was a kid, same happens with the sun, we used to be able to go out in the open some years ago, now it's actually painful after a few minutes, other non personal events are of course the visible melting of the polar caps, I don't need to cite anything, just look at them, they're smaler than before, and all of this has happened in a small time span, which is consistent with the use of oil around the world

BloodthirstPriest
3rd September 2008, 4:55 PM
Sorry 'bout that, but then again this is a bit irrelevant at this point since we're dropping the glacier argument.

Yes, we are dropping it.


I live in the tropics, of course I know what El Nino is, but I also know how it affects the North American climate seeing as it's a Pacific Ocean phenomena. You also have to regard how the CO2 spreads across the atmosphere rather than limiting itself to its original area, though it may seem like that.

So, the first source is not evidence.


I thought we went over this already; spikes are followed by drops. Didn't you already post links referring to freezing temperatures in the UK recently?

Yeah, you didn't give evidence to the spike and drop, if I'm correct.


Which is again somewhat flawed as these chills just occurred last year and we have yet to accumulate enough data on this year's weather to determine whether it's still the temporary drop or whether we're back in the heat. You have also noticed how these temperatures were slowly climbing upward rather than just a one-year spike, right?

Let me ask you, what is the proper temperature of the Earth, and is it really hotter than it is supposed to be? What is the Earth's natural temperature?


And unless you can prove that the temperature drop isn't the one that follows the spike and that temperatures all over the world, and that includes more of the Southern Hemisphere, aren't going to rise again, then your "Global Cooling" is just a temporary cold stage GW just went through. Give it time, like how the tourneymen should give brawl time.

I gave evidence to both hemispheres.


Perhaps the data is still insufficient at this point; your data is still recent, remember (in terms of climate analysis) and therefore would probably need the backup of this year's data. *waits for a dozen links leading to last month's temperatures*.

Yes, by that time, posting here would be considered bumping.


To be honest, I feel like at this point we're just playing an eternal game of Pong with no clear winner in sight yet, what with the entire internet at our sides. And seeing that other thread concerning global warming is up, (which does not intend to debate over its existence, so don't fill the thread with posts arguing so) perhaps we should call a tie for now, until another debate shows up with more people in it than now. Just a thought. But if you prefer to continue the fight, so be it.

Yes, I know it is vain. And just a note, I don't think it is up to other people to support others' claims. It says so in one of these sticky debating threads or whatnot. Tie? As you wish.

Edit:


Global warming is happening, and to contribute to this thread, I won't go very long, and I won't use a tl-dr post full of sources, but from my personal experiences, first of all, it's normally cold on winter, but for the past few years it hasn't been so cold compared to how it was when I was a kid, same happens with the sun, we used to be able to go out in the open some years ago, now it's actually painful after a few minutes, other non personal events are of course the visible melting of the polar caps, I don't need to cite anything, just look at them, they're smaler than before, and all of this has happened in a small time span, which is consistent with the use of oil around the world

Please read all previous posts, and "just because I don't need to post evidence" is not an excuse not to. Not everybody has the same idea, opinion, or insight as you. Which country do you live in?

Tokin
3rd September 2008, 5:23 PM
I live in Mexico and well, it's not forcing an opinion, all I'm poinitng out is that these collective happenings are factual, discard my experiences if you must, but the fact that the world has been warming in parallel with the increase in industrialization and the use of oil is undeniable, unless of course this is a very rare coincidence or cyclical, this is highly improbable though, since no period in history has been like this, and the effects of Carbon dioxide are not in doubt, they retain heat within an area, like greenhouses, hence the term "greenhouse effect" and with the collective emmission of so much of it over the years, it causing this effect in the entire planet is perfectly possible

BloodthirstPriest
3rd September 2008, 7:51 PM
I live in Mexico and well, it's not forcing an opinion, all I'm poinitng out is that these collective happenings are factual, discard my experiences if you must, but the fact that the world has been warming in parallel with the increase in industrialization and the use of oil is undeniable, unless of course this is a very rare coincidence or cyclical, this is highly improbable though, since no period in history has been like this, and the effects of Carbon dioxide are not in doubt, they retain heat within an area, like greenhouses, hence the term "greenhouse effect" and with the collective emmission of so much of it over the years, it causing this effect in the entire planet is perfectly possible

I would like to congratulate profpeanut for supporting his claims and even supporting others' claims. I was taking it for granted until now.

Proof. Evidence. Sources. Links. Support. Whatever you want to call it, give it.

This "GW" is a natural cycle, and it is not happening now, if you bothered to read everybody's previous posts. I have asked two people before, and I'll ask you too: What is the TRUE temperature of the Earth? How do we know it is not hotter than normal or colder if the Earth is 4 billion years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) and man 200,000 years only (http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm)?

Tokin
3rd September 2008, 8:15 PM
I would like to congratulate profpeanut for supporting his claims and even supporting others' claims. I was taking it for granted until now.

Proof. Evidence. Sources. Links. Support. Whatever you want to call it, give it.

This "GW" is a natural cycle, and it is not happening now, if you bothered to read everybody's previous posts. I have asked two people before, and I'll ask you too: What is the TRUE temperature of the Earth? How do we know it is not hotter than normal or colder if the Earth is 4 million years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) and man 200,000 years only (http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm)?

as I said, the cycle theory is unlikely but possible, and I certainly hope it's a cycle too, and the time it's happening is a coincidence, but a lot of signs point otherwise, as for my sources, watch DC(Discovery channel)'s documentaries on the matter, as well as Al Gore's, the greenhouse effect can be looked up in any modern science book or by looking its defintion up

BigLutz
3rd September 2008, 8:29 PM
Just popping in but I would suggest not to watch Al Gore's Documentary, unlike others that tend to try and be non biased in presenting the information and opposite view points. Al Gore's on the other hand tends to be more than biased.

As for the cycle theory, there is alot of information out there to prove it is more than possible. For one the proof that most of our planets in our solar system are heating up as well during around the same time frame as we are.

Ka-King!
3rd September 2008, 8:36 PM
GLOBAL WARMING IS AFFECTING OUR CLIMATE! THE ANTARCTIC WILL HAVE NO ICE BY 2030 AND ALL THE GLACIERS WILL MELT BY 2099 SO EVERYTTHING WILL BE UNDER WATER!! WE GOT A LOT LESS SNOW THIS YEAR AND THE SUMMER WAS HOT AND HOT!!! I EVEN PLANTED A TREE TO HELP OUT AND YOU SHOULD TOO!!!!...OK, I calmed down. All you other Americans better vote for Barrack Obama so Bush can stop making everything hotter and having sea lions killed because of that! Tempature change is because of our greenhouse gases and we need to get them out of the air! Even if we were to not emit any CO2 from now on, eventually, the human race will still be heated to death. I'm going to stop this when I get older!!!

BloodthirstPriest
4th September 2008, 2:48 PM
GLOBAL WARMING IS AFFECTING OUR CLIMATE! THE ANTARCTIC WILL HAVE NO ICE BY 2030 AND ALL THE GLACIERS WILL MELT BY 2099 SO EVERYTTHING WILL BE UNDER WATER!! WE GOT A LOT LESS SNOW THIS YEAR AND THE SUMMER WAS HOT AND HOT!!! I EVEN PLANTED A TREE TO HELP OUT AND YOU SHOULD TOO!!!!...OK, I calmed down. All you other Americans better vote for Barrack Obama so Bush can stop making everything hotter and having sea lions killed because of that! Tempature change is because of our greenhouse gases and we need to get them out of the air! Even if we were to not emit any CO2 from now on, eventually, the human race will still be heated to death. I'm going to stop this when I get older!!!

Yeah... Very logical... Care to put some evidence? I've said that - hmm - seven, eight times? Have you bothered to read all the posts and the links?

Oh, by the way, trees actually act as sponges to absorb the CO2, but when they die, the CO2 is released. (http://www.onearth.org/article/the-giving-trees?page=2) Also, at night, CO2 is released.

profpeanut
7th September 2008, 3:12 AM
Yes, I know it is vain. And just a note, I don't think it is up to other people to support others' claims. It says so in one of these sticky debating threads or whatnot. Tie? As you wish.

You reply to other posts, and you expect a tie now? Bad sportsmanship, sir. And if this debate was in vain, you wouldn't be posting here now. So therefore, the fight continues. I'll respond to the rest of your post after a while, being pressed for homework and all, but for now I just discovered an earlier post (http://www.serebiiforums.com/showpost.php?p=8492691&postcount=11) that responds to the "it's getting colder" argument.

The funny thing is, if the big chill following the heat-up does happen (or is happening, in which I dearly hope it isn't) both sides will then show maximum idiocy, the skeptics going ""ITS GETTING COOLER THERES NO GLOBAL WARMING LOLOLOL" and the alarmists going "ITS BECAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING ITS FREEZING LOLOLOL" and by the time they're done bickering the entire world would have frozen over.

Scizito_92
7th September 2008, 5:59 AM
Let me ask you, what is the proper temperature of the Earth, and is it really hotter than it is supposed to be? What is the Earth's natural temperature?

The 'proper' termperaure of the Earth is one that supports human life. At least I would assume so seeing as how well we have done living in it (Earth).

chuboy
7th September 2008, 9:04 AM
OK, well since BTP is going to continue insisting on evidence which I have now lost, I'm just going to start fresh, and simple.

The concept of the greenhouse effect relies on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere retaining heat. If there were none, the Earth would have immense climatic extremes, very cold at night and very hot in the day. The gases act as a sort of insulator.

We agree on how the greenhouse effect works? Good.

Now, what I want bloodthirstpriest to do is explain why, given that hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are being emitted into the atmosphere annually (according to the UN Statistic Division: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749 ), the greenhouse effect is NOT being exaggerated.

I'll await your reply.

BloodthirstPriest
7th September 2008, 11:38 AM
You reply to other posts, and you expect a tie now? Bad sportsmanship, sir. And if this debate was in vain, you wouldn't be posting here now. So therefore, the fight continues.

I agreed to the tie with you... Everybody else didn't agree to the tie since they continued posting. So, no, it's not bad sportsmanship, but if you wish to continue, then so be it.


I'll respond to the rest of your post after a while, being pressed for homework and all, but for now I just discovered an earlier post that responds to the "it's getting colder" argument.

Yeah, where is La Nina? In the Pacific. Here's a map (http://www.hsc.stonybrook.edu/som/fossil_lab/images/globe_map.gif), and find the countries that border the Pacific. Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Greece, UK, and most of the countries I listed are not close enough to get affected by it, and about Australia, it said that it got cold all over, but it's quite large for the whole continent to get affected by La Nina. And the northern parts of Australia are shielded by those various islands.

@ Scizito_92


The 'proper' termperaure of the Earth is one that supports human life. At least I would assume so seeing as how well we have done living in it (Earth).

You can't really say that. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html) (sorry, I posted earlier 4 million years, my mistake) and humans (home sapiens) are at most 1,800,000 years old, but most sources agree to around 400,000 years (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/TroyHolder.shtml). So, as the last source says, 1,800,000 years is 0.04% of the age of the Earth, so it is quite possible that the temperature to support human life is only part of a cycle. What is the true temperature of the Earth - not since we have been on it, but overall, since day 1. And even so, humans have survived hotter temperatures than now in the past. And you haven't given me a range.

@ chuboy


The concept of the greenhouse effect relies on greenhouse gases in the atmosphere retaining heat. If there were none, the Earth would have immense climatic extremes, very cold at night and very hot in the day. The gases act as a sort of insulator.

Now, what I want bloodthirstpriest to do is explain why, given that hundreds of millions of tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are being emitted into the atmosphere annually (according to the UN Statistic Division: http://mdgs.un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=749 ), the greenhouse effect is NOT being exaggerated.

So you're saying: shouldn't the immense amount of CO2 be affecting our climate? So why isn't it getting hotter in the majority of the globe?

chuboy
7th September 2008, 11:56 AM
So you're saying: shouldn't the immense amount of CO2 be affecting our climate? So why isn't it getting hotter in the majority of the globe?
*facepalm*

It IS affecting our climate! Didn't you point out before all the peculiar weather anomalies that have happened around the world? For some reason, you have assumed that affecting climate only means getting hotter, and that is where the flaw in your logic lies. It is getting hotter, but things still have to follow the laws of nature so the extra energy provided by heat is spread out through all forms of weather which can be in the form of snow, depending on the climatic and geographic conditions.

p10 of the following report: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

I took the liberty to highlight the important parts...but you have still dodged my question. I have presented you with a quantitative, scientifically-backed statement that you disagree with. The onus is on you to explain where the scientists f*cked up and got it wrong.


"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is verylikely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations."

"The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean, together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing, and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone."

BloodthirstPriest
7th September 2008, 12:14 PM
It IS affecting our climate! Didn't you point out before all the peculiar weather anomalies that have happened around the world? For some reason, you have assumed that affecting climate only means getting hotter, and that is where the flaw in your logic lies. It is getting hotter, but things still have to follow the laws of nature so the extra energy provided by heat is spread out through all forms of weather which can be in the form of snow, depending on the climatic and geographic conditions.

No I do not assume that affecting the climate is only warming. Global Warming, on the other hand, in theory, should make it hotter. So, are you talking about climate change in general, or Global Warming? What do you mean by the last sentence?


p10 of the following report: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf

I took the liberty to highlight the important parts...but you have still dodged my question. I have presented you with a quantitative, scientifically-backed statement that you disagree with. The onus is on you to explain where the scientists f*cked up and got it wrong.

The part you quoted said "over the last 50 years". The climate cycle doesn't just reach back to 50 years. About the "ice mass loss"; it's not diminishing, but in fact, it's increasing as I posted earlier. Oh, and about "dodging" your question; I didn't get what you were asking. Can you give me examples of places ALL OVER THE WORLD that are getting WARMER due to GLOBAL WARMING.

chuboy
7th September 2008, 1:06 PM
No I do not assume that affecting the climate is only warming. Global Warming, on the other hand, in theory, should make it hotter. So, are you talking about climate change in general, or Global Warming? What do you mean by the last sentence?
At this stage it's clear to me that we need to decide on a few things.



Global warming does not mean fluctuations in temperature (such as winter, and night-time) will stop occurring.
Global warming, in theory, means it will get hotter, on average. See above point.
Climate change and global warming are, in this context, virtually interchangable.




The part you quoted said "over the last 50 years". The climate cycle doesn't just reach back to 50 years.
I'm aware of that, the point of the quote, if you had read it thoroughly, was to show the virtually unanimous agreement between scientists that the recorded increases in mean global temperature can more-or-less be attributed to man-made causes.


About the "ice mass loss"; it's not diminishing, but in fact, it's increasing as I posted earlier.Whatever, I didn't make the claim. Take it up with the scholars who wrote the article.

Oh, and about "dodging" your question; I didn't get what you were asking.Okay, I'll explain it to you.

I'll assume you know the theory behind the greenhouse effect. What I'm asking is: since the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are increasing, why do you believe/what is your explanation for the normal scientific process not occurring?

In other words, explain why isn't global warming happening if we are emitting a good deal of greenhouse gas, all the time.


Can you give me examples of places ALL OVER THE WORLD that are getting WARMER due to GLOBAL WARMING.Can you give me examples of places ALL over the world that clearly show that the effects of global warming are not occuring, or even being reversed?

Of course you can't.

The whole basis of the theory goes off measuring the AVERAGE temperature of places all over the world. Global warming never said 'Sydney is now permanently 5 degrees hotter". If you're happy to accept a wikipedia-hosted map (fully referenced), then you'll see what I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg

I don't know exactly what kind of answer you expected, clearly you aren't an idiot so I'm baffled as to why you seemed to be waiting for a list of cities which are now in a state of permanent warmth as a result of global warming.

This is getting off the point; I'm not going to argue any more until you give me a satisfactory reply to the question I posed earlier.

BloodthirstPriest
7th September 2008, 1:51 PM
At this stage it's clear to me that we need to decide on a few things.


Global warming does not mean fluctuations in temperature (such as winter, and night-time) will stop occurring.
Global warming, in theory, means it will get hotter, on average. See above point.
Climate change and global warming are, in this context, virtually interchangable.


You see, Global Warming means it will get hotter, yes? So why isn't that happening?


I'm aware of that, the point of the quote, if you had read it thoroughly, was to show the virtually unanimous agreement between scientists that the recorded increases in mean global temperature can more-or-less be attributed to man-made causes.

Whatever, I didn't make the claim. Take it up with the scholars who wrote the article.

"Virtually unanimous agreement"? Here's a link (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport) that says that over 400 prominent scientists rejected the claim.


Okay, I'll explain it to you.

I'll assume you know the theory behind the greenhouse effect. What I'm asking is: since the greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere are increasing, why do you believe/what is your explanation for the normal scientific process not occurring?

In other words, explain why isn't global warming happening if we are emitting a good deal of greenhouse gas, all the time.

The effects of these "greenhouse gases" are extremely exaggerated. These gases are having minimal effects on the planet's climate. Let my direct you to this interesting source. (http://www.freedomdogs.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2578&Itemid=2)


Can you give me examples of places ALL over the world that clearly show that the effects of global warming are not occuring, or even being reversed?

Of course you can't.

Yes, of course I can't, but at least I did give you a whole load of countries - you didn't.


The whole basis of the theory goes off measuring the AVERAGE temperature of places all over the world. Global warming never said 'Sydney is now permanently 5 degrees hotter". If you're happy to accept a wikipedia-hosted map (fully referenced), then you'll see what I mean.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Global_Warming_Map.jpg

Wow, wikipedia. Need I say more? I know Global Warming never said "Sydney is now permanently 5 degrees hotter", but you cannot say that because this little patch of land is hotter than usual, that means it's hotter everywhere else.


I don't know exactly what kind of answer you expected, clearly you aren't an idiot so I'm baffled as to why you seemed to be waiting for a list of cities which are now in a state of permanent warmth as a result of global warming.

I wasn't waiting for a list of cities - you see - I was expecting some countries that you could give as proof.


This is getting off the point; I'm not going to argue any more until you give me a satisfactory reply to the question I posed earlier.

Read that link I posted above. I'm sure it's plenty more than satisfactory.

chuboy
7th September 2008, 2:16 PM
The effects of these "greenhouse gases" are extremely exaggerated. These gases are having minimal effects on the planet's climate. Let my direct you to this interesting source. (http://www.freedomdogs.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2578&Itemid=2)
This interesting source? I know I linked to wikipedia, but at least that page sourced a legitmate study. All I can deduce from your link is that it was written by some sort of incredible scientist named Yappy. He makes a lot of curious claims about the CO2 not being relevant but he doesn't actually say where he got the information from, making this page basically a re-write of your own posts.

For instance, he tries to prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming, somehow, by comparing the fizz of a soda can going flat after being left out to heat up.

This simply proves his ignorance. Anyone who has done a high-school chemistry class will know that soda cans keep their fizz at any temperature as long as the pressure is maintained in the container. After you take the lid off or open the can, it's the VAPOUR PRESSURE of the substance (a completely different property) that causes it to escape. The only effect heat energy has on this is the amount of gas which is able to escape the liquid. For some reason, Yappy is implying that if you left an open soda can in the fridge and drank it 2 weeks later it would still be as fizzy as when you opened it. And, letting this be true, he tries to use it to prove that CO2 doesn't cause the greenhouse effect.

The fact that he makes this downright incorrect claim casts doubt over the validity of the rest of his dubious statements.

Mini Minun
7th September 2008, 2:18 PM
Right. I'm going to point out a major problem just in this:

You see, Global Warming means it will get hotter, yes? So why isn't that happening?

Getting hotter on average is different from just getting hotter.

That is the big, big, big flaw in your rebuttal.


EVERY BIT of ?evidence? presented to prove that global warming is taking place does NOT in any way prove that human activity is responsible for it!! This is a critical distinction since, if humankind isn?t causing the problem, we would be fools to try to ?fix it.? President Bush was right. We need to adapt to the climate, whatever it is.

What an idiotic piece of rubbish. In other words, we shouldn't try and solve a problem that is affecting us, since we weren't the cause of the problem? If someone else sticks a knife into you for no reason, you shouldn't try to block the knife, since you didn't cause the attacker to stab you?


It?s cold outside. South America and South Africa experienced record cold last winter. Alpacas froze to death in Peru! It snowed in Baghdad this year. It?s colder now than in 1998. The warmest year on record, according to the latest studies, wasn?t in the 1990s; it was 1934. Weather changes. So what?

See above. av. temp. isn't the same as temp.

Alexiel
7th September 2008, 2:20 PM
i used to think people wouldnt be able to cost so much harm to a planet, but i see what we are capable of now, unfortunately

Alexiel
7th September 2008, 2:24 PM
i used to think people wouldnt be able to cost so much harm to a planet, but i see what we are capable of now, unfortunately

BloodthirstPriest
7th September 2008, 2:31 PM
Right. I'm going to point out a major problem just in this:

Getting hotter on average is different from just getting hotter.

That is the big, big, big flaw in your rebuttal.

... Nobody has proven that it is getting hotter on average...


What an idiotic piece of rubbish. In other words, we shouldn't try and solve a problem that is affecting us, since we weren't the cause of the problem? If someone else sticks a knife into you for no reason, you shouldn't try to block the knife, since you didn't cause the attacker to stab you?

You see, when I read that I looked at the information, not the biased pleas.


See above. av. temp. isn't the same as temp.

Yes, nobody has proven that it is unnaturally rising.

chuboy
7th September 2008, 2:35 PM
But we have shown that it is rising, and we know that greenhouse gas levels are higher, and we know that average temperature is related to greenhouse gas levels.

Please tell me you can see the scientific conclusion in there.

BloodthirstPriest
7th September 2008, 2:55 PM
But we have shown that it is rising, and we know that greenhouse gas levels are higher, and we know that average temperature is related to greenhouse gas levels.

Please tell me you can see the scientific conclusion in there.

My... Have you read that link? Has ANYONE (other than profpeanut - congratulations, I took it for granted that people would delve deep) posted any bit of evidence to confirm that there are places on this globe where the temperatures are rising?

I also asked before, yet there was no accurate answer: WHAT IS THE REAL TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH?

If you don't know then you can't possibly debate that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gases and that it is unnatural.

Simple Star
7th September 2008, 10:50 PM
Global Warming....:'(

I dunno if I can do anything to really help it, nothing at the moment anyway.
I just wish people would just think of how the world needs our help, not polluting it!


I think we need to do something about cars. And the people useing too much power should listen.

chuboy
8th September 2008, 8:19 AM
My... Have you read that link? Has ANYONE (other than profpeanut - congratulations, I took it for granted that people would delve deep) posted any bit of evidence to confirm that there are places on this globe where the temperatures are rising?

I also asked before, yet there was no accurate answer: WHAT IS THE REAL TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH?

If you don't know then you can't possibly debate that Global Warming is caused by greenhouse gases and that it is unnatural.
*sigh* http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html



The following observations are agreed upon by many scientists and science facilities and are referenced from the EPA.
- Ocean temperatures, from the surface to 1000m integrated over depth, has increased by .05C since 1955.
- Sea ice and land ice have been breaking apart across the globe.
- Glaciers are retreating, except for the Antartic and New Zealnad glaciers, those are holding steady.
- Snow cover has decreased globally .
- Sea surface height has increased 4-8 inches across the globe.
- There has been an increase in extreme weather events since 1975.
- Increase in cloud cover of 2% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900.

Now, if you please, will you provide another source which proves that greenhouse gases have no effect on global temperature. Until then, we must go off the accepted convention that greenhouse gases hold in heat, so more gas = more heat.

BloodthirstPriest
8th September 2008, 11:11 AM
*sigh* http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globtemp.html

Let me quote the information from that source:


This graph shows annual mean global temperature anomalies over the period 1880-2001.

Yeah, 1880-2001. How old is the Earth again? 4,500,000,000 years old. And homo sapiens? 400,000 years - about.


Now, if you please, will you provide another source which proves that greenhouse gases have no effect on global temperature. Until then, we must go off the accepted convention that greenhouse gases hold in heat, so more gas = more heat.

Another source? Ok. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

So basically, this link is saying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, which happens to be completely ignored, and of that 0.001% is actually man-made. In total, the greenhouse gases that we produce is less than 0.3%.

I've taken the liberty to quote pieces of information.


Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.

Oh my, surely we're going to see drastic changes in the world's temperatures because of our stupidity which led us to produce a whopping 0.28% of greenhouse gases!


Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures" regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

I wonder why people ignore water vapor. That must be because it is present in little amounts - yeah - it's only a tiny 95%!

If you don't like my opinion, then here:


Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270a.gif

The black is natural, and the green is man-made.

This graph shows us the greenhouse gases when water vapor is completely ignored:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image267.gif

Now why don't we add water vapor to the fray?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image269.gif

Well, well. 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. OH! And 0.001% of that water vapor is man-made! Amazing!

chuboy
8th September 2008, 12:47 PM
So just a second...this is how you are going to prove to me that global warming ISN'T happening?


Let me quote the information from that source:
Yeah, 1880-2001. How old is the Earth again? 4,500,000,000 years old. And homo sapiens? 400,000 years - about.
You're absolutely right. A true scientific study would use measurements taken from the beginning of humankind, disregard that source. <_<

120 years is a relatively long time to be taken scientific measurements. A lot of our most precise instruments were only developed in the late 20th century, and carbon emissions were not majorly influential prior to the 20th century.


Another source? Ok. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
This is indeed an interesting web-page, I am intrigued as to how you it proves that global warming isn't happening, or that greenhouse gases dont affect temperature.


So basically, this link is saying that water vapor is the main greenhouse gas, which happens to be completely ignored, and of that 0.001% is actually man-made. In total, the greenhouse gases that we produce is less than 0.3%.
Yes, but remember that carbon dioxide will become the dominant greenhouse gas in areas where there is not much water vapour. Incidentally these regions also tend to have extremely cold climates (e.g. Siberia).


I've taken the liberty to quote pieces of information.

Oh my, surely we're going to see drastic changes in the world's temperatures because of our stupidity which led us to produce a whopping 0.28% of greenhouse gases!
So you're saying that contributing 0.28% of the mass of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere over 100 years is NOT a dangerous amount? I fail to see why you don't think that's a ridiculously huge number.



I wonder why people ignore water vapor. That must be because it is present in little amounts - yeah - it's only a tiny 95%!
Well, think about it. 70% of the Earth is covered in ocean, so you would expect a fair amount of water to be evaporating off. This vapour DOES return to the Earth as rain. The fact the we still have oceans proves this. However, carbon dioxide does not rain down. It stays in the atmosphere and accumulates until plants suck it out.



http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gifhttp://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270a.gif

The black is natural, and the green is man-made.

This graph shows us the greenhouse gases when water vapor is completely ignored:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image267.gif

Now why don't we add water vapor to the fray?

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image269.gif

Well, well. 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor. OH! And 0.001% of that water vapor is man-made! Amazing!
Why does that come as a shock to you? 70% of the sun's rays hit water - it would be curious indeed if any other compound was dominant. As I have stated, water vapour returns to the Earth, and the levels remain fairly constant. Carbon dioxide is accumulative, like the other greenhouse gases. So even IF they aren't affecting us now, eventually they will.

Don't think I haven't noticed your change in stance here. Several posts earlier you were trying to prove that global warming was a big hoax, now you're trying to tell me that carbon dioxide isn't the main contributor to global warming.

At any rate, your sources do nothing to explain the rise in mean temperature over the last half-century, which is consistent with the contribution humans have made to greenhouse gas levels, nor do they seem to defend your position on global warming at all.

BloodthirstPriest
8th September 2008, 2:34 PM
So just a second...this is how you are going to prove to me that global warming ISN'T happening?

By asking that question? No, that's not how I prove it isn't happening; it's how you prove that it is happening.


You're absolutely right. A true scientific study would use measurements taken from the beginning of humankind, disregard that source. <_<

120 years is a relatively long time to be taken scientific measurements. A lot of our most precise instruments were only developed in the late 20th century, and carbon emissions were not majorly influential prior to the 20th century.

Is it long enough? No; you cannot take one part of a cycle while disregarding the rest of the whole cycle and then say it is getting hotter and we're responsible for it.


This is indeed an interesting web-page, I am intrigued as to how you it proves that global warming isn't happening, or that greenhouse gases dont affect temperature.

Wow. How dense are people? You are claiming that the overall temperature has unnaturally risen substantially and blame greenhouse gases that we are making, yet we are only contributing 0.28%. I don't understand what you're going at.


Yes, but remember that carbon dioxide will become the dominant greenhouse gas in areas where there is not much water vapour. Incidentally these regions also tend to have extremely cold climates (e.g. Siberia).

Ever heard of diffusion? Here's a link that's lower down. (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/)


So you're saying that contributing 0.28% of the mass of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere over 100 years is NOT a dangerous amount? I fail to see why you don't think that's a ridiculously huge number.

Er... So if you get 0.28% on a test, then that's a lot? If you weigh 100kg and gain 280 grams, then that's a lot?
Prove to me that it is a lot. Give me sources to show the ratio of greenhouse gases to temperature. Can you do that before saying that 0.28% does affect us drastically. Tell me how much an increase of 0.28% will do to global temperatures.


Well, think about it. 70% of the Earth is covered in ocean, so you would expect a fair amount of water to be evaporating off. This vapour DOES return to the Earth as rain. The fact the we still have oceans proves this. However, carbon dioxide does not rain down. It stays in the atmosphere and accumulates until plants suck it out.

Yes, but the water cycle is continuous, and it is relatively constant. Not all CO2 is sent to the air. Not only does the ocean absorb a lot of CO2, but so do the bacteria that live in the ocean (http://idw-online.de/pages/en/news264572). And algae do the same (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n4_v148/ai_17352492/pg_1) - well wouldn't you know. And plants too to a certain extent.


Why does that come as a shock to you? 70% of the sun's rays hit water - it would be curious indeed if any other compound was dominant. As I have stated, water vapour returns to the Earth, and the levels remain fairly constant. Carbon dioxide is accumulative, like the other greenhouse gases. So even IF they aren't affecting us now, eventually they will.

I'll say this to 70% of rays hit ocean: clouds.
Eventually will? Hasty, hasty. Here's a link (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) that answers a lot of questions of greenhouse gases and climate change and Global Warming, and whatnot. READ.


Don't think I haven't noticed your change in stance here. Several posts earlier you were trying to prove that global warming was a big hoax, now you're trying to tell me that carbon dioxide isn't the main contributor to global warming.

I would love to live in your world. I really want to know how that thing in your head you call a "brain" really works. "Don't think I haven't noticed your change in stance here". WHAT? I wasn't saying CO2 wasn't the major contributor, I was saying that EVEN IF, EVEN IF, EVEN IF greenhouse gases were affecting the climate we weren't contributing to it through our pathetic 0.28%.


At any rate, your sources do nothing to explain the rise in mean temperature over the last half-century, which is consistent with the contribution humans have made to greenhouse gas levels, nor do they seem to defend your position on global warming at all.

WOW. WOW. WOW. I can't seem to hold my awe at the ignorance levels. "Your sources do nothing to explain the rise in mean temperature over the last half-century". WOW. Let me remember: Little Ice Age, anyone? Cycle? Oh, and HAVE YOU EVEN READ ALL THE LINKS THOROUGHLY? Didn't I say that it was getting colder now as well, so I don't need to debate the previous rise of temperatures when now it is getting colder, which goes against the "fact" that the Global Warming is taking effect.

heirokee
9th September 2008, 2:41 AM
the reason that .28% is a considerable change is that it came about so quickly. That change occurred mostly within the last 100 or so years and within the scope of even just the 400,000 or so years that humans have been around, we can easily see that that number is disproportionate to what is expected to occur. If you were to consider the entire history of the Earth, the rapid increase becomes almost obscene.

It's also important to know that the effect humans have is continually rising, meaning that every year that .28% gets a little bit bigger. In a delicate system like ours, in which 1 or 2 degrees can determine the survival or extinction of a species, those little differences begin to add up quickly. For example, there's no doubt that the ocean absorbs CO2, but it's absorbing heated CO2 right now, which results in higher ocean temperatures. Those changes in temperature result in distorted sea flows which totally screw with the global climate.

I'm questioning whether or not you, BTP, really understand the schematics of how global warming would work... In fact, I'm almost entirely certain you do not. You seem to be distorting random facts you find on the internet in order to best serve your purpose, but that's not really how science works. You can't just spin stuff to make it work for you.

BloodthirstPriest
9th September 2008, 12:14 PM
the reason that .28% is a considerable change is that it came about so quickly. That change occurred mostly within the last 100 or so years and within the scope of even just the 400,000 or so years that humans have been around, we can easily see that that number is disproportionate to what is expected to occur. If you were to consider the entire history of the Earth, the rapid increase becomes almost obscene.

Can anyone tell me the temperature since the beginning of the Earth - or at least since human life - so that I can compare those temperatures to now. We do not know the Earth's cycle to claim the unnatural rise of temperatures. Until someone can provide the Earth's temperature past ancient times, then they cannot prove that this "sudden" rise of temperatures is unnatural. We have started to record temperatures properly for at least 100 years. Minus that from 4,500,000,000 and you get 4,499,999,900 years unaccounted for. Or, 399,900 depending on how you look at it. Even with geological evidence, there are still huge gaps.


It's also important to know that the effect humans have is continually rising, meaning that every year that .28% gets a little bit bigger. In a delicate system like ours, in which 1 or 2 degrees can determine the survival or extinction of a species, those little differences begin to add up quickly. For example, there's no doubt that the ocean absorbs CO2, but it's absorbing heated CO2 right now, which results in higher ocean temperatures. Those changes in temperature result in distorted sea flows which totally screw with the global climate.

There are several alternate explanations to the ocean heating up, like undersea volcanic activity.
This link (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html) covers a wide range of things to do with Global Warming.

This part shows that should global warming occur, it will only cause an inevitable global cooling that will cool the Earth:


When an ice age begins, Global Warming occurs exactly as it is doing now. Heated oceans cause increased evaporation followed by precipitation. Eventually, increased snowfall will reflect away solar energy and trigger a cool-down.

You see, nature is quite capable of taking care of itself.

Here's exactly what our 0.28% of greenhouse gases is doing:


Here's a quantitative reason why carbon dioxide does not create global warming:
The sun's energy goes through the atmosphere and strikes the earth's surface.
claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C
1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C
8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C
3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C
5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C
claimed global warming --- 0.6°C

I don't know how what we are doing adds to 0.6°C. Numbers and changes given to us are exaggerated. In order to reach 1°C you'd have to be produce roughly 300 times more CO2 than we already have

One of my earlier links says that the CO2 is not blanketing Earth, and is not permanently keeping the heat in.

Here's (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) what it says:


Greenhouse gases do not really "trap Earth's heat" but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space. ("Trapping heat" implies that the energy is stuck in the system forever, which is a false notion.) Greenhouse gases do not emit energy in the same bandwidth in which they absorb energy and thus emissions from carbon dioxide are not absorbed by carbon dioxide.

While energy may be delayed on its inevitable journey back to space, it will eventually be emitted regardless of the number of intervening stages.


I'm questioning whether or not you, BTP, really understand the schematics of how global warming would work... In fact, I'm almost entirely certain you do not. You seem to be distorting random facts you find on the internet in order to best serve your purpose, but that's not really how science works. You can't just spin stuff to make it work for you.

You're questioning me about the schematics of global warming?

Now is that the natural or man-made? Man-made: I can't explain that because it is non-existent.
Natural: Part of a cycle this wonderful planet of ours goes through every now and then, just like the ice ages.

Distorting random facts? No, I'm not. I've posted every fact like I found it, and no they are not random, and they are all relevant. It may seem random that I link little pieces of evidence, but I have seen how picky people here are. I'm not spinning stuff to make them work for me. Have you looked at my information and links? Do they look like I've changed the facts there? If anything, I have toned them down.

chuboy
10th September 2008, 8:30 AM
Even with geological evidence, there are still huge gaps.
So therefore you are right and I am not, based on the same evidence?

By the way, I've seen some of the graphs that are used to show how the climate always changes up and down by a few degrees in natural cycles, and I'll agree, it does LOOK like the spikes are nearly identical to what the NOAA shows for the last 100 years. But do remember that the climate cycle spikes show ups and downs (of the same magnitude as those occuring over last 50 years) are occuring over hundreds of millenia.



This link (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html) covers a wide range of things to do with Global Warming.After perusing this source, I was bemused to find the following paragraph in his justification for the numbers you quoted:

I therefore estimate that 95-99% of the heat on the earth's surface enters the atmosphere through conduction, convection or evaporation, while about 1-5% gets there by radiation emitted from the earth's surface.
You see, nature is quite capable of taking care of itself.Three cheers for Mr. Observant! Hurricane Katrina was nature taking care of itself by evening out an anomaly in atmospheric pressure.

But was it a good thing? It's fairly safe to assume that no matter what we do to the environment the laws of nature will eventually balance things out - but for some reason you seem to think this will happen at no environmental, social or economic cost.



You're questioning me about the schematics of global warming?
Yes, for reasons twofold: 1) If I didn't, this wouldn't make a fun debate, and 2) you do not know everything. I'm not sure where you got the impression that you were the leading climatologist in this field but as far as I'm concerned you are no more correct at this stage than I am.


Now is that the natural or man-made? Man-made: I can't explain that because it is non-existent.Does not consitute a valid response.


Natural: Part of a cycle this wonderful planet of ours goes through every now and then, just like the ice ages.
A cycle of what, specifically? Unexplainable warming?


Er... So if you get 0.28% on a test, then that's a lot? If you weigh 100kg and gain 280 grams, then that's a lot?
Prove to me that it is a lot.If you weigh 100kg and gain 280 grams, that is not a big weight gain. But if you weigh 100kg and have gained 280g over the space of a microsecond, increasing all the time, then you can conclude that this is a ludicrously large weight gain.

Here's why water vapour isn't included in climate models:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapour?

So where does the oft quoted "98%" number come from? This proves to be a little difficult to track down. Richard Lindzen quoted it from the IPCC (1990) report in a 1991 QJRMS review as being the effect of water vapour and stratiform clouds alone, with CO2 being less than 2%. However, after some fruitless searching I cannot find anything in the report to justify that (anyone?). The calculations here (and from other investigators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Water_vapour_effects)) do not support such a large number and I find it particularly odd that Lindzen's estimate does not appear to allow for any overlap.
Vid I think everyone here should watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oi8651Acu4) - makes a very valid point about global warming.

df006
10th September 2008, 11:34 AM
Could anyone gather evidence on this theory I made? Here it is-

Carbon dioxide not only delays the Earth's surface heat from getting into outer space, it may prevent the Sun's rays from coming in too. So, maybe, some of the heat is prevented from getting to the Earth's surface, and that is why, the temperate and polar regions, which get less heat and light from the Sun, is getting cooler. The equatorial regions are getting warmer because more of the Sun's heat enters, causing temperatures to rise. maybe that is why Australia, as a whole, is getting warmer. Plus, the equatorial countries are mainly LEDCs so they do not give up that mich CO2. Since CO2 is a heavy gas, is tends to settle, giving long-term rise is temperatures.

chuboy
10th September 2008, 11:40 AM
The overwhelming majority of energy which arrives on Earth from the Sun is light (although there are other rays, like UV, which are blocked by the ozone layer). The atmosphere, clearly, is transparent to visible light so it hits the Earth's surface and is eventually reflected back as long-wave infrared radiation, which greenhouse gases can then absorb and manipulate, etc etc and so on.

There's the flaw in your theory.

BloodthirstPriest
10th September 2008, 11:52 AM
So therefore you are right and I am not, based on the same evidence?

The question does not say that I am right or wrong. The question asks if you are right or wrong. It is not possible to look at one piece of a puzzle and judge things based on that piece alone. Same goes for the natural cycle.


After perusing this source, I was bemused to find the following paragraph in his justification for the numbers you quoted:

I therefore estimate that 95-99% of the heat on the earth's surface enters the atmosphere through conduction, convection or evaporation, while about 1-5% gets there by radiation emitted from the earth's surface.

Three cheers for Mr. Observant! Hurricane Katrina was nature taking care of itself by evening out an anomaly in atmospheric pressure.[/QUOTE]

*Sigh* One of my earlier links says (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) the same thing - oh and look! No estimations and a list of people who say 95%! Read all links next time.


In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).


But was it a good thing? It's fairly safe to assume that no matter what we do to the environment the laws of nature will eventually balance things out - but for some reason you seem to think this will happen at no environmental, social or economic cost.

Firstly, if things were to get extreme nature would balance things out, but you see; things haven't reached that extreme. Nope. Nowhere near.


Yes, for reasons twofold: 1) If I didn't, this wouldn't make a fun debate, and 2) you do not know everything. I'm not sure where you got the impression that you were the leading climatologist in this field but as far as I'm concerned you are no more correct at this stage than I am.
Does not consitute a valid response.
A cycle of what, specifically? Unexplainable warming?

No I am not more right than you; my point is more correct. My sources are more correct. I, as myself, am no more correct than anyone here.

A cycle of what? A natural cycle the Earth goes through, in which temperatures, climate and weather all change over significant periods of time, and in which they repeat themselves, hence the word "cycle". The ice ages are examples - unless we somehow caused them too.


Here's why water vapour isn't included in climate models:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=142

95% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapour?

Wow, that guy supports that it is not 95% and he brings calculations from wikipedia. That is one source, and I have you given you plenty - if you read through them, that is.


Vid I think everyone here should watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oi8651Acu4) - makes a very valid point about global warming.

That video is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing about. It has no connection, whatsoever, to this debate. If you read all of my posts, you would find that I posted this:


Yes we should live cleaner lives and whatnot, whether there is Global Warming or not, but that's not my point, nor is it the point of this debate. My point is that Global Warming is natural and it is not occurring now.

chuboy
11th September 2008, 9:56 AM
The question does not say that I am right or wrong. The question asks if you are right or wrong. It is not possible to look at one piece of a puzzle and judge things based on that piece alone. Same goes for the natural cycle.
Well, in that case I can't claim that past temperatures were lower any more than you can say they were doing the same thing as they are now.


*Sigh* One of my earlier links says (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) the same thing - oh and look! No estimations and a list of people who say 95%! Read all links next time.

I took your advice and read the link, and look what I found!


perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264




Firstly, if things were to get extreme nature would balance things out, but you see; things haven't reached that extreme. Nope. Nowhere near.What's your point? Whether things are extreme or not things still balance out, especially as far as nature is concerned.

The point of the reference to Hurricane Katrina was to show you that just because nature can look after itself doesn't mean it will do so quitely and peacefully.


No I am not more right than you; my point is more correct. My sources are more correct.
That remains to be seen.


A cycle of what? A natural cycle the Earth goes through, in which temperatures, climate and weather all change over significant periods of time, and in which they repeat themselves, hence the word "cycle". The ice ages are examples - unless we somehow caused them too.We do not as yet know specifically what causes Ice Ages, obviously humans didn't cause them. But if scientist's guesses that orbital shifts are the cause of ice ages then it's fairly easy tell whether we are in one or not.



Wow, that guy supports that it is not 95% and he brings calculations from wikipedia. That is one source, and I have you given you plenty - if you read through them, that is.No, if you had read my source properly you would see that the calculations are his own; the ones on the wikipedia page he referenced merely agree with him (and at the time of his writing were fully referenced also).

Not only that, but the same page also explains that the 95% figure was basically pulled from a hat; no reputable study is available that backs it up.


That video is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing about. It has no connection, whatsoever, to this debate.It has no connection with the specific argument we're having, but I never said it did. It IS related to global warming and that's why I recommended people who are reading the topic watch it.

For goodness' sake, just because I disagree with you doesn't make me some sort of invalid. If I thought it was relevant to our debate I would really have explained it some more, wouldn't I?

BloodthirstPriest
11th September 2008, 2:41 PM
Well, in that case I can't claim that past temperatures were lower any more than you can say they were doing the same thing as they are now.

You cannot claim it is unnatural. That's what the question's there for.


I took your advice and read the link, and look what I found!


perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

Did you look up Freidenreich's and Ramaswamy's research to see if it is a wild guess. Let me define the word "estimate": an educated guess. Also, the article says 90% and then refers to other research as an estimate - not its. And, if there are several results, they can't all be right, but instead, they are estimates, of which many, if not all sources, put them to 9 tenths.


What's your point? Whether things are extreme or not things still balance out, especially as far as nature is concerned.

The point of the reference to Hurricane Katrina was to show you that just because nature can look after itself doesn't mean it will do so quitely and peacefully.

The deaths of Hurricane Katrina weren't so much because of the hurricane, but mostly because of humans.


No, if you had read my source properly you would see that the calculations are his own; the ones on the wikipedia page he referenced merely agree with him (and at the time of his writing were fully referenced also).

Not only that, but the same page also explains that the 95% figure was basically pulled from a hat; no reputable study is available that backs it up.

"No reputable study... backs it up." Really? There are hundreds of reputable studies that back it up. Is that link a reputable study? Anyway, you quoted this off one of my links:


some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264

There's a study right there. Must've passed right under your nose.


For goodness' sake, just because I disagree with you doesn't make me some sort of invalid. If I thought it was relevant to our debate I would really have explained it some more, wouldn't I?

Would you explain it more? It's quite clearly explained if you ask me.

Mini Minun
11th September 2008, 3:13 PM
About the so-called "real temperature of the Earth":

Does it really matter? We need to live, this climate change is making harder for us to live, isn't that enough? Who cares?

EDIT: Look it WIkipedia, scroll down. YOu'll find about 150 studies on GLobal Warming.

BloodthirstPriest
11th September 2008, 5:22 PM
About the so-called "real temperature of the Earth":
Does it really matter? We need to live, this climate change is making harder for us to live, isn't that enough? Who cares?

Yes it matters. Climate change is something natural that humans have most definitely witnessed in the 400,000 years we've been around. "Who cares?" Many people care that this is not happening and many people care that it is.


EDIT: Look it WIkipedia, scroll down. YOu'll find about 150 studies on GLobal Warming.

Has it occurred to you that maybe for every study of the existence of Global Warming there is another against it?

chuboy
12th September 2008, 2:07 PM
You cannot claim it is unnatural. That's what the question's there for.
So I can't assume the pattern is unnatural but you CAN assume that it has always been this way?



Did you look up Freidenreich's and Ramaswamy's research to see if it is a wild guess. Let me define the word "estimate": an educated guess.Here's three definitions of the word 'guess':
- a prediction about the outcome of something, typically made without factual evidence or support
- an estimate based on little or no information
-a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

Whether or not it is an 'educated' guess or not, it does not constitute a solid base on which to deduce other facts. That entire source you quote assumes Freidenreich's estimate to be absolutely true, and this is made clear several times through the web page. Any reference to water vapour always underlines the assumption that 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to it.

That's fine, but since my source has challenged the validity of your 'guess', it's up to you to prove that 95% is not just a convenient number but a calculable figure.


Also, the article says 90% and then refers to other research as an estimate - not its. And, if there are several results, they can't all be right, but instead, they are estimates, of which many, if not all sources, put them to 9 tenths.I only found the one study referenced, and that was the one I mentioned before. The rest of the article assumes the guess to be true.



The deaths of Hurricane Katrina weren't so much because of the hurricane, but mostly because of humans.-_- You're still missing the point, completely. Nature, balancing itself out, CAUSED Hurricane Katrina to happen. Hurricane Katrina was unpleasant.

Therefore, nature balancing itself out =/= happy ending.

That wasn't rocket science.


"No reputable study... backs it up." Really? There are hundreds of reputable studies that back it up. Is that link a reputable study? Anyway, you quoted this off one of my links:
There's a study right there. Must've passed right under your nose.

Hundreds of studies? Ok, well then it shouldn't be a problem for you to find 15 independent studies to prove me wrong then.

Passed right under my nose? Are you kidding me? The quote you just posted is from the SAME PARAGRAPH of your source as the quote I used to refute your argument. The entire quote was part of my rebuttal. And you're telling me that I didn't notice there was a study there?

I'm not sure how moronic you think the world is compared to you, but whatever it is, it's wrong.

In fact, I refuse to believe you're that stupid. There must have been some misunderstanding. My argument underlined the fact that the 95% figure on which your entire (aptly-named) JunkScience article is based, is merely an estimate from a science paper that was written 14 years ago.

BloodthirstPriest
12th September 2008, 6:39 PM
So I can't assume the pattern is unnatural but you CAN assume that it has always been this way?

No, I the question does nothing to my point. My point is still as it used to be. It questions whether your point is true.


Here's three definitions of the word 'guess':
- a prediction about the outcome of something, typically made without factual evidence or support
- an estimate based on little or no information
-a message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

Whether or not it is an 'educated' guess or not, it does not constitute a solid base on which to deduce other facts. That entire source you quote assumes Freidenreich's estimate to be absolutely true, and this is made clear several times through the web page. Any reference to water vapour always underlines the assumption that 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to it.

That's fine, but since my source has challenged the validity of your 'guess', it's up to you to prove that 95% is not just a convenient number but a calculable figure.

Why are you given me the definition of "guess" when I used "estimate"?

I've given the information. Now, if you are asking the validity of it, then shouldn't you calculate it - not me.


I only found the one study referenced, and that was the one I mentioned before. The rest of the article assumes the guess to be true.

There were two articles that I have given you that pretty much agree with each other.


-_- You're still missing the point, completely. Nature, balancing itself out, CAUSED Hurricane Katrina to happen. Hurricane Katrina was unpleasant.

Therefore, nature balancing itself out =/= happy ending.

That is not always the case. Again, you're taking one part and applying it to all parts. You do not look at a battle by looking at one bullet. I'll give you a peaceful example: A river dries out, and rain replaces it. Also, I gave you how nature was gonna balance itself. If it heats, more precipitation, meaning that resulting snow will reflect heat and cause world to cool, decreasing precipitation. We're not talking about rampaging blizzards.


That wasn't rocket science.

Hundreds of studies? Ok, well then it shouldn't be a problem for you to find 15 independent studies to prove me wrong then.

I'm really annoyed that I am the one that is asked over and over to continue to post numerous pieces of evidence, when my pieces of evidence greatly outweigh yours and everybody else's. I've given you two sources that say it is more or less 90%, while you have given one that says otherwise, and then you expect that one to outweigh those two, that also provide other sources?

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm and that is a site that is accepting this Global Warming.
http://www.helium.com/items/727137-sources-of-greenhouse-gases This also shows that more CO2 is produced by volcanoes than by humans.

I am really not going to bother to waste my time posting 15 sources, similar to what I did a while ago, and those sources weren't even read. I am more than convinced that even if I post only 5 sources, you will not read them all, let alone 15.


Passed right under my nose? Are you kidding me? The quote you just posted is from the SAME PARAGRAPH of your source as the quote I used to refute your argument. The entire quote was part of my rebuttal. And you're telling me that I didn't notice there was a study there?

No, because there was some contradiction that you asked for a valid study, that was given in the part you quoted off me.


I'm not sure how moronic you think the world is compared to you, but whatever it is, it's wrong.

We're talking about Global Warming, right?


In fact, I refuse to believe you're that stupid. There must have been some misunderstanding. My argument underlined the fact that the 95% figure on which your entire (aptly-named) JunkScience article is based, is merely an estimate from a science paper that was written 14 years ago.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Judging things by their names... That's like saying: Because his name is Richard, his study is invalid. Unless you can prove to me that the water cycle has stopped, then that information is still valid. And have you read that research to see if it is invalid.

Anyway, here's another article that denies that we are causing Global Warming:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/kinninmonth-fox2005-3.php

Kyogre35
12th September 2008, 10:45 PM
THanks you Bloodthirstpreist.....it is stupid that they all say it's "humans" causing Global Warming when it's the Earth balencing itself out...you know when the dinasours were alive it was like the Tropics EVERYWHERE then came an Ice Age...the OMFG GLOBAL WARMING HAPPEND!!!! Come on it's the Earth...yes we shouldn't polute yes we should preserve our planet...but it's doing fine. Infact it was a below average summer in temp here. IDK about you. Really it's the stupidest arguement that man has caused Global Warming, when it makes only .28% of the Green House Gases, and Water Vapor makes up 95% or around that. COME ON the Earth isn't going to stay the temp we want for ever....it's changing..oh CLIMATE CHANGE!

OT: Love the quote about ebayhuckster....that was hilarious....then he dissapeared.

chuboy
13th September 2008, 3:53 AM
No, I the question does nothing to my point. My point is still as it used to be. It questions whether your point is true.
Nope, you lost me there I'm afraid. The way I see it is thus: you have stated there are gaps in historical temperature records. Without a 100% comprehensive, I can't make an objective judgment about whether the heating that has been observed over the last 50 years is natural or not.

I'm fine with that, it's a logical point. What confuses me is that you seem to think you can still claim, using the same climate graphs, that the Earth naturally goes through periods of heating and cooling. Don't the 'gaps in the records' apply to your conclusion?


Why are you given me the definition of "guess" when I used "estimate"?Because you used estimate, and according to you and estimate is defined as 'an educated guess'.

I merely pointed out that no matter how 'educated' a guess is, it still isn't backed up by quantitative factual statistics.


I've given the information. Now, if you are asking the validity of it, then shouldn't you calculate it - not me.Well, my source did the calculations for me - and they contradict a figure anywhere in the 90% range (talking about % greenhouse effect caused by water)



There were two articles that I have given you that pretty much agree with each other.So they both ESTIMATED that 95% of the greenhouse effect was water?



That is not always the case. Again, you're taking one part and applying it to all parts. You do not look at a battle by looking at one bullet. I'll give you a peaceful example: A river dries out, and rain replaces it. Also, I gave you how nature was gonna balance itself. If it heats, more precipitation, meaning that resulting snow will reflect heat and cause world to cool, decreasing precipitation. We're not talking about rampaging blizzards.For starters, your assumption that 'more precipitation' is going to equal snow invalidates the scenario, but either way my point should be clear. We can do what we like to nature, and it will work it out in the end. That doesn't mean it won't happen violently or quickly.



I'm really annoyed that I am the one that is asked over and over to continue to post numerous pieces of evidence, when my pieces of evidence greatly outweigh yours and everybody else's. I've given you two sources that say it is more or less 90%, while you have given one that says otherwise, and then you expect that one to outweigh those two, that also provide other sources?You've given me two sources? Where? The JunkScience article references a legitimate study, but this study has no quantitative reasoning behind its figure. Until you can show me how they came up with that, your point is moot (especially since I have presented a source which has used calculations that show otherwise).


http://www.ecoenquirer.com/EPA-water-vapor.htm and that is a site that is accepting this Global Warming.
http://www.helium.com/items/727137-sources-of-greenhouse-gases This also shows that more CO2 is produced by volcanoes than by humans.The EcoEnquirer isn't really a source, it's more of a satirical website. It doesn't state where the number came from since the purpose of the article is to poke fun at the EPA.

And Helium.com doesn't state anywhere the percentage of greenhouse effect that is caused by any substance. I do realise that water vapour makes up the majority of the troposphere, that wasn't what I was arguing.


I am really not going to bother to waste my time posting 15 sources, similar to what I did a while ago, and those sources weren't even read. I am more than convinced that even if I post only 5 sources, you will not read them all, let alone 15.Is that what it is, or do you just not have that many studies to reference?



No, because there was some contradiction that you asked for a valid study, that was given in the part you quoted off me.Oh, I see. No, the paper itself is perfectly valid, but the 'study' they undertook with regard to % greenhouse effect caused by H2O doesn't really constitute scientific backing.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. Judging things by their names... That's like saying: Because his name is Richard, his study is invalid. Unless you can prove to me that the water cycle has stopped, then that information is still valid. And have you read that research to see if it is invalid.If it were valid, it wouldn't say 'estimate'.

And I'm not contesting how much water is in the atmosphere, I'm contesting how much of the greenhouse effect it is responsible for. I shouldn't really have to make that distinction..


Anyway, here's another article that denies that we are causing Global Warming:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/kinninmonth-fox2005-3.phpOnce again, this site pulls figures from the air - not a single reference, just information about the authors. We should take their word as gospel because they have some letters after their name? I'll believe it when they reference every figure on the page with a quantitative study.

BloodthirstPriest
13th September 2008, 6:24 AM
Nope, you lost me there I'm afraid. The way I see it is thus: you have stated there are gaps in historical temperature records. Without a 100% comprehensive, I can't make an objective judgment about whether the heating that has been observed over the last 50 years is natural or not.

The evidence we do have shows hotter temperatures and colder as well. We are able to point to certain temperatures, but because of the gaps it is not possible to calculate the average temperature. And please, why are you avoiding the question?


I'm fine with that, it's a logical point. What confuses me is that you seem to think you can still claim, using the same climate graphs, that the Earth naturally goes through periods of heating and cooling. Don't the 'gaps in the records' apply to your conclusion?
Because you used estimate, and according to you and estimate is defined as 'an educated guess'.

For the gaps, read above. Then get the definition of "estimate" instead of complaining about "guess" and noticed that I said "educated guess". Why did you see the word "educated" as unnecessary to the whole meaning?


I merely pointed out that no matter how 'educated' a guess is, it still isn't backed up by quantitative factual statistics.
Well, my source did the calculations for me - and they contradict a figure anywhere in the 90% range (talking about % greenhouse effect caused by water)

So they both ESTIMATED that 95% of the greenhouse effect was water?

I said that the hundreds of numbers are not all true, these are therefore, estimates, but by being estimates that does not make them invalid.


For starters, your assumption that 'more precipitation' is going to equal snow invalidates the scenario, but either way my point should be clear. We can do what we like to nature, and it will work it out in the end. That doesn't mean it won't happen violently or quickly.

If you read what would happen, it won't go so violently. If there were deaths, then it would be primarily our fault to be unable to attend to the needs of those people.


You've given me two sources? Where? The JunkScience article references a legitimate study, but this study has no quantitative reasoning behind its figure. Until you can show me how they came up with that, your point is moot (especially since I have presented a source which has used calculations that show otherwise).
The EcoEnquirer isn't really a source, it's more of a satirical website. It doesn't state where the number came from since the purpose of the article is to poke fun at the EPA.

The figure comes from the EPA.
Have you read the study to confirm that has no quantitative reasoning, or are you taking someone else's word? You see why it doesn't sate where the number comes from? Because it is widely accepted.
By the way, your source shows no calculations, only a table. And I quote:


This isn't a perfect calculation
Firstly he admits it isn't precise, and I don't see calculations, only a table.

For the crudeness of my calculation, the maximum supportable number for the importance of water vapour alone is about 60-70% and for water plus clouds 80-90% of the present day greenhouse effect.
Look, he says it is able to reach 80-90%. He also says his "calculations" which I fail to spot, are crude.


And Helium.com doesn't state anywhere the percentage of greenhouse effect that is caused by any substance. I do realise that water vapour makes up the majority of the troposphere, that wasn't what I was arguing.
Is that what it is, or do you just not have that many studies to reference?

Again, the number is widely accepted. I can bring more, but a few pages back, I posted 6 sources that I'm more than sure that nobody read. Even the person that asked for them had not read them through.


Oh, I see. No, the paper itself is perfectly valid, but the 'study' they undertook with regard to % greenhouse effect caused by H2O doesn't really constitute scientific backing.

If it were valid, it wouldn't say 'estimate'.

I said there are hundreds of results, so in respect to the other results it says "estimate". Also, estimate is used because they gave a range of numbers.


And I'm not contesting how much water is in the atmosphere, I'm contesting how much of the greenhouse effect it is responsible for. I shouldn't really have to make that distinction..

I have given you several resources that show that. Here (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html):


Here's a quantitative reason why carbon dioxide does not create global warming:
The sun's energy goes through the atmosphere and strikes the earth's surface.
claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C
1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C
8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C
3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C
5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C
claimed global warming --- 0.6°C

If you read my posts, it happens that I had posted this earlier; here it is again.


Once again, this site pulls figures from the air - not a single reference, just information about the authors. We should take their word as gospel because they have some letters after their name? I'll believe it when they reference every figure on the page with a quantitative study.


* Mr William R. Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., Dip. Met.---has had a career in meteorological science and policy spanning more than 40 years. From 1986 to 1998 he headed Australia's National Climate Centre, monitoring Australia's changing climate and advising government on the extent and severity of climate extremes. He coordinated the scientific and technical review of the 1997-98 El Niño event for the World Meteorological Organization and its input to the United Nations Task Force on El Niño. As a member of Australia's delegations to the Second World Climate Conference (1990) and the subsequent negotiations for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1991-92) he had a close association with the early developments of the climate change debate.

William Kininmonth's book, Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-Science Publishing Co., UK) was launched in Melbourne in 2004. He lives in Kew, in Victoria, Australia, and can be contacted at: w.kininmonth@bigpond.com

Is Mr. William not qualified enough to talk about climate change? Why not read his book?

chuboy
13th September 2008, 7:48 AM
The evidence we do have shows hotter temperatures and colder as well. We are able to point to certain temperatures, but because of the gaps it is not possible to calculate the average temperature. And please, why are you avoiding the question?
What question?

And by the way, the climate graphs that show spikes in temperature show spikes over thousands of years, not decades. 1950-2001 is a far shorter timespan for the same amount of increase to occur.


For the gaps, read above. Then get the definition of "estimate" instead of complaining about "guess" and noticed that I said "educated guess". Why did you see the word "educated" as unnecessary to the whole meaning?
Because it doesn't matter how smart the estimator is, at the end of the day they don't really KNOW.

You said an estimate was an educated guess, well I've told you what a guess is. The fact is a guess (and therefore an estimate) is not based on any factual evidence.


I said that the hundreds of numbers are not all true, these are therefore, estimates, but by being estimates that does not make them invalid.
Yes it does. lol. There is nothing scientific about basing a conclusion off an estimate.



If you read what would happen, it won't go so violently. If there were deaths, then it would be primarily our fault to be unable to attend to the needs of those people.

You have me tossing up whether to continue trying to drill my point into your skull, or abandon this irrelevant part of the debate at the risk of you calling me a coward.


The figure comes from the EPA.
Well, why didn't you reference the EPA, instead of this joke website? <_<

Have you read the study to confirm that has no quantitative reasoning, or are you taking someone else's word?
I'm taking the word of your source, which admitted that the figures were just estimates but has continued to use them anyway, hypothetically assuming them to be true.


You see why it doesn't sate where the number comes from? Because it is widely accepted.
Oh jesus....so if I spout a whole lot of bullcarp and tell you its widely accepted, that means I'm right?

In that case, global warming is true despite what any skeptic says. Look, I just won the debate!


By the way, your source shows no calculations, only a table. And I quote:


Firstly he admits it isn't precise, and I don't see calculations, only a table.

Um, how about the bit where he said "The source code (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE) is available for those who have the patience to get it to work"?


Look, he says it is able to reach 80-90%. He also says his "calculations" which I fail to spot, are crude.
Yep, he proves that they are crude by pointing out that if you allow for +/-5% error, you can have as high as 90% water vapour contribution, but also 30% CO2 contribution. All you need to see is that 95% is nowhere near that figure.



Again, the number is widely accepted. I can bring more, but a few pages back, I posted 6 sources that I'm more than sure that nobody read. Even the person that asked for them had not read them through.
Well, now that they are in context I may read them. But I'm unconvinced that your sources will do much more than make assumptions, or reference the same estimates.


I said there are hundreds of results, so in respect to the other results it says "estimate". Also, estimate is used because they gave a range of numbers.
Okay, so why is the number they used more right than the lower numbers then? Or did they pick the most convenient figure?



I have given you several resources that show that. Here (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html):

I've seen that source; I've already shown you the part of his 'quantatative number crunching section' where he admits to estimating a figure, as well as basing a significant scientific statement off a barely relevant personal experience.



Is Mr. William not qualified enough to talk about climate change? Why not read his book?
Mr. William looks qualified indeed, but that doesn't give him the right to pull numbers out of his a*s. He should reference a study if he wants to make a scientific statement of any reputable standard.

BloodthirstPriest
13th September 2008, 8:27 AM
What question?

You see! You've just dodged the question so much, that you now have no idea to what you're saying. The question is: What is the proper temperature of the Earth?


And by the way, the climate graphs that show spikes in temperature show spikes over thousands of years, not decades. 1950-2001 is a far shorter timespan for the same amount of increase to occur.

They don't reach 400,000 years, let alone 4,500,000,000.


Because it doesn't matter how smart the estimator is, at the end of the day they don't really KNOW.

But they give a close enough figure.


You said an estimate was an educated guess, well I've told you what a guess is. The fact is a guess (and therefore an estimate) is not based on any factual evidence.

My... You are disregarding "educated".


Yes it does. lol. There is nothing scientific about basing a conclusion off an estimate.

So that means most scientific studies ever conducted are now invalid. The hypothesis is in other words, what you think, your estimate, which is related to the conclusion.


You have me tossing up whether to continue trying to drill my point into your skull, or abandon this irrelevant part of the debate at the risk of you calling me a coward.

So you admit it's irrelevant? Why are you debating it, then?


Well, why didn't you reference the EPA, instead of this joke website? <_<

Because the EPA would come up with some wild explanation that you would take, no matter how stupid or how irrelevant it sounds.


I'm taking the word of your source, which admitted that the figures were just estimates but has continued to use them anyway, hypothetically assuming them to be true.

Where, in the quotation I gave does it say "estimates"?


Oh jesus....so if I spout a whole lot of bullcarp and tell you its widely accepted, that means I'm right?

In that case, global warming is true despite what any skeptic says. Look, I just won the debate!

It's widely accepted because it has been proven by many experiments and scientists. I would like to live in your mind for a day. The fact that we are causing Global Warming hasn't been proven as of yet. It was accepted by many people, simply because the majority of people and scientists who had absolutely nothing to do with the climate, claimed that it was true. Now you have eco-people begging you to use biofuels, despite that biofuels produce much more CO2 than oil. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/23/biofuels-produce-more-greenhouse-gases-oil-gasoline) I thought governments wanted cleaner environments and so encouraged biofuels. There is more behind this Global Warming than what people believe.


Um, how about the bit where he said "The source code (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE) is available for those who have the patience to get it to work"?

Please tell me where the calculations there are.


Yep, he proves that they are crude by pointing out that if you allow for +/-5% error, you can have as high as 90% water vapour contribution, but also 30% CO2 contribution. All you need to see is that 95% is nowhere near that figure.

Have you seen the tables and graphs I've previously posted?


Well, now that they are in context I may read them. But I'm unconvinced that your sources will do much more than make assumptions, or reference the same estimates.

Actually, you'd be surprised to the fact that most information regarding the effects and causes of Global Warming are based on assumptions, if not all.


Okay, so why is the number they used more right than the lower numbers then? Or did they pick the most convenient figure?

Previously, you were saying that the effects of said gases are what's important, and my source shows that our CO2 is not doing anything at all.


I've seen that source; I've already shown you the part of his 'quantatative number crunching section' where he admits to estimating a figure, as well as basing a significant scientific statement off a barely relevant personal experience.


I therefore estimate that 95-99% of the heat on the earth's surface enters the atmosphere through conduction, convection or evaporation, while about 1-5% gets there by radiation emitted from the earth's surface.

How is this related to the temperatures that greenhouse gases cause, again?


Mr. William looks qualified indeed, but that doesn't give him the right to pull numbers out of his a*s. He should reference a study if he wants to make a scientific statement of any reputable standard.

He wasn't pulling numbers out of anywhere. Are you saying that from all his experience, he shouldn't know the amount of water vapor? And your "reputable" calculations... there were no calculations.

oddsok
13th September 2008, 12:18 PM
This debate is really quite funny. There are a lot of hypocrisies throughout the whole discussion.
Just to point out: this (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html) site does not argue the existence of Global Warming, but the contribution of CO2 to it. Which IIRC, is not what YOU, Bloodthirstpriest were arguing. You were arguing whether humans were the cause of Global Warming, and whether it is happening at this point in time.

Here (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) you can compare the amount of energy absorbed and then released as heat by various Greenhouse gasses including CO2. We can also compare how much CO2 and other GHG's were pre-1750 to now.

CFC's are man made and although there is a lot less of them released into the atmosphere compared to other Greenhouse gases, their heat capacity is much higher than that of say, CO2.

I do not want to argue the point, but am just pointing out how this looks like from the outside and giving some facts.

BloodthirstPriest
13th September 2008, 2:22 PM
This debate is really quite funny. There are a lot of hypocrisies throughout the whole discussion.
Just to point out: this (http://nov55.com/gbwm.html) site does not argue the existence of Global Warming, but the contribution of CO2 to it. Which IIRC, is not what YOU, Bloodthirstpriest were arguing. You were arguing whether humans were the cause of Global Warming, and whether it is happening at this point in time.

It seems I have to link things. It was stated that our increase of CO2 was the main cause of Global Warming. That site shows that that is not the case. It shows that the effects of the CO2 we are producing is negligible. That is how it is linked to the fact that Global Warming is not caused by us, which also happens to be one of the points I am arguing. I said before that my stance is this: Global Warming is natural, and is not happening now. So, I am debating one of my points, and that source clearly corresponds to my stance.


Here (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html) you can compare the amount of energy absorbed and then released as heat by various Greenhouse gasses including CO2. We can also compare how much CO2 and other GHG's were pre-1750 to now.

The increase of GHG's are barely caused by humans. I posted a source that explains that volcanic activity is more than a possibility, but a probability.


CFC's are man made and although there is a lot less of them released into the atmosphere compared to other Greenhouse gases, their heat capacity is much higher than that of say, CO2.

Yes, their heat capacity may be higher, however GHG's do not reach their full heat capacity. The GHG's compete with each other for heat. It is still the same spread across. This is in one of my previous links.

oddsok
14th September 2008, 12:52 AM
I would like to throw a spanner into the works and bring this back up. Is the use of too "narrow" lexis causing there to be confusion as to what climate change and global warming are referring to?

Climate change can be defined as:
any long-term significant change in the weather patterns of an area

Global warming can be defined as:
an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.

I would also like to point out that global warming can lead to climate change. Shock Horror :O

I know I am pointing out the obvious, so don't rip into me for that, it helps to thorough.

The Conveyor Belt (http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/32.htm), if you haven't heard of it is warm water which starts in the Pacific ocean, makes its way up through the Indian ocean and up to the Atlantic ocean. This water causes temperatures to rise in Britain and many other countries. When this water reaches colder bodies of water such as those near Greenland, the high salt content coupled with colder waters causes the water so sink because of these two factors and then move back towards where the process started, in the Pacific, hence the name, the conveyor belt.

Research has shown that global warming causing melting of SOME ice caps in the Greenland area has caused a dilution of the salt content of this water, meaning that it may not sink, which over time may cause the conveyor belt to stop 'turning' so to speak.
If this happens then it could cause an ice age.

indigestible_wad
14th September 2008, 5:25 AM
Just how much of the "Greenhouse Effect" is caused by human activity?
It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account-- about 5.53%, if not.
I think that you're forgetting that these things accumulate over time. As more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more water vapor evaporates from the oceans, which increases the greenhouse gases, which makes more water evaporate from the oceans... So it adds up over time. Even if the emissions we make only provide a small amount, over time it will create positive feedback that makes a big loop, and does that study account for those greenhouse gases? Also, as the temperature gets warmer, the ice caps melt, which decreases albedo, which means that less light will be bounced back out into space and more radiation will be absorbed into the atmosphere. More positive feedback. And isn't 5.6% a pretty substantial number to be considered an individual problem? I'm pretty sure that once a problem passes 5-10% it becomes a social problem.

http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tempco2kb3.png
That image is from one of my professor's powerpoints. It shows that over the past few hundred thousand years, global temperature rises fast and cools slowly. It's very possible that right now we're in a heating phase and it's just heating up fast. I'd also like to point out that the carbon dioxide levels coincide with global temperature, but it's unkown whether it's the cause or the effect.

BloodthirstPriest
14th September 2008, 11:16 AM
I think that you're forgetting that these things accumulate over time. As more greenhouse gases enter the atmosphere, the more water vapor evaporates from the oceans, which increases the greenhouse gases, which makes more water evaporate from the oceans... So it adds up over time. Even if the emissions we make only provide a small amount, over time it will create positive feedback that makes a big loop, and does that study account for those greenhouse gases? Also, as the temperature gets warmer, the ice caps melt, which decreases albedo, which means that less light will be bounced back out into space and more radiation will be absorbed into the atmosphere. More positive feedback. And isn't 5.6% a pretty substantial number to be considered an individual problem? I'm pretty sure that once a problem passes 5-10% it becomes a social problem.

http://img217.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tempco2kb3.png
That image is from one of my professor's powerpoints.

Yes they accumulate, but the same amount of heat is being spread over a larger number, that's it. That was in a previous link. Also, as ice caps melt, oceans increase in size, thus increasing the oceans' ability to absorb more CO2, thus helping neutralize the effect, and with more water, more evaporation occurs, thus causing more precipitation, thus causing more snow, thus increasing the reflection of heat. Then, the cycle starts over. Simply put, nature is quite capable to take care of itself, also, the graph shows that we have survived hotter temperatures, and I'd like to see where the information was received. The graph also happens to show that CO2 levels have naturally increased.

profpeanut
14th September 2008, 6:55 PM
Yes they accumulate, but the same amount of heat is being spread over a larger number, that's it. That was in a previous link. Also, as ice caps melt, oceans increase in size, thus increasing the oceans' ability to absorb more CO2, thus helping neutralize the effect, and with more water, more evaporation occurs, thus causing more precipitation, thus causing more snow, thus increasing the reflection of heat. Then, the cycle starts over. Simply put, nature is quite capable to take care of itself, also, the graph shows that we have survived hotter temperatures, and I'd like to see where the information was received. The graph also happens to show that CO2 levels have naturally increased.

First bold: Remind me again how that's not a bad thing regarding all the coastal cities in the world.

Second bold: You did take storms into account, right?

Third bold: Providing we don't interfere somehow, which I find very unlikely.

Hang on, have we agreed global warming is a bad thing?

indigestible_wad
14th September 2008, 8:56 PM
Also, as ice caps melt, oceans increase in size, thus increasing the oceans' ability to absorb more CO2,But that takes time. It takes time for fresh water to mix with salt water, so it takes time for that water to move to warmer locations with more CO2. I might as well also mention the problem with greenland due to the glacial ice melting.

causing more precipitation, thus causing more snow,
Unless that snow manages to make it to a cold place where it won't melt, it's not going to reflect very much, and if the temperature is warm, there's not going to be much snow.

BloodthirstPriest
15th September 2008, 12:06 PM
First bold: Remind me again how that's not a bad thing regarding all the coastal cities in the world.

Second bold: You did take storms into account, right?

Third bold: Providing we don't interfere somehow, which I find very unlikely.

Hang on, have we agreed global warming is a bad thing?

Apparently, according to the unreferenced source, we have survived worse temperatures. Also, I posted a source that shows that more greenhouse gases does not equal hotter temperatures, the heat is just spread across. If nature wasn't capable of handling us, I don't think we would've survived 400,000 years, no?

Look here (http://www.princeton.edu/~lehmann/BadChemistry.html). It says this:


Water has many unusual properties. One is that the low pressure solid form (what we know as ice) has a volume per mole that is ~10% larger than that of liquid water into which it melts. An everyday consequence of this fact is that ice cubes float near the surface of water, with about 10% of their volume above the water-air surface and 90% below.

Now, when ice melts, there will be more water, yes, but that does not necessarily mean that the ocean levels will rise as projected. Ice has around 10% more volume, thus, its volume decreases when it melts.

Now, you might argue that it floats, because it is fresh water on salt water, but a large amount of it is actually undersea, so here (http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/snow-ice.shtml):


Antarctica is a snow and ice "factory" with ice depths on the Polar Plateau reaching 15,000 feet (the continent's average ice thickness is 7,000 feet).

It is highly unlikely that the whole thing will melt completely, but as you can see, a large amount is undersea, so should that melt, water levels will not rise as drastically as expected.

Exactly how disastrous can storms be, if we take caution and follow proper procedures?


But that takes time. It takes time for fresh water to mix with salt water, so it takes time for that water to move to warmer locations with more CO2. I might as well also mention the problem with greenland due to the glacial ice melting.

Unless that snow manages to make it to a cold place where it won't melt, it's not going to reflect very much, and if the temperature is warm, there's not going to be much snow.

CO2 moves evenly through diffusion, now wind may play a role, but it will ultimately help spread it out.

Surprisingly, Greenland's temperatures have dropped and glaciers are regrowing. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/10/are-greenland-s-glaciers-expanding-temperatures-cooling)

There are lots of places on Earth, that will still be below zero, even if temperatures rise 4 degrees.

indigestible_wad
15th September 2008, 6:27 PM
CO2 moves evenly through diffusion, now wind may play a role, but it will ultimately help spread it out.
Without the thermohaline conveyor belt to move that wind along, CO2 will take a while to get to the farther reaches of the globe, expecially the cold places, due to the fact that molecules are slower when cold.

There are lots of places on Earth, that will still be below zero, even if temperatures rise 4 degrees.
And there are plenty of places that will still be warm too. If it becomes warmer and ice melts, it'll take time for that water to be able to become Co2 dissolvable, and in that time, more ice will melt, and that water will have to be changed too. Even if the rate of precipitation caught up with the melting ice caps, it wouldn't be the sme as before, it would have to be faster than than the melting of the ice caps to reach the previous spot.

BloodthirstPriest
15th September 2008, 6:59 PM
Without the thermohaline conveyor belt to move that wind along, CO2 will take a while to get to the farther reaches of the globe, expecially the cold places, due to the fact that molecules are slower when cold.

CO2 is not produced in only one place, but in all corners of the world, so, it will not take long to reach the seas. But if the world does heat up as you say, CO2 will move faster, yes?


And there are plenty of places that will still be warm too. If it becomes warmer and ice melts, it'll take time for that water to be able to become Co2 dissolvable, and in that time, more ice will melt, and that water will have to be changed too. Even if the rate of precipitation caught up with the melting ice caps, it wouldn't be the sme as before, it would have to be faster than than the melting of the ice caps to reach the previous spot.

No, it won't take too much time. The salt and fresh water will mix, thus returning the fresh water to salt water, while decreasing the average salt levels, since you have more water, but the same amount of salt, and when the two mix, the dissolved CO2 will also mix with the water, eventually leveling the levels of CO2 in the water, as well as decreasing the average CO2 in the oceans, allowing it to absorb more. Also, on a related note, the fresher the water - or the less salt - the better it absorbs CO2 (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03761.htm), another bonus.

oddsok
16th September 2008, 6:43 AM
CO2 is not produced in only one place, but in all corners of the world, so, it will not take long to reach the seas. But if the world does heat up as you say, CO2 will move faster, yes?
Would it not be a bad thing if the world was to heat up?


No, it won't take too much time. The salt and fresh water will mix, thus returning the fresh water to salt water, while decreasing the average salt levels, since you have more water, but the same amount of salt, and when the two mix, the dissolved CO2 will also mix with the water, eventually leveling the levels of CO2 in the water, as well as decreasing the average CO2 in the oceans, allowing it to absorb more. Also, on a related note, the fresher the water - or the less salt - the better it absorbs CO2 (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03761.htm), another bonus.
But the dilution of salt in the oceans could cause an ice age, so I'd say the negatives far outweigh the positives.

Comments in Bold

BloodthirstPriest
16th September 2008, 11:16 AM
Would it not be a bad thing if the world was to heat up?

No, not as bad as it is suggested or thought.


But the dilution of salt in the oceans could cause an ice age, so I'd say the negatives far outweigh the positives.

Suddenly, it is thought that Global Warming will bring an Ice Age.

This is what people say:

The salt level of oceans is too high to absorb enough CO2, Global Warming will happen.
Lowering the salt levels in oceans will cause an Ice Age.

Even those "Global Warming experts" are having disagreements with each other on what exactly Global Warming will do.

In a previously link, it was stated that one volcano eruption cause more CO2 than what we produce in a year. Now imagine how many eruptions occur in a year - undersea and on the surface. This has been going on for centuries, if not millenniums. The amount of CO2 we have produced is completely overshadowed by the fact that volcanoes have been erupting - practically forever. We humans have survived that, and it would not seem possible that nature would survive if any imbalance of CO2 would destroy it. The amount of CO2 we produce is no bigger than an atom in comparison to what nature itself produces. Nature has survived, we have survived, and we think that we are warming the Earth with our hardly noticeable percentage.

Even if that happens, which is much more unlikely than "We are causing Global Warming now" we have survived much worse. And we survived that without any real technology. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. We obviously survived that.

Here (http://nature.ca/notebooks/englIsh/iceage.htm) you go:


The latest glaciation started around 90 000 years ago and ended about 10 000 years ago.

Anyway, back to my point on how Global Warming isn't occurring now, I suggest you read this (http://mpinkeyes.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/global-warming-has-ended-the-earth-is-now-cooling/).


All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA’s GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.

The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C — a value large enough to wipe out nearly all the warming recorded over the past 100 years.

Simply amazing. I wouldn't be surprised if people say this is because of Global Warming. It baffles me that people can think that everything can be related to Global Warming, no matter how ridiculous it is.

oddsok
16th September 2008, 12:32 PM
Suddenly, it is thought that Global Warming will bring an Ice Age.
Here, read this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/535289.stm). Do you not read articles that others post because your head is too far up your ***? You seem to be a very arrogant prick that thinks he is always right. Did you consider that there could be some truth in what I am posting?
This is what people say:

The salt level of oceans is too high to absorb enough CO2, Global Warming will happen.
Lowering the salt levels in oceans will cause an Ice Age.

Even those "Global Warming experts" are having disagreements with each other on what exactly Global Warming will do.
This is because global warming is part of climate change and if there is a rise in temperature somewhere, then there should be a fall somewhere else. And if your "cycle" theory is correct then this would also account for this. I do think that there is a cycle, but there are going to be consequences soon, it can't just go on forever without there being any effect of our actions.
In a previously link, it was stated that one volcano eruption cause more CO2 than what we produce in a year. Now imagine how many eruptions occur in a year - undersea and on the surface. This has been going on for centuries, if not millenniums. The amount of CO2 we have produced is completely overshadowed by the fact that volcanoes have been erupting - practically forever. We humans have survived that, and it would not seem possible that nature would survive if any imbalance of CO2 would destroy it. The amount of CO2 we produce is no bigger than an atom in comparison to what nature itself produces. Nature has survived, we have survived, and we think that we are warming the Earth with our hardly noticeable percentage.

Even if that happens, which is much more unlikely than "We are causing Global Warming now" we have survived much worse. And we survived that without any real technology. The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago. We obviously survived that.
OK, from what I have read from your previous links I can see that CO2 may not have such an effect as was thought, but if there was to be a drastic rise or fall in temperature then it could have catastrophic consequences as stated in you previous link. (http://nature.ca/notebooks/englIsh/iceage.htm) And how would you know if we, as a race didn't nearly die out? It may only have an effect on some part of the world, and I am not saying it would wipe us out, but it would still be a terrible happening. Natural selection meant only the fittest would have survived, and since it has been so long since the last ice age it means that there has been a lot of time for "weaker" people to make themselves a large part of the population. If we were to have as bad an ice age as the last, then I can safely say that I don't think that you or I would survive.

It may seem hard to believe, but an ice age can occur if the average daily temperature drops by only a few degrees Celsius for an extensive period.

Here (http://nature.ca/notebooks/englIsh/iceage.htm) you go:
The title of this article straight away tells me that is is complete BS.
Global Warming has Ended, the Earth is Now Cooling
It even says itself that it is a cycle, so how could global warming have ENDED? According to it's own logic, global warming - a part of climate change will come back/continue on forever.

Simply amazing. I wouldn't be surprised if people say this is because of Global Warming. It baffles me that people can think that everything can be related to Global Warming, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Please for once could you actually take in what I am posting rather than just completely dismissing it? It might actually make for a better debate.

BloodthirstPriest
16th September 2008, 1:33 PM
Please for once could you actually take in what I am posting rather than just completely dismissing it? It might actually make for a better debate.

I didn't dismiss it. You posted a mere two sentences to which I replied to in much greater depth of your two sentences. Perhaps reading a post thoroughly is a good idea.


Here, read this. Do you not read articles that others post because your head is too far up your ***? You seem to be a very arrogant prick that thinks he is always right. Did you consider that there could be some truth in what I am posting?

Firstly, I read what you said, and replied to those two sentences. Now if I am arrogant for replying to what you had said, then I have no idea what you have in mind.

That is a 9 nine year old article from the BBC. The media, as I posted very early on, is very biased. Recently, if I recall, the BBC themselves published something called the "Global Warming Swindle" or something.


This is because global warming is part of climate change and if there is a rise in temperature somewhere, then there should be a fall somewhere else. And if your "cycle" theory is correct then this would also account for this. I do think that there is a cycle, but there are going to be consequences soon, it can't just go on forever without there being any effect of our actions.

So, it is not Global Warming if it heats in one place and cools in another, saying that that is Global Warming is completely ignoring the other part. How does the cycle have anything to do with the "experts" disagreeing with themselves. So, are you saying we should interfere with the cycle?


OK, from what I have read from your previous links I can see that CO2 may not have such an effect as was thought, but if there was to be a drastic rise or fall in temperature then it could have catastrophic consequences as stated in you previous link. And how would you know if we, as a race didn't nearly die out? It may only have an effect on some part of the world, and I am not saying it would wipe us out, but it would still be a terrible happening. Natural selection meant only the fittest would have survived, and since it has been so long since the last ice age it means that there has been a lot of time for "weaker" people to make themselves a large part of the population. If we were to have as bad an ice age as the last, then I can safely say that I don't think that you or I would survive.

Remember that I said we have access to incredible technology. And, anyway, we are not going to see an Ice Age caused by Global Warming, since Global Warming in itself is not even worth of "myth". Well, you don't know me to know if I wouldn't survive. At least I'm not arrogant enough to say "I don't think that you... would survive".


The title of this article straight away tells me that is is complete BS.

My, apparently you haven't read all the posts, because chuboy said the same thing and I now have to reply on the same manner. Have you heard: "Don't judge a book by its cover"? Oh my! You're name is oddsok, you're a sock. And because you're a sock, you shouldn't be able to talk or think, so I won't listen to you. That's what I would've done had I judged you by your name. Truly a pathetic reason to refute the information.


It even says itself that it is a cycle, so how could global warming have ENDED? According to it's own logic, global warming - a part of climate change will come back/continue on forever.

Well, it was referring to that part of the cycle, as in currently. It means that that stage has ended and is to come again. People shorten things; they don't expect people to be ignorant to the extent they look at the words only, and stop at what the words stop at.

Scizito_92
17th September 2008, 1:31 AM
Just to get back on track, where do you stand (specifically) BTP, on the issue of Global Warming?

dragoniteKnight
17th September 2008, 1:39 AM
i dont believe in Global Warming, and the stupid thing is there TEACHING it in school, a debate with many diffrent veiws and opinions, and not even half of the scientists even agree with it....

Alkaide
17th September 2008, 1:47 AM
Global Warming is Real ; D Well, at least i m o.

I mean, it's obvious that we as humans are contributing a great deal to it, and even if this event was cyclic, it's getting way too hot for it to be solely a natural phenomenon. I'm in environmental club in school, and I do lots of things to help cease Global Warming, within the club and without.

We watched videos about Global Warming last year in my Advanced Earth Science Class, and there was even one school assembly about it. When we watched "The Inconvenient Truth" I was sitting next to the guy who's a "non-believer" who kept saying "This is sooo stupid, this is sooo stupid, this is sooo stupid, the Inconvenient Half Truth, Hah I'm so funneh!" Ugh... that was annoying to sit next to.

dragoniteKnight
17th September 2008, 2:21 AM
Global Warming is Real ; D Well, at least i m o.

I mean, it's obvious that we as humans are contributing a great deal to it, and even if this event was cyclic, it's getting way too hot for it to be solely a natural phenomenon. I'm in environmental club in school, and I do lots of things to help cease Global Warming, within the club and without.

We watched videos about Global Warming last year in my Advanced Earth Science Class, and there was even one school assembly about it. When we watched "The Inconvenient Truth" I was sitting next to the guy who's a "non-believer" who kept saying "This is sooo stupid, this is sooo stupid, this is sooo stupid, the Inconvenient Half Truth, Hah I'm so funneh!" Ugh... that was annoying to sit next to.

i myself dont believe that HUMANS are contributing to it, its a natural phemominon, and besides, the excess amount of Co2 can do diffrent things, what killed the dinosaurs? a meteor crashing into earth, a HUGE amount of dust, co2 and other chemicals crowded into the sky and blocked out the sun killing the plants and everyhting else, blah blah blah. whos to say it wont make earth COOLER? all im saying is they shouldnt be teaching things with multiple possibliltys and such...or atleast ideas where more or half of the scientists DONT believe in

BloodthirstPriest
17th September 2008, 11:10 AM
Just to get back on track, where do you stand (specifically) BTP, on the issue of Global Warming?

I have said multiple times in previous posts; now it is getting really annoying that people are constantly asking the same question. Was it not clear when I said that what I'm arguing is that Global Warming is natural, and it is not occurring now? Do I need to clarify any word?


they shouldnt be teaching things with multiple possibliltys and such...or atleast ideas where more or half of the scientists DONT believe in

Exactly; most people here believe this Global Warming because that's what they were hearing when they were growing up. Simply, they're brainwashed or deceived to say the least.

profpeanut
17th September 2008, 11:47 AM
Exactly how disastrous can storms be, if we take caution and follow proper procedures?

Then everyone survives, but millions of dollars worth of damage is still inflicted. I just have to look back at Milenyo for that.

Bloodthirstpriest, lemme check up on something:

1. If the world floods over because the ice melts, would you say global warming didn't occur?

2. If the world freezes over because of a huge natural urge to drop all temperatures due to rising temperatures, would you say global warming didn't occur?

3. If you say the billions of tons of CO2 being pumped out by the human race is miniscule compared to the amount already being shot out by Mother Nature, would you also say that trillions of tons of CO2 are pumped out regularly? (I already cited that)

4. Does a year's worth of cooldown data automatically make up a conclusion?

5. What is the ratio of two millennia to a couple hundred millennia?

6. And lastly, how useful is it at all that people argue whether global warming exists or not when there truly are other pressing and very well existing concerns in the globe?

Just checking.

BloodthirstPriest
17th September 2008, 12:14 PM
Then everyone survives, but millions of dollars worth of damage is still inflicted. I just have to look back at Milenyo for that.

Millions of dollars? Isn't a million lives worth much more?


1. If the world floods over because the ice melts, would you say global warming didn't occur?

"If"? Assumption.


2. If the world freezes over because of a huge natural urge to drop all temperatures due to rising temperatures, would you say global warming didn't occur?

"If"? Again, this is an assumption.


3. If you say the billions of tons of CO2 being pumped out by the human race is miniscule compared to the amount already being shot out by Mother Nature, would you also say that trillions of tons of CO2 are pumped out regularly? (I already cited that)

Have you read the link about the CO2 caused by volcanoes?


4. Does a year's worth of cooldown data automatically make up a conclusion?

If a year's cooldown nearly negates the warming of a hundred years, then yes.


5. What is the ratio of two millennia to a couple hundred millennia?

What am I saying? Volcanoes have erupted since the beginning of time, so the pollution of 100 years is nothing in comparison.


6. And lastly, how useful is it at all that people argue whether global warming exists or not when there truly are other pressing and very well existing concerns in the globe?

Nothing is stopping them from participating in other matters. Because there are other matters to attend to does not make a weak argument - if there ever was an argument - valid.

oddsok
17th September 2008, 1:08 PM
1. If the world floods over because the ice melts, would you say global warming didn't occur?

"If"? Assumption.

2. If the world freezes over because of a huge natural urge to drop all temperatures due to rising temperatures, would you say global warming didn't occur?

"If"? Again, this is an assumption.

From what I interpret, I think it is a hypothetical (if I am wrong I am sorry), but anyway humor us rather than just not answer the question?

That site I gave you about the North Atlantic Drift, doesn't say this but on a program televised by the BBC that I watched it said that through research of shells at the bottom of the ocean where the conveyor belt turns and ice cores from Greenland, they have proven that the ceasing of the belt to turn co-insides with past ice ages (I am looking for a site to back this up)

Also:
Remember that I said we have access to incredible technology. And, anyway, we are not going to see an Ice Age caused by Global Warming, since Global Warming in itself is not even worth of "myth". Well, you don't know me to know if I wouldn't survive. At least I'm not arrogant enough to say "I don't think that you... would survive".

Millions of dollars? Isn't a million lives worth much more?
First you said that there wasn't going to be death because there wasn't going to be an ice age and technology would prevent it. Then you said that lives are worth a lot more than money. So which argument are you sticking to? If there were to be an ice age there could be the possibility of mass death and if there were no deaths, it is most likely that the aftershock of disease and homelessness would cause many deaths as well as pressure on economies, infrastructure etc. This would then cause there to a lot of money spent to try and fix it. So that would not be a bad thing? Technology could not do such a thing as "stop" the ice age, so what are you suggesting that technology could exactly do to stop an ice age not being a catastrophe? (without interfering in the cycle I might add)

BloodthirstPriest
17th September 2008, 1:39 PM
From what I interpret, I think it is a hypothetical (if I am wrong I am sorry), but anyway humor us rather than just not answer the question?

"If" does not imply "it will".


That site I gave you about the North Atlantic Drift, doesn't say this but on a program televised by the BBC that I watched it said that through research of shells at the bottom of the ocean where the conveyor belt turns and ice cores from Greenland, they have proven that the ceasing of the belt to turn co-insides with past ice ages (I am looking for a site to back this up)

Again, resorting to media. Good luck on finding a site.


First you said that there wasn't going to be death because there wasn't going to be an ice age and technology would prevent it. Then you said that lives are worth a lot more than money. So which argument are you sticking to? If there were to be an ice age there could be the possibility of mass death and if there were no deaths, it is most likely that the aftershock of disease and homelessness would cause many deaths as well as pressure on economies, infrastructure etc. This would then cause there to a lot of money spent to try and fix it. So that would not be a bad thing? Technology could not do such a thing as "stop" the ice age, so what are you suggesting that technology could exactly do to stop an ice age not being a catastrophe? (without interfering in the cycle I might add)

I think you misunderstood me. I never said technology would prevent an Ice Age. I meant that technology would help get us through the Ice Age.

profpeanut
20th September 2008, 7:38 AM
Millions of dollars? Isn't a million lives worth much more?

I believe the original question was "How disastrous?". You have a point, but I'm pretty sure that destroyed houses, flooded cities, uprooted trees, and smashed everything counts as really disastrous. Doesn't Ike prove this? Mind confirming for me if America saw that typhoon coming?


"If"? Assumption.

"If"? Again, this is an assumption.

And that the question is an assumption matters how again? Didn't you mention that the ice caps will melt to allow the oceans to absorb more CO2 thus counteracting the heat or something? Did you or did you not agree that a drop will follow a spike? I thought we settled that by the way you didn't bother replying to those statements.


Have you read the link about the CO2 caused by volcanoes?

Good God, mind if I say something? Have you taken into account that we are destroying millions of acres of the world's CO2 converters? Or are plants irrelevant in this equation as well? I believe the oceans have a limit?


If a year's cooldown nearly negates the warming of a hundred years, then yes.


Ah, now what's to stop the temperature from continuing it's downward spiral? You seem to forget we don't have this year's data yet, or did I miss that?


What am I saying? Volcanoes have erupted since the beginning of time, so the pollution of 100 years is nothing in comparison.

Right, because CO2 is the only factor in this equation.


Nothing is stopping them from participating in other matters. Because there are other matters to attend to does not make a weak argument - if there ever was an argument - valid.

Ah, but who are the people who first insisted that global warming wasn't real? Doesn't that make it an argument in the first place?

The earth is our home, yes? We don't have the tech yet to go to other planets, nor have we found another suitable one to live in, yes? You do take care of your own house, yes?

Oh yeah, remind why this diagram is wrong again? (http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/1244/2690966980081497509S600x600Q85.jpg) Lol, so many questions in one post.

BloodthirstPriest
20th September 2008, 8:14 AM
I believe the original question was "How disastrous?". You have a point, but I'm pretty sure that destroyed houses, flooded cities, uprooted trees, and smashed everything counts as really disastrous. Doesn't Ike prove this? Mind confirming for me if America saw that typhoon coming?

It's not going to be that disastrous. Why? Because the people who are claiming that it is true should be taking the correct precautions, unless they really don't believe what they're claiming. And if America didn't see that coming? We already have countless predictions as to what will happen, and might I add some very ridiculous ones as well, so no, if it does happen - which is incredibly unlikely, if not improbable - we should be ready.


And that the question is an assumption matters how again? Didn't you mention that the ice caps will melt to allow the oceans to absorb more CO2 thus counteracting the heat or something? Did you or did you not agree that a drop will follow a spike? I thought we settled that by the way you didn't bother replying to those statements.

I didn't reply, because there was really no point to it. That question can be used by anybody and really does not change anything.


Good God, mind if I say something? Have you taken into account that we are destroying millions of acres of the world's CO2 converters? Or are plants irrelevant in this equation as well? I believe the oceans have a limit?

The CO2 that trees convert, is really negated by the fact that the trees release CO2 at night, and that the life it supports produce CO2 as well.


Ah, now what's to stop the temperature from continuing it's downward spiral? You seem to forget we don't have this year's data yet, or did I miss that?

The year's not over. I believe it is September, yes?


Right, because CO2 is the only factor in this equation.

Actually, it is the largest factor and the bulk of man-made Global Warming is attributable to it.


Ah, but who are the people who first insisted that global warming wasn't real? Doesn't that make it an argument in the first place?

So, if something is announced first, that means it's true? No. Nobody said Global Warming wasn't true before they announced it was happening, because that was perhaps the wildest thing that one could say. And, Global Warming was claimed to be true, not by using facts, but by saying, "The time for discussion is over." Now saying that automatically makes something true.


The earth is our home, yes? We don't have the tech yet to go to other planets, nor have we found another suitable one to live in, yes? You do take care of your own house, yes?

Did I say "Okay, c'mon and let's move to Jupiter!" No. I didn't say that. And where you got that idea is incredible.


What I meant earlier is that I don't see the point in arguing whether it exists or not. Usually whenever I see someone on the internet saying "GLOBAL WARMING IS FAKE" I usually:
1. Shake my head at his/her ignorance
2. Find out he's just some lazy bum who doesn't want to care what happens to the Earth
3. Argue with him because he/she presented why it isn't real in which I find a gripe with it and proceed to debate with him/her.

Then why are you arguing it. Shouldn't you be leading by example? Oh, the contradictions.

I never said it was fake. I said it is not occurring now, and it is only natural. Apparently, spending a good deal of my time arguing my point makes me a "lazy bum". Hooray for stereotypes.

And nice Al Gore thinking. "The time for discussion is over!"


You, actually, just invented the third response for me. I know that since this is the Debate Forum, we're all going to have to defend our opinions and statements, but other than that, I don't see the importance or relevance in denying the existence of global warming. (And please don't take this as demoralization or something, because that's not what I mean.)

Wow, didn't you say "whenever I see someone". So, the third applies to only me? Why isn't it relevant? It's not relevant that false information is being given to us and that people's close-mindedness is being exploited?


Oh yeah, remind why this diagram is wrong again? (http://inlinethumb29.webshots.com/1244/2690966980081497509S600x600Q85.jpg) Lol, so many questions in one post.

That diagram is seriously blown out of proportions.

poke poke
20th September 2008, 10:17 AM
It's not going to be that disastrous. Why? Because the people who are claiming that it is true should be taking the correct precautions, unless they really don't believe what they're claiming. And if America didn't see that coming? We already have countless predictions as to what will happen, and might I add some very ridiculous ones as well, so no, if it does happen - which is incredibly unlikely, if not improbable - we should be ready.

That is a small cyclone that will only hit a state in the US and then vanish. We are talking about a phenomena that will affect every single place in the world. Humanity might survive but millions of lives will be lost anyway.

BloodthirstPriest
20th September 2008, 12:17 PM
That is a small cyclone that will only hit a state in the US and then vanish. We are talking about a phenomena that will affect every single place in the world. Humanity might survive but millions of lives will be lost anyway.

I cannot predict to what extent the deaths will be, but they will mostly be due to human short-comings.

Anyway, here (http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22892)'s some evidence on the fact that this "Global Warming" is actually very natural and part of a long cycle, which I've stated before.

And to those who say that many scientists have proven Global Warming; here (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734).

heirokee
21st September 2008, 11:28 PM
I cannot predict to what extent the deaths will be, but they will mostly be due to human short-comings.

Anyway, here (http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=22892)'s some evidence on the fact that this "Global Warming" is actually very natural and part of a long cycle, which I've stated before.

And to those who say that many scientists have proven Global Warming; here (http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734).

I have several issues with that petition, but the primary one would be lack of credentials in the signers. PH.D's don't mean squat if they don't cover the field being discussed, and there is nothing that would make me believe this is the case. In fact, the very idea that they would even bother to mention medical doctors who signed a climatological petition is just ridiculous to me. When we look at actual geologists and climatologists, even most of the scientists who are being paid by huge oil companies agree that global warming exists and is man-made.

If you could prove to me that every one of those names actively studies the climate then I would believe you... but I kind of doubt you can do that.


That said, the defense of a scientific consensus is still poor. History has proven that scientific consensus is not always accurate. However, if we believe that we have the information, and we refuse to act on it, our posterity will only blame us for killing them. When we talk about global warming, the question usually becomes not whether or not the phenomenon exists, but why we should not act upon the threat.

As an analogy, remember when Bush got that paper saying something like "Bin Laden determined to strike in US?" That paper served was a potential truth that presented terrible consequences for the US, should it not be acted upon. Of course, the option of doing something about stopping the attacks existed, I mean, we did have a paper telling us that it was going to happen, but, really, what was the point, it probably wasn't going to happen anyways? That's basically the same mentality you have to have about global warming. There is enough evidence to indicate that the possibility certainly exists, and most researchers in the field will agree that it probably does exist, so why would we just choose to ignore it? Would the benefits of being able to read The Pet Goat to a bunch of grade-schoolers outweigh the negatives of killing thousands of people and destroying some of the world's largest trade centers? Would the benefits of not having to buy a new toaster outweigh the negatives of destroying half of the Earth?

So my real question to those who don't believe in GW would be... why do think it would be so bad to act upon it, even if it might not exist?

profpeanut
22nd September 2008, 12:49 PM
What, you quoted that part that I deleted? How much time do you spend on these boards?


It's not going to be that disastrous. Why? Because the people who are claiming that it is true should be taking the correct precautions, unless they really don't believe what they're claiming. And if America didn't see that coming? We already have countless predictions as to what will happen, and might I add some very ridiculous ones as well, so no, if it does happen - which is incredibly unlikely, if not improbable - we should be ready.

Oh yes, but does it help to strengthen the enemy behemoth? I think not, because that's what we're doing. Unless suddenly, climate change, even the natural version, does not affect the size or strength of typhoons.


I didn't reply, because there was really no point to it. That question can be used by anybody and really does not change anything.

Well, not replying often translates to "Alright, let's settle with that." You're also avoiding the main questions, which we're if you'd say global warming didn't occur if the world either flooded or froze over. I don't see why it being a hypothetical question refrains you from replying. And how does it not change anything?; first you were saying GW wasn't happening because of dropping temperatures, but you seem to have dropped that after the "drop follows spike" thing.


The CO2 that trees convert, is really negated by the fact that the trees release CO2 at night, and that the life it supports produce CO2 as well.

Negated (http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/ask/past_question.php?id=634), you (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080513103021AAWOmK9) say? (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00191.htm) I'm aware those were questions asked on the internet I just linked to, but apparently the internet is so much more credible than the media. The CO2 given off by animals is taken up by plants. Plants take up much more CO2 than they give off too. There's many cycles involved, such as the Calvin-Benson Cycle, which apparently even reuses the CO2 given off. Mother Nature is so good at balance.


The year's not over. I believe it is September, yes?

You avoided the question again, yes? What again is going to stop your results of cooling temperatures from moving further downward?


Actually, it is the largest factor and the bulk of man-made Global Warming is attributable to it.

But it's certainly not the only factor.

Has it occurred to you that volcanic emissions and man-made emissions are not the same? Volcanoes don't erupt on oil beds or coal deposits, and if they did, they'd probably all go up in one eruption. Instead, volcanic gases release water vapor, carbon dioxide and many other rather toxic substances like sulfur dioxide and ash. And while the two former are attributed to GW, the rest are responsible for the inverse of global cooling. Now that I think about it, wouldn't that mean volcanoes negate their own GW gases with their GC ones?

Our emissions are a bit different. We've got methane (which we're speeding up with deforestation), nitrous oxide (which apparently comes from artificial fertilizers and coal burning) halocarbons (entirely man-made) and other gases which affect climate change indirectly. Oh yeah, and massive amounts of CO2. I'm surprised that one volcanic eruption is able to release enough CO2 to match the emissions from the ones made by billions of vehicles and factories in a year. Mind reposting that link again?


So, if something is announced first, that means it's true? No. Nobody said Global Warming wasn't true before they announced it was happening, because that was perhaps the wildest thing that one could say. And, Global Warming was claimed to be true, not by using facts, but by saying, "The time for discussion is over." Now saying that automatically makes something true.

Of course not. No, the wildest thing to say was that Martians were attacking. In what part of my post did I say those words made it automatically true? In what part of my post did I make reference to Al Gore? You'll have to keep up with my replies, because I've got other things to do.


Did I say "Okay, c'mon and let's move to Jupiter!" No. I didn't say that. And where you got that idea is incredible.

Oh no, but by the way you said that the earth would clean up any mess we made, it sure sounded like saying it's fine to trash, burn and waste whatever we want and nature will clean it up. Which is a bit like saying it's fine to dump a landfill on a house and expecting the housemaids to fully clean the mess. And Jupiter of all planets?



Then why are you arguing it. Shouldn't you be leading by example? Oh, the contradictions.

I never said it was fake. I said it is not occurring now, and it is only natural. Apparently, spending a good deal of my time arguing my point makes me a "lazy bum". Hooray for stereotypes.

And nice Al Gore thinking. "The time for discussion is over!"

Oh, but you fired the first shot in this debate, and I certainly wasn't going to take it, not when I found contradictions with it.

My apologies; that post sounded like steps rather than groups, which they really are. The first group are just the people who I see on places like Youtube going out that GW isn't real. The second group includes those people I saw on that Time (or Newsweek, I forget) article who were hired by oil companies to disprove it. As you can imagine, I concluded on their agenda rather quickly, as I have yet to see counter evidence that these kinds of people simply don't care what happens to Earth so long as they get their profits. Again, you invented the third group and is currently the only member of it because I haven't seen another person put up such a battle. Lastly, may I remind you that I have already left the alarmists behind.


Wow, didn't you say "whenever I see someone". So, the third applies to only me? Why isn't it relevant? It's not relevant that false information is being given to us and that people's close-mindedness is being exploited?

Covered that already. I'll talk about your third sentence in the end, because there really is something I'd like to ask about that.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure ecological awareness and self-responsibility aren't bad traits, because I thought those were the fires that GW stoked. Wait, suddenly close-mindedness doesn't refer to ignorance of the effects of our actions and now refers to the opposite? To be honest, I don't see how exactly GW is or can be exploited. Of course it's wrong if lies are fed to the general public, but I believe the topic of this debate is whether on-going GW is a lie or not, correct?

Oh, wait.


I just read a book called State of Fear by Michael Crighton. It is a novel but its claims and credentials are authentic It states that global warming might be actually beneficial [grass growing in Sahara north of Sahel]and most of the evidence is against it.

What do you think?And please, [I]OPINIONS AND REASONS!

Hmm, since basically it just says "What do you think of global warming?", I suppose we're still on-topic. I should probably ask the OP though.


That diagram is seriously blown out of proportions.

You must have been pressed for time, because your lack of explanations certainly isn't like your previous posts.

Heirokee's actually already asked the question for me: Mind telling us what benefits are to be accomplished by disproving global warming? Yeah, that was what I wanted to ask.

oddsok
22nd September 2008, 1:46 PM
So my real question to those who don't believe in GW would be... why do think it would be so bad to act upon it, even if it might not exist?

Mind telling us what benefits are to be accomplished by disproving global warming? Yeah, that was what I wanted to ask.
This has come up again, and apparently it was irrelevant last time.

Vid I think everyone here should watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oi8651Acu4) - makes a very valid point about global warming.

That video is completely irrelevant to what I'm arguing about. It has no connection, whatsoever, to this debate.

BloodthirstPriest
22nd September 2008, 2:25 PM
I have several issues with that petition, but the primary one would be lack of credentials in the signers. PH.D's don't mean squat if they don't cover the field being discussed, and there is nothing that would make me believe this is the case.

I believe they are quite relevant:

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties

That was included in the first paragraph.


In fact, the very idea that they would even bother to mention medical doctors who signed a climatological petition is just ridiculous to me. When we look at actual geologists and climatologists, even most of the scientists who are being paid by huge oil companies agree that global warming exists and is man-made.

There were only around 2,000 medical doctors, so 29,000 after you minus them.


If you could prove to me that every one of those names actively studies the climate then I would believe you... but I kind of doubt you can do that.

Let me point to the IPCC's claim on Global Warming. If you refuted that, then surely you would refute this (http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike112.htm):


it has been proven that the so-called 2500 scientists the IPCC claims make up their “consensus,” are really not scientists at all. Of that total, only 308 scientists reviewed the 2007 IPCC report. Many of them disagreed, some strongly so. Not surprisingly, all of their comments were rejected and not included in the report. The remaining 2192 so-called scientists came from all walks of life; politicians, government bureaucrats, social workers, and apparently even a hotel manager. Less than 40 of the 308 scientists were generally supportive of the hypothesis, and less than 5 actually endorsed the report. Yet, the report was hailed by the media as the consensus of thousands of scientists.

The petition is actually a much more reliable source.


As an analogy, remember when Bush got that paper saying something like "Bin Laden determined to strike in US?" That paper served was a potential truth that presented terrible consequences for the US, should it not be acted upon. Of course, the option of doing something about stopping the attacks existed, I mean, we did have a paper telling us that it was going to happen, but, really, what was the point, it probably wasn't going to happen anyways? That's basically the same mentality you have to have about global warming.

Amazing. I have the same mentality? Do I have to repeat myself?
I have said more times that I can remember that Global Warming is natural and isn't occurring now; I never, I repeat: I never said that we should should just sit and do nothing.

There is enough evidence to indicate that the possibility certainly exists, and most researchers in the field will agree that it probably does exist, so why would we just choose to ignore it?

There is enough evidence to slap that evidence silly too. "Most researchers", no, see my above link.




What, you quoted that part that I deleted? How much time do you spend on these boards?

I get distracted sometimes.


Oh yes, but does it help to strengthen the enemy behemoth? I think not, because that's what we're doing. Unless suddenly, climate change, even the natural version, does not affect the size or strength of typhoons.

Coincidentally, the Global Warming supporters and "experts" said this (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/now_experts_say.html):


A new study claims that global warming causes there not to be hurricanes.

Clearly the information these people are gathering is ridiculous.


Well, not replying often translates to "Alright, let's settle with that." You're also avoiding the main questions, which we're if you'd say global warming didn't occur if the world either flooded or froze over. I don't see why it being a hypothetical question refrains you from replying. And how does it not change anything?; first you were saying GW wasn't happening because of dropping temperatures, but you seem to have dropped that after the "drop follows spike" thing.

I didn't answer those hypothetical questions, because Global Warming does not necessarily have to be the cause of that. I didn't want to post this since it is gonna cause more pointless controversies and whatnot.


Negated (http://education.arm.gov/studyhall/ask/past_question.php?id=634), you (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080513103021AAWOmK9) say? (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/bot00/bot00191.htm) I'm aware those were questions asked on the internet I just linked to, but apparently the internet is so much more credible than the media. The CO2 given off by animals is taken up by plants. Plants take up much more CO2 than they give off too. There's many cycles involved, such as the Calvin-Benson Cycle, which apparently even reuses the CO2 given off. Mother Nature is so good at balance.

Mother Nature is also so good at all times.

Let me add all the CO2 producing things in a forest:
-The trees at night
-Most if not all other living organisms
-Decaying plants
-Decaying animals

Maybe there's more, but this would negate the oxygen given out by trees.


You avoided the question again, yes? What again is going to stop your results of cooling temperatures from moving further downward?

You lost me here. Come again? They can go further downward or cooler.


But it's certainly not the only factor.

It is the largest factor, the biggest and is a much greater factor - according to many "experts" - than all the other factors put together.


Has it occurred to you that volcanic emissions and man-made emissions are not the same? Volcanoes don't erupt on oil beds or coal deposits, and if they did, they'd probably all go up in one eruption. Instead, volcanic gases release water vapor, carbon dioxide and many other rather toxic substances like sulfur dioxide and ash. And while the two former are attributed to GW, the rest are responsible for the inverse of global cooling. Now that I think about it, wouldn't that mean volcanoes negate their own GW gases with their GC ones?

If you can, how much sulfur dioxide and ash is produced? Just to get a comparison. And ash doesn't stay in the air as long as CO2, if I am correct, otherwise we would be blanketed by a layer of ash now.


Our emissions are a bit different. We've got methane (which we're speeding up with deforestation), nitrous oxide (which apparently comes from artificial fertilizers and coal burning) halocarbons (entirely man-made) and other gases which affect climate change indirectly. Oh yeah, and massive amounts of CO2. I'm surprised that one volcanic eruption is able to release enough CO2 to match the emissions from the ones made by billions of vehicles and factories in a year. Mind reposting that link again?

The link (http://www.helium.com/items/727137-sources-of-greenhouse-gases) was somewhere on the 6th page.


Oh no, but by the way you said that the earth would clean up any mess we made, it sure sounded like saying it's fine to trash, burn and waste whatever we want and nature will clean it up. Which is a bit like saying it's fine to dump a landfill on a house and expecting the housemaids to fully clean the mess. And Jupiter of all planets?

If I remember, you asked me if it was alright to just trash this planet. And guess what I said! We should be living cleaner lives.

Just for the record:

We should be living cleaner lives. We should be living cleaner lives. We should be living cleaner lives.


Oh, but you fired the first shot in this debate, and I certainly wasn't going to take it, not when I found contradictions with it.

No, no, I didn't fire the first shot. The first shot was somewhere on the first page.


Hmm, I'm pretty sure ecological awareness and self-responsibility aren't bad traits, because I thought those were the fires that GW stoked. Wait, suddenly close-mindedness doesn't refer to ignorance of the effects of our actions and now refers to the opposite? To be honest, I don't see how exactly GW is or can be exploited. Of course it's wrong if lies are fed to the general public, but I believe the topic of this debate is whether on-going GW is a lie or not, correct?

I'm sure you could google how Global Warming could be exploited and find many results.
Correct, but... never mind. *Looks further down*


Hmm, since basically it just says "What do you think of global warming?", I suppose we're still on-topic. I should probably ask the OP though.

Well then.



You must have been pressed for time, because your lack of explanations certainly isn't like your previous posts.

Honestly, I didn't know where to start on that, but here goes.
The smoke covering the Earth is clearly an example of exaggeration.
Now to the actual text:
It says that the Earth's temp. has risen 1F in the last 100 and the last 50 years are attributable to us. As I've showed in earlier links, that is not the case:

claimed heat due to atmosphere --- 33°C
95-99% due to various things --- 31.4°C
1-5% due to infrared radiation from earth's surface --- 1.65°C
8% of infrared bandwidth available to CO2 --- 0.13°C
3% of CO2 produced by humans --- 0.0039°C
5% of absorption "unsaturated" for global warming --- 0.0002°C
claimed global warming --- 0.6°C
It says that burning fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases in excessive amounts; look here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gif
And for the affect, look above.
It says GHG's "trap" the heat. That is not the case, it delays heat transfer:

Greenhouse gases do not really "trap Earth's heat" but could be fairly described as delaying the energy transfer from Earth to space.
Also, it says that Global Warming will cause storms, but a link above says the opposite.


So my real question to those who don't believe in GW would be... why do think it would be so bad to act upon it, even if it might not exist?


Heirokee's actually already asked the question for me: Mind telling us what benefits are to be accomplished by disproving global warming? Yeah, that was what I wanted to ask.


This has come up again, and apparently it was irrelevant last time.

And finally, the answer you have all been waiting for...

By disproving Global Warming, you are not being forced to limit your life to things that the government and others nearly force upon you. You get to know the truth for a change. Your tax money gets to go elsewhere. Yeah, there's much more.

Also, I don't think debating for the sake of debating is illegal.

chuboy
23rd September 2008, 7:29 AM
I'm supposed to be studying, but I scanned over this debate again because I couldn't resist and noticed this:


We should be living cleaner lives. We should be living cleaner lives. We should be living cleaner lives.
If you believe Global Warming is not a man-made phenomenon and that its occurence is beyond our control, why do you think we should live cleaner lives? After all, it costs more money than staying how it is now, for no real benefit.

BloodthirstPriest
23rd September 2008, 11:45 AM
If you believe Global Warming is not a man-made phenomenon and that its occurence is beyond our control, why do you think we should live cleaner lives? After all, it costs more money than staying how it is now, for no real benefit.

Yes, because everybody likes to choke on carbon monoxide. We love acid rain. We love the haze. We love the polluted water. We lo - you get my point.

profpeanut
28th September 2008, 12:04 PM
I hope I won't have to drag myself to this thread again, because the debate's gone rather bland for me, and it's taking up time I could be doing for other things like typing homework or playing Spore. I propose a ceasefire at the end of this post.

I won't comment on your replies to heirokee. Well, expect for:


Let me point to the IPCC's claim on Global Warming. If you refuted that, then surely you would refute this (http://www.newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike112.htm):


*spits out drink*


The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

Excuse me? Nature went on quite fine without our technology, and certainly won't miss it if it disappears. The advance of technology doesn't even need fossil fuels and such, and even if it did it would be unreliable to rely on a limited source (because coal is certainly not infinite.) And how would mankind be damaged in health and welfare by restrictions to how much smog a car belches out? I find that to be a bit alarmist.




Coincidentally, the Global Warming supporters and "experts" said this (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2008/01/now_experts_say.html):

Clearly the information these people are gathering is ridiculous.

Again, I believe I said I left the alarmists behind. For the sake of the argument (or what'll be left anyway), let's assume hurricanes are affected.


I didn't answer those hypothetical questions, because Global Warming does not necessarily have to be the cause of that. I didn't want to post this since it is gonna cause more pointless controversies and whatnot.

Eh, alright. Though I'm assuming your answers are "No" then, I won't bring it up anymore.


Mother Nature is also so good at all times.

Let me add all the CO2 producing things in a forest:
-The trees at night Again, that's cycled out
-Most if not all other living organisms The very stuff the trees cycle in in the first place.
-Decaying plants Carbon Cycle.
-Decaying animals Carbon Cycle again.

Maybe there's more, but this would negate the oxygen given out by trees. Saying CO2 negates O2 is like saying a growing glacier and a receding one makes a normal glacier, wouldn't you think? Both those gases are still there, whether one outweighs the other or not.


Also, who's to say how many times the CO2-O2 conversion cycle occurs? I'm pretty sure kingdom Plantae is also the largest CO2 absorbing factor in the world, even bigger than the oceans absorbing the gas. If plants didn't affect the greenhouse gas levels, then the world would have probably still been the barren desert it was hundreds of millions of years ago.


You lost me here. Come again? They can go further downward or cooler.

Oh dear, but that could result in another Ice Age, wouldn't it...lol, look who's worrying now. Alright then.


It is the largest factor, the biggest and is a much greater factor - according to many "experts" - than all the other factors put together.

If you can, how much sulfur dioxide and ash is produced? Just to get a comparison. And ash doesn't stay in the air as long as CO2, if I am correct, otherwise we would be blanketed by a layer of ash now.

Of course it's the biggest, but there's more to this equation, and not just greenhouse gases.

Hmm, I never said it did, I just said it could. Since most volcanoes give off water vapor the most, and we know that stuff gets recycled anyway. I was basing it off a bit when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, after which the earth went into a brief cool down because the gases released (as shown here. (http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/sneed3/pinatubo.htm)) Think, if more CO2 was reflected before the greenhouse gases could absorb it, wouldn't that result to a bit of cooling then?


The link (http://www.helium.com/items/727137-sources-of-greenhouse-gases) was somewhere on the 6th page.

I only see two pages. But I see the info; hmm, possibly. I could use another source though.



If I remember, you asked me if it was alright to just trash this planet. And guess what I said! We should be living cleaner lives.

Just for the record:

We should be living cleaner lives. We should be living cleaner lives. We should be living cleaner lives.

Alright, I get the point.


I'm sure you could google how Global Warming could be exploited and find many results.
Correct, but... never mind. *Looks further down*

Oh, fine then.

Hmm, here? (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/globalists_love_global_warming.htm) If these guys saw it, so could a lot of other people. And I doubt these guys even started the theory. Food for thought, though. Here? (http://www.acton.org/press/press_101.php) What would an abortion company benefit from GW? Here? (http://www.acton.org/press/press_101.php) Even if we stopped all CO2 production, natural greenhouse gases would still chug along, so it depends which of our links is right. And of course fossil fuels are limited; it's like saying there's an infinite amount of dinosaur fossils.

To state my position, I acknowledge that carbon dioxide is a necessary gas in the world. It fuels plants, warms the planet to the right temperature and plays a role in the ocean currents. But if levels go higher than it should, (by normal levels, I mean the ones for the last two millennia) then that could cause problems. Like the link said, the plants will evolve and adapt to those levels, but it won't help if they're being either cut down or have their stoma clogged by fossil fuel by-products (which as we've established aren't just CO2.) The increased amounts of CO2 being absorbed by the oceans could also alter the climate, most probably in negative ways.

While this isn't very relevant to our debate, I would like to state that I did not see the negative effects of biofuels coming. Now it's just increasing world hunger and taking down more forest. If I were to correct it, I would point to plants not generally referred to as food and crop rotation so you don't have to cut down the forests.



Honestly, I didn't know where to start on that, but here goes.
The smoke covering the Earth is clearly an example of exaggeration.
Now to the actual text:
It says that the Earth's temp. has risen 1F in the last 100 and the last 50 years are attributable to us. As I've showed in earlier links, that is not the case

And what about the sea levels? Are the other effects mentioned false too?


It says that burning fossil fuels produce greenhouse gases in excessive amounts; look here:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270b.gif
And for the affect, look above.
It says GHG's "trap" the heat. That is not the case, it delays heat transfer:

Also, it says that Global Warming will cause storms, but a link above says the opposite.

Gee, thanks, you just nullified my last GW exploitation link. And if GHG delay heat transfer, wouldn't that mean they absorb the heat being reflected back, thus warming the planet? Because otherwise the earth would be too cold to live in. Also, the link above was said by alarmists, and I thought we both agreed their data isn't too reliable. Give me another source saying hurricanes aren't affected.


And finally, the answer you have all been waiting for...

By disproving Global Warming, you are not being forced to limit your life to things that the government and others nearly force upon you. You get to know the truth for a change. Your tax money gets to go elsewhere. Yeah, there's much more.

Also, I don't think debating for the sake of debating is illegal.

Oh, who said we were forced to do these things? I haven't found any eco-laws giving extreme or incredibly inconvenient rules on the populace. The possibility whether GW exists or no is till being debated, and this thread is already evident of that. Enough of the tax money in the US gets wasted on pointless wars anyway, and it's already been proven it's possilbe to save the environment without upsetting the economy too much. And of course you're free to debate, but you'll definitely meet opposition.

And why isn't the video relevant? It's true; doing nothing when GW turned out to be true would have far more disastrous effects than doing something when it was false.

Now: I suggest we declare a tie, and that this discussion be withheld for another time. Because I'd really rather not be killing my time debating on the matter when I could be doing something about it instead. Turn done.

BloodthirstPriest
3rd October 2008, 7:48 PM
Excuse me? Nature went on quite fine without our technology, and certainly won't miss it if it disappears. The advance of technology doesn't even need fossil fuels and such, and even if it did it would be unreliable to rely on a limited source (because coal is certainly not infinite.) And how would mankind be damaged in health and welfare by restrictions to how much smog a car belches out? I find that to be a bit alarmist.

The advance of technology doesn't need fossil fuels, yes, but it was a much quicker and a much more obvious method. If we didn't use fossil fuels I doubt that the world would have advanced as much as it has done.


Of course it's the biggest, but there's more to this equation, and not just greenhouse gases.

There is more to the equation, but removing CO2 from it is like making something that is already microscopic invisible.


Hmm, I never said it did, I just said it could. Since most volcanoes give off water vapor the most, and we know that stuff gets recycled anyway. I was basing it off a bit when Mt. Pinatubo erupted, after which the earth went into a brief cool down because the gases released (as shown here. (http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/sneed3/pinatubo.htm)) Think, if more CO2 was reflected before the greenhouse gases could absorb it, wouldn't that result to a bit of cooling then?

The source even says that the cooling would be only temporary:


Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas that allows a warming of the Earth. Volcanic gasses that are added to the atmosphere by volcanic eruptions increases this greenhouse gas and thereby the greenhouse effect. Initially the gaseous products cool the Earth for a period of 1 to 3 years. After the cooling effect is removed the increased carbon dioxide remains to potentially increase global warming.

So, the CO2 remains and yet our own input seems to affect the Earth more than the thousands of volcanoes?


I only see two pages. But I see the info; hmm, possibly. I could use another source though.

I meant the 6th page of this thread.


Hmm, here? (http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo/globalists_love_global_warming.htm) If these guys saw it, so could a lot of other people. And I doubt these guys even started the theory. Food for thought, though. Here? (http://www.acton.org/press/press_101.php) What would an abortion company benefit from GW? Here? (http://www.acton.org/press/press_101.php) Even if we stopped all CO2 production, natural greenhouse gases would still chug along, so it depends which of our links is right. And of course fossil fuels are limited; it's like saying there's an infinite amount of dinosaur fossils.

Your last two sources are the same.
Well, let's look at the tax money gained by this claim. (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/03/brits-believe-government-using-global-warming-hysteria-raise-taxes)
Here's something else. (http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/2007/04/27/welcome-aboard-dupes/)


If GHG delay heat transfer, wouldn't that mean they absorb the heat being reflected back, thus warming the planet? Because otherwise the earth would be too cold to live in.

They don't absorb them; it is more correct to say delay, because they don't suck it all up - they're more like a wall in the path of sound waves, or something on those lines.


Also, the link above was said by alarmists, and I thought we both agreed their data isn't too reliable. Give me another source saying hurricanes aren't affected.

The thing is that even if it does warm, hurricanes will not be affected. I posted that to show that everybody who is backing this Global Warming do not have their facts straight, and are most definitely not looking at every significant detail. They just use the facts they see fit, and leave and twist those that are not helpful.
Here: (http://www.sptimes.com/2007/04/18/State/Study__Global_warming.shtml)


"Which one of the two - warming oceans or increasing shear - will be the dominant factor? Will they cancel out? We and others are currently exploring those very questions, and we hope to have a better grasp on that answer in the near future," Vecchi said.

These two pretty much cancel each other out.


Oh, who said we were forced to do these things? I haven't found any eco-laws giving extreme or incredibly inconvenient rules on the populace. The possibility whether GW exists or no is till being debated, and this thread is already evident of that. Enough of the tax money in the US gets wasted on pointless wars anyway, and it's already been proven it's possilbe to save the environment without upsetting the economy too much. And of course you're free to debate, but you'll definitely meet opposition.

The possibility is still being debated, but it is taken as truth by quite a lot of people.


Now: I suggest we declare a tie, and that this discussion be withheld for another time. Because I'd really rather not be killing my time debating on the matter when I could be doing something about it instead. Turn done.

Nobody's stopping you from doing other things. You are not bound by a contract or duty.

Mr. Mudkip
5th October 2008, 6:24 AM
Global warming is real, like it or not.
It is not going to instantaneously flood New York, Miami, and other large costal citicties, as the melting rate of the ice caps in so minimal that for any of these places to flood, It would take decades to completely cover the surface of the city's roads. It is not near as malignant as the news portrays it, nor as urgent. It is however impossible to deny the overall increase in global temperature, or that it is caused by humans.

The heat we've been recieving is incomparable to the heatwave of the middle ages, as this is roughly three times larger.

Sapphire Milotic
5th October 2008, 6:29 AM
That's what we get for using all those toxic chemicals on our earth... That is why there is all that "Going Green" going on since they want to help recover the hole in the ozone layer which is letting in more UV rays from the sun which is melting the ice caps slowly but surely.

BloodthirstPriest
5th October 2008, 2:30 PM
Global warming is real, like it or not.

I respect opinions very much, but even if everybody respected opinions, that does not give them the ability to overrule a scientifically-backed argument.


It is however impossible to deny the overall increase in global temperature, or that it is caused by humans.

It's not impossible to deny either side, but global warming not occurring now and being natural is a large probability.


The heat we've been recieving is incomparable to the heatwave of the middle ages, as this is roughly three times larger.

You state line after line, with for all I know numbers brought from thin air. At least I can provide a source: (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html)


Claims that man-made pollution has caused unprecedented global warming have been undermined by research that shows the Earth was warmer in the Middle Ages.

Oh my. Read on if you're not willing to read my source.


From the outset of the global warming debate in the late-1980s, environmentalists have said that temperatures were rising faster than before, leading some scientists to conclude that greenhouse gases from cars and power stations were causing record temperatures.

Last year, scientists on the UK climate impacts program said that global temperatures were the hottest on record. "We are pretty sure that climate change due to human activity is here and it's accelerating," they said.

Now how valid is this, let's see:


These claims have been sharply contradicted now by a comprehensive study of world temperatures over the past 1000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest nor are they producing the most extreme conditions, in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

*Gasp*


That's what we get for using all those toxic chemicals on our earth... That is why there is all that "Going Green" going on since they want to help recover the hole in the ozone layer which is letting in more UV rays from the sun which is melting the ice caps slowly but surely.

The ozone layer does not have holes, but "thinning" is a more suitable word to describe the ozone layer's weak spots, here (http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/faq/index.htm):


What causes the ozone hole?

We earthlings have damaged the ozone layer with chemicals (called chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs) that are used in refrigerators and air conditioners. This has been proved by a long series of measurements from space and on the ground. In fact, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry has been awarded to three atmospheric scientists for having discovered and explained this link.

Is the ozone hole getting bigger?

It isn't really a "hole", but a large decrease in the total amount of ozone overhead. It is truly a large decrease over Antarctica at certain times of the year, but there are significant general reductions in ozone elsewhere, including the Northern Hemisphere. The "hole" and the general reductions elsewhere are not getting better yet. We expect that things will improve, starting early in the next century.

I would go deeper, but I'd like to focus on global warming, seeing as the depletion of the ozone layer is worthy of its own thread, and that the only considerable link (other than that CFCs are greenhouse gases and deplete the ozone) is that the increase of temperatures on the Earth's surface, which can be caused by global warming, causes the upper layers of the atmosphere to cool, which in turn causes more stratospheric clouds to form in larger areas, which causes more areas of the ozone to be affected by depletion. Here, scroll down that page. (http://www.theozonehole.com/fact.htm) I'd leave it at that, since by attacking the base, the whole building topples.

Mr. Mudkip
5th October 2008, 9:06 PM
"An Incovienient Truth"
A long boring movie by the worlds biggest hypocrite, he does have reasonable evidence and good data. It's kinda hard to link to a clip of a movie, as I think linking to youtube would be worse than linking to wikipedia :/

oddsok
6th October 2008, 6:48 AM
"An Incovienient Truth"
A long boring movie by the worlds biggest hypocrite, he does have reasonable evidence and good data. It's kinda hard to link to a clip of a movie, as I think linking to youtube would be worse than linking to wikipedia :/

I think if you had been thorough and read most of this thread you would see that there were a lot inaccuracies and even just blatant lies in that movie, and it was discounted as evidence in this argument.

I still stick to the my point of view that Global Warming is happening to a degree right now and is partially caused by humans, but there are many variables in the equation. And this has been said before, but it needs to be reiterated over and over; we should live in a cleaner way and take better care of the world we live in, rather than destroying it in more ways than one.

scythemantis
6th October 2008, 10:17 AM
Most of the scientific community agrees that we have a significant and adverse effect on the climate. I've seen no evidence that those who claim otherwise are anything but fringe radicals, and when people dismiss the vast majority of scientists as being "paid off" or otherwise exaggerating for personal gain, they obviously have no idea how the scientific community even works.

It's good news that pays best. Scientists would have much more to gain by DENYING that we cause warming.

BloodthirstPriest
6th October 2008, 1:20 PM
Most of the scientific community agrees that we have a significant and adverse effect on the climate.

As stated and backed earlier, that is just a blatant lie.


I've seen no evidence that those who claim otherwise are anything but fringe radicals,

And by reading hundreds of articles, one knows what each author is like. No. Have you seen evidence that they are not educated, intelligent and rational people? Claiming otherwise is indeed very ignorant.


and when people dismiss the vast majority of scientists as being "paid off" or otherwise exaggerating for personal gain, they obviously have no idea how the scientific community even works.

Apparently, you too have no idea how the scientific communities work, let alone disregarding every logical and detailed study as worthless when you have no proof to say so.


It's good news that pays best. Scientists would have much more to gain by DENYING that we cause warming.

Actually, that is wrong. Scientists (considering that they have completely free-will) have much to gain from proving it. They will be opening doors to other forms of energy, etc. and would actually be employed for further research, than if they said "it does not exist" and stopped at that.

redpanda
6th October 2008, 4:09 PM
Has anyone seen the new Discovery series, Project Earth or something? It stated that unless humanity makes drastic changes, by the year 2050 the earth's climate will be irreversibly damaged from pollution, global warming, and other maladies. I for one, believe global warming is a critical problem and that it does have underlying causes from mankind. I did a huge research project on environmental issues and found the oceans are becoming acidic(from dissolved CO2) and warming up, sections of ice as big as California have been abnormally breaking away from the ice caps, and(this is from Project Earth) that a glacier in Greenland lost over two feet of ice from it's surface in only weeks. I don't have time to provide links to sources at the moment, but I will if you'd like me to. I apologize if any of this information is incorrect, but I believe it is all true.

BloodthirstPriest
6th October 2008, 5:39 PM
Has anyone seen the new Discovery series, Project Earth or something? It stated that unless humanity makes drastic changes, by the year 2050 the earth's climate will be irreversibly damaged from pollution, global warming, and other maladies.

In some earlier post I posted a source showing that the temperatures of Earth have decreased to a point that nearly negates the past 100 years' heating.


I for one, believe global warming is a critical problem and that it does have underlying causes from mankind. I did a huge research project on environmental issues and found the oceans are becoming acidic(from dissolved CO2) and warming up, sections of ice as big as California have been abnormally breaking away from the ice caps, and(this is from Project Earth) that a glacier in Greenland lost over two feet of ice from it's surface in only weeks.

People can most certainly argue that some glaciers are receding - yes - but you're talking about ancient formations of ice formed in the last ice age, in which whole continents were covered by ice. The glaciers in Greenland have been receding for over 100 years - unattributable to "man-made global warming", as is said in this link (http://www.nat.au.dk/default.asp?id=11570&la=UK):


Researchers from the University of Aarhus can now present the results of the most extensive study of Greenland’s glaciers ever carried out. The study shows that the recession of Greenland’s glaciers due to melting is not a recent phenomenon: the glaciers have been receding for more than 100 years.

squirrel boy
6th October 2008, 9:06 PM
IT ISNT REAL!!!!! the photographers take the photos and videos in the summer and it's been proven that ice caps melt during summer and refreeze in the winter. although that doesnt mean we as humans can keep polluting the earth. otherwise global warming WILL become a reality.