• The Global Warming Hoax (True or False)
    314 replies, posted
I believe that it's real.
[quote=Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems]It is likely that there has been a substantial anthropogenic contribution to surface temperature increases averaged over each continent except Antarctica since the middle of the 20th century (Hegerl et al., 2007, Section 9.4.2). Statistically significant regional warming trends over the last 50 and 30 years are found in many regions of the globe (Spagnoli et al., 2002; Karoly and Wu, 2005; Karoly and Stott, 2006; Knutson et al., 2006; Zhang etal., 2006; Trenberth et al., 2007, Figure 3.9). These warming trends are consistent with the response to increasing greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols and likely cannot be explained by natural internal climate variations or the response to changes in natural external forcing (solar irradiance and volcanoes).[/quote] [url=http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/01.pdf]Source.[/url] Same article on joint attribution for other consequences. [quote=Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems]The agreement is quite poor between the phenological changes in species and modelled temperatures derived using only natural climatic forcing (K = 60.16, P > 0.05; Figure 1.7a). A stronger agreement occurs between the same phenological changes in species and temperatures modelled using only anthropogenic forcing (K = 35.15, P > 0.05; Figure 1.7b). As expected, the strongest agreement is with the modelled temperatures derived using both natural and anthropogenic (combined) forcings (K = 3.65, P < 0.01; Figure 1.7c). While there is uncertainty in downscaling the model-simulated temperature changes to the areas that would affect the species being examined, these results demonstrate some residual skills, thereby allowing joint attribution to be shown. Other similar studies have shown that the retreat of two glaciers in Switzerland and Norway cannot be explained by natural variability of climate and the glaciers alone (Reichert et al., 2002), that observed global patterns of changes in streamflow are consistent with the response to anthropogenic climate change (Milly et al., 2005), and that the observed increase in the area of forests burned in Canada over the last four decades is consistent with the response due to anthropogenic climate change (Gillett et al., 2004).[/quote] And projected economic costs of increasing global temperatures. [IMG]http://i51.tinypic.com/20at1e1.png[/IMG] [url=http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/20.pdf]Source.[/url] And if you really want an information overload see [url=http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/AR4/website/]here[/url] for the full 840 page report.
A lot of people don't realize that Climate change is just as it sounds, [b]CLIMATE CHANGE[/b]. Not only do summers get warmer, but winters get colder and storms get more violent, droughts are more common and you're going to see rain where it hasn't seen it in a long time.
[QUOTE=Shotacon;32400959]A lot of people don't realize that Climate change is just as it sounds, [b]CLIMATE CHANGE[/b]. Not only do summers get warmer, but winters get colder and storms get more violent, droughts are more common and you're going to see rain where it hasn't seen it in a long time.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the speed of the temperature increase causes more extreme localized weather. The analogy I always liked was that if you jerk a coffee mug in one direction, the coffee splashes out in both directions.
It's common knowledge that the Earth has gone through many cycles of glacial and then interglacial periods over the course of it's existence. From my understanding, the Earth will peak at a low or a high temperature point, and then fall the other way (ie. the climate will peak at the hottest it can get, and then climb to the lowest it can get (ice age) over many many years and then cycle through it again). The real debate here is whether our carbon footprint is speeding up this process at all and making the climate unstable. I once saw a chart where it showed that a rising temperature made the carbon in the atmosphere rise, and not the other way around. Though I don't think I will be able to find it sorry because it was on a video.
[QUOTE=Badballer;32401292]It's common knowledge that the Earth has gone through many cycles of glacial and then interglacial periods over the course of it's existence. From my understanding, the Earth will peak at a low or a high temperature point, and then fall the other way (ie. the climate will peak at the hottest it can get, and then climb to the lowest it can get (ice age) over many many years and then cycle through it again). The real debate here is whether our carbon footprint is speeding up this process at all and making the climate unstable. I once saw a chart where it showed that a rising temperature made the carbon in the atmosphere rise, and not the other way. Though I don't think I will be able to find it sorry because it was on a video.[/QUOTE] I think it's been pretty much proven fact that more carbon in the atmosphere makes the temperature go up.
[QUOTE=Badballer;32401292]It's common knowledge that the Earth has gone through many cycles of glacial and then interglacial periods over the course of it's existence. From my understanding, the Earth will peak at a low or a high temperature point, and then fall the other way (ie. the climate will peak at the hottest it can get, and then climb to the lowest it can get (ice age) over many many years and then cycle through it again).[/QUOTE] There are lots of temperature cycles that the earth goes through. However none of them are linked to the current trend of rising temperatures. [QUOTE=Badballer;32401292]The real debate here is whether our carbon footprint is speeding up this process at all and making the climate unstable.[/QUOTE] A very large majority of climate scientists agree that it's human caused. The only debate is coming from energy companies who don't want to stop emitting greenhouse gases, and the politicians who work for them. [QUOTE=Badballer;32401292]I once saw a chart where it showed that a rising temperature made the carbon in the atmosphere rise, and not the other way. Though I don't think I will be able to find it sorry because it was on a video.[/QUOTE] Carbon dioxide traps heat in the atmosphere, causing temperature to increase. Increasing temperature can also cause carbon dioxide to outgas from the Earth's oceans, which intensifies the problem. They feed into each other cyclically. The graph you're thinking of shows carbon dioxide increasing after temperatures go up because in those instances, the increase in temperature was caused by something else (in that case, the Earth's proximity to the sun). But in current-day climate change it's the carbon dioxide that is causing the temperature increase.
It's true the Earth [b]is[/b] warming up, but not from Co2 emissions. It's just a scam for companys to sell "green" products. The Earth naturally heats and cools. Why do you think we have Ice Ages?
[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;32402287]It's just a scam for companys to sell "green" products. [/QUOTE] Yep those hippies have been paying off the 97% of climatologist so they can sell green junk.
I don't care if it is a hoax or not. If it is a hoax, so what? Sure, people will make money off it, but we'll still be making the world a better place to live... Cleaner air, cleaner cities, cleaner everything. What is so wrong about that? Breathing fresh mountain air is almost intoxicating... There should be fresh "mountain air" everywhere... Don't get me wrong lol... I'm not an environmental nut job. I don't really do much to help out, but that's because I'm lazy. If I had to choose between a world as it is today or a "greener" world. I'd go for the greener world. Our world can easily be made much much much greener and cleaner without making it "harder/worse" to live in.
Global warming has happened in the past, its happening now, but its not as seriously alarming and people make it out be, we aren't all going to die if we don't stop using gas this very instant.
[QUOTE=TH89;32401397]The graph you're thinking of shows carbon dioxide increasing after temperatures go up because in those instances, the increase in temperature was caused by something else (in that case, the Earth's proximity to the sun). But in current-day climate change it's the carbon dioxide that is causing the temperature increase.[/QUOTE]The whole topic of the video was showing that humans don't cause the carbon dioxide to rise, but rather rising temperatures do. The video basically said that the sun controlled the Earth's temperature and this in cause made the carbon dioxide level go up, showing very accurately that the temperature rises first with carbon rising a few years after, or something. And then when the temperature dropped the carbon dioxide would drop after. But like I said, it was a video I watched last year which I don't remember the name of I'm not going to take it as fact. I agree with you though that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to increase, just found this theory interesting.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32400455]It depends on who you put your hope in. Science or fox news.[/QUOTE]HAHAHA. God. I don't like people like you.
[QUOTE=firestorm0;32403368]HAHAHA. God. I don't like people like you.[/QUOTE] I like people like you even less. Congratulations.
[QUOTE=Snorlax;32375593]Since people started listening to Fox News over 97% of climate scientists.[/QUOTE] Yeppers. People think it's a hoax because Rich politicians don't want to have to shut down their incredibly non-eco friendly activities. Like driving around their massive Hummers and private jets. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Nick Lomax;32402652] Our world can easily be made much much much greener and cleaner without making it "harder/worse" to live in.[/QUOTE] Or so ungodly hippy like that we can smell nothing but weed. :P
[QUOTE=firestorm0;32403368]HAHAHA. God. I don't like people like you.[/QUOTE] Theres something you learn on the internet and thats that most people aren't going to like you. I'm extremely surprised by how many buy the natural temp change is why global warming exists myth. Even if you don't believe in current scientific consensus there still would be no reason to believe its natural global warming up because the warming has only recently happened. Nature doesn't turn on all of a sudden and go into overdrive unless something big happened.
I'll be convinced climate change is real when a model or theory can accurately (within a fair margin mind) account for all data. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with actually reducing emissions, because if we can find some way to generate or manufacture something cleaner for a similar price, why not?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change[/url] They do have a theory and it takes many things into account.
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32403929][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change[/url] They do have a theory and it takes many things into account.[/QUOTE] so rather than giving me a source to a [b]single[/b] model that explains everything, you're linking an aggregate encyclopaedia article. thanks. [sp]hyperbole[/sp] I'd also like to point out that if it was perfectly explained, why was [url=http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/?partner=yahoofeed]NASA able to punch a hole in it?[/url]
[QUOTE=ReLak;32403890]I'll be convinced climate change is real when a model or theory can accurately (within a fair margin mind) account for all data. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with actually reducing emissions, because if we can find some way to generate or manufacture something cleaner for a similar price, why not?[/QUOTE] your standards will never be satisfied in your lifetime, fyi. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] i didn't realize Forbes had such abysmally low reporting standards. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] wow, the guy behind that study seems legit. he signed this deceleration [quote]"We believe Earth and its ecosystems &#8212; created by God&#8217;s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence &#8212; are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."[/quote]
[quote]Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is &#8220;not much&#8221;)[/quote] This isn't extremely biased and wrong at all. [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=ReLak;32403994]so rather than giving me a source to a [b]single[/b] model that explains everything[/QUOTE] You mean because global warming wasn't summed up in one math formula its bs.
[QUOTE=Lazor;32404061]your standards will never be satisfied in your lifetime, fyi.[/QUOTE] why not? I'm certainly not against the idea that it isn't possible, and that you're treating me that I want an airtight theory. I want something that can, quote, accurately [b](within a fair margin mind)[/b] account for all data, I don't want every single fucking thing explained down to the most minute detail because that is unreasonable. also attack writer, not data, win argument. (pro-tip: [url=http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf]read report linked in article[/url]) [quote]While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000&#8211;2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity.[/quote] Yes, it's not a holy grail for either side but it clearly states that there is something wrong with the data being produced by the computers. If someone proves that this data from the satellite or false, or provides a simulation of a model which accounts for this data and shows climate change occuring, then I'll be more inclined to believe that climate change exists. [QUOTE=imasillypiggy;32404148] You mean because global warming wasn't summed up in one math formula its bs.[/QUOTE] doesn't read the spoiler tagged with the word hyperbole, as defined: [QUOTE=wikipedia]Hyperbole ( /ha&#618;&#712;p&#604;rb&#601;li&#720;/ hy-pur-b&#601;-lee;[1] Greek: &#8017;&#960;&#949;&#961;&#946;&#959;&#955;&#942;, 'exaggeration') is the use of [b]exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech[/b]. It may be used to evoke strong feelings or to create a strong impression, but [b]is not meant to be taken literally.[/b] [/quote] [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] I'd still like to point out I'm not going to go out of my way to stop anyone from doing anything (good or bad) about climate change, as it isn't my place to put my foot down. It's like an agnostic trying to involve their views on a debate in Christianity v Aethism.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;32401340]I think it's been pretty much proven fact that more carbon in the atmosphere makes the temperature go up.[/QUOTE] Actually recent evidence from the EPICA ice core suggested that CO2 levels had lagged behind past warm periods by 800±600 years, suggesting that increasing CO2 levels are a response to increasing temperature not a driving force behind it. [quote=Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim (2008)]GHG and surface albedo changes are mechanisms causing the large global climate changes in Fig. (1), but they do not initiate these climate swings. Instead changes of GHGs and sea level (a measure of ice sheet size) lag temperature change by several hundred years [6, 7, 23, 24]. [/quote] [url=http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V002/217TOASCJ.pdf]Source.[/url] However further analysis has questioned these results and concluded they likely over estimated the lag time, but it goes to show we aren't sure. [Quote=New constraints on the gas age-ice age difference along the EPICA ice cores, 0–50 kyr (2007)]Whatever the cause of the &#916;age overestimate, our finding suggests that the phase relationship between CO2 and EDC temperature previously inferred for the start of the last deglaciation (lag of CO2 by 800±600 yr) seems to be overestimated.[/quote] [url=http://www.clim-past.net/3/527/2007/cp-3-527-2007.html]Source.[/url]
[QUOTE=ReLak;32403890]I'll be convinced climate change is real when a model or theory can accurately (within a fair margin mind) account for all data. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with actually reducing emissions, because if we can find some way to generate or manufacture something cleaner for a similar price, why not?[/QUOTE] Well I guess you don't believe that anything is true, because not even the theory of relativity can do that. You know. Fucking gravity. [editline]21st September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=flyschy;32404485]Actually recent evidence from the EPICA ice core suggested that CO2 levels had lagged behind past warm periods by 800±600 years, suggesting that increasing CO2 levels are a response to increasing temperature not a driving force behind it. [url=http://benthamscience.com/open/toascj/articles/V002/217TOASCJ.pdf]Source.[/url] However further analysis has questioned these results and concluded they likely over estimated the lag time, but it goes to show we aren't sure. [url=http://www.clim-past.net/3/527/2007/cp-3-527-2007.html]Source.[/url][/QUOTE] Yes, CO2 levels do lag behind temperature increases. That's because usually CO2 release is a side effect of temperature change. However, that does not change the fact that CO2 affects the climate.
[quote]also attack writer, not data, win argument.[/quote] data can be manipulated and skewed, i'm not going to trust the analysis of someone who goes into the analysis with preconceived notions about what the data says
[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;32402287]It's true the Earth [b]is[/b] warming up, but not from Co2 emissions. It's just a scam for companys to sell "green" products. The Earth naturally heats and cools. Why do you think we have Ice Ages?[/QUOTE] Thanks for posting without reading the thread so we can read your ignorant opinion that has been refuted over and over. [QUOTE=Badballer;32403066]The whole topic of the video was showing that humans don't cause the carbon dioxide to rise, but rather rising temperatures do. The video basically said that the sun controlled the Earth's temperature and this in cause made the carbon dioxide level go up, showing very accurately that the temperature rises first with carbon rising a few years after, or something. And then when the temperature dropped the carbon dioxide would drop after. But like I said, it was a video I watched last year which I don't remember the name of I'm not going to take it as fact. I agree with you though that carbon dioxide causes the temperature to increase, just found this theory interesting.[/QUOTE] The video was junk science, sorry! That is a common skeptic argument but it's been pretty thoroughly discredited. If they were able to back up their claims with evidence and testing then they would have turned the climatology community on its head. But in reality, humans emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere DOES cause the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to increase, and climatologists have already factored in the effect of the sun on global temperature, and determined it's not the cause of the current warming trend. [QUOTE=Lazor;32404589]data can be manipulated and skewed, i'm not going to trust the analysis of someone who goes into the analysis with preconceived notions about what the data says[/QUOTE] Yeah, "Forbes says it means this" isn't exactly a compelling case, and the report itself is too technical for the vast majority of people in this thread to begin to parse.
[QUOTE=ReLak;32404460]why not? I'm certainly not against the idea that it isn't possible, and that you're treating me that I want an airtight theory. I want something that can, quote, accurately [b](within a fair margin mind)[/b] account for all data, I don't want every single fucking thing explained down to the most minute detail because that is unreasonable. also attack writer, not data, win argument. (pro-tip: [url=http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/8/1603/pdf]read report linked in article[/url]) Yes, it's not a holy grail for either side but it clearly states that there is something wrong with the data being produced by the computers. If someone proves that this data from the satellite or false, or provides a simulation of a model which accounts for this data and shows climate change occuring, then I'll be more inclined to believe that climate change exists. doesn't read the spoiler tagged with the word hyperbole, as defined: [editline]20th September 2011[/editline] I'd still like to point out I'm not going to go out of my way to stop anyone from doing anything (good or bad) about climate change, as it isn't my place to put my foot down. It's like an agnostic trying to involve their views on a debate in Christianity v Aethism.[/QUOTE] The things about global warming is [b]they don't have all that data[/b]. they have some convincing graphs and a few charts and theories, but they don't have what your asking. that's why it's and issue of whether or not it's a hoax. If global warming alarmists had that kind of data, this thread wouldn't exist.
Global warming is a coined phrase to depict the world's overall transition to warmer temperatures, the [b]climate change[/b] it causes is we should be concerned about. [quote][/quote] [quote]To a great extent, this is what we think of as "weather." Indeed, weather patterns are predicted to change in response to global warming: some areas will become drier, some will become wetter; many areas will experience an increase in severe weather events like killer heat waves, hurricanes, flood-level rains, and hail storms. It's tempting to think that all of these changes to the world's climate regions will average out over time and geography and things will be fine. In fact, colder climates like Canada may even see improved agricultural yields as their seasonal temperatures rise. But overall, humanity has made a huge investment in "things as they are now, where they are now." Gone are the days of millennia ago when an unfavorable change in climate might cause a village to pack up their relatively few belongings and move to a better area. We have massive societal and industrial infrastructure in place, and it cannot be easily moved. Climate-change effects will generally not be geographically escapable in the timeframe over which they happen, at least not for the majority of humans and species.[/quote] [url]http://www.grinningplanet.com/2007/01-02/global-warming-vs-climate-change.htm[/url] It's not the heat we should be worrying about, its the changing weather. People claiming global warming a hoax are quoting temperatures as opposed to weather patterns and are throwing the focus off the true dangers.
Eh, I do and don't believe in Global Warming. For the sake of my social status (which is bad enough already), if people ask me if I believe in Global Warming I just say yes to not come off as a dick, but really I'm still not sure about it. But then again I'm not a scientist and I haven't actually made the research necessary to come to a conclusion for myself. The most I've done is read other peoples opinions, but on this matter in particular I trust no one. I say I don't believe in Global Warming, but I do believe that the Earth goes through cold and hot spells, which as far as I know is to do with variables we can't control, such as the orbit of the Earth and what Sol is up to. Yes we release a lot of carbon into the environment, but as far as I know, it doesn't really have an effect. Carbon makes up a very small percentage of the atmosphere, compared to water vapour, so unless carbon has some ultra green house capabilities that water vapour doesn't, then I think it's out of our hands. [editline]21st September 2011[/editline] Every time I hear an argument about Global Warming though, I always hear that more and more scientists now accept Global Warming as an actual fact, or in one article I read a while ago, it said that virtually all respectable scientists now believe in Global Warming. [editline]21st September 2011[/editline] It seems like the new religion for atheists to me. If people won't believe in God, lets make them believe in something that could be proven, then make them fear it!
[QUOTE=Tracker;32389117]Global temperature can vary, quite significantly. Temperatures have increased somewhat in recent years but no-where near the amount that was predicted in the official reports, let alone the media. [img]http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_current.gif[/img][/QUOTE] A study from June actually explains this: [URL="http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,772252,00.html"]http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/0,1518,772252,00.html[/URL] (German) Anthropogenic forcing was nearly halved to 0,13 W/m² between 2002 and 2007, as opposed to 0,24 W/m² between 1997 and 2002 because of the sulfur particles. If China starts filtering sulfur like the industrial countries do, we'll see an increase in temperature. Abstract: [URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108"]http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/06/27/1102467108[/URL] [QUOTE]Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008. We find that this hiatus in warming coincides with a period of little increase in the sum of anthropogenic and natural forcings. Declining solar insolation as part of a normal eleven-year cycle, and a cyclical change from an El Nino to a La Nina dominate our measure of anthropogenic effects because rapid growth in short-lived sulfur emissions partially offsets rising greenhouse gas concentrations. As such, we find that recent global temperature records are consistent with the existing understanding of the relationship among global surface temperature, internal variability, and radiative forcing, which includes anthropogenic factors with well known warming and cooling effects.[/QUOTE] Appendix: [URL="http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/06/28/1102467108.DCSupplemental/Appendix.pdf"]http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2011/06/28/1102467108.DCSupplemental/Appendix.pdf[/URL] Page 21 has a graph showing the temperature trend since 1870 that demonstrates that the increase between 1979 and 2011 is by no means half of a cycle as the sine curve overlaid on the graph from [URL="http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2011-0-33-deg-c/"]http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-2011-0-33-deg-c/[/URL] implies. (Adding the sources for graphs is important, Spencer's main thesis on athmospheric temperature [URL="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/12/science/earth/12climate.long.html"]was proven wrong in 2005[/URL].)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.