Global Warming,eh?

[cockerpunk]

Just a little FYI I used to be a Warmer, then I looked at the facts, and followed the money trail, and have changed my mind on the whole thing. Today's science is corrupted with greed and notoriety



Cockerpunk I have a few questions for you to answer, since you seem to be the warmer here.

First off let's talk about Climate Science itself. It is a new science that has only really been around since the 50's. So it reality it's in it's infancy, compared to say Physics, Chemistry, Geology, Biology, or Astronomy. Would you agree?

sure, so is computer science, but that has only revolutionized our lives ...

But climate Science takes all sciences into account. Would you agree?

all sciences are related to each other

So a climate Scientist has to have excellent knowledge of at least All the ones listed above. Would you agree?

they should be an expert in what they pruport to be an expert in

Do you believe in CAGW? (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming) That the seas will rise, it will snow more, and we will have droughts, and dogs and cats will be sleeping together?? (ok that last one was a joke) But you get my drift. End of the world scenario!

i think that man made carbon gases plus the positive feedback mecahnism the earth has will cause eaths climate to change for the warmer in the next 100 or so years. the oceans will rise (they alredy are) , and there will be differences in rainfall leading to some places not having much that used to be plentiful (and the exact opposite too). if by this question you mean do i think al gore is correct, then no, i do not, and have frequently said as such.

The climate scientists use models to show what is going to happen. Problem is they can not use the same models to hind-cast what has happened in the climate before. If they can't do this, would you agree that the models they are using are flawed??

acutally, the current models are based on what has happened before, that is where we get the information to build a model.

We should be happy that the planet is warming because if it's not, we are headed back into an Ice age, as most of the earth's time has been spent in an Ice ages.

http://www.astronoo.com/images/images_articles/rechauffementCO2.gif

Nice graph for you showing temp vs CO2. If you notice most of the time if the temperature is not increasing, we head for a Ice age. That is why, this time period is called an interglacial. Would you not agree with that statement that we are in an interglacial and temps should be increasing??

temps do not need to be increasing to be in an interglacial age, you just need to be between glacial ages

As for peer review papers: The release of the climategate emails have pretty much destroyed the credibility of the peer review process.

actually, the "climate gate" emails show that climate scientists are far from sqaushing opposition, they are openly discussing and are very familar with it. there is nothing in those emails that shows anything is amiss with the scientific process.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/20/bias-in-the-peer-review-process-a-cautionary-and-personal-account/

So do you think that it's ok for members of the "climate science" to review each others work and someone who has a different view to be silenced??

again, the emails show that rather then squashing opposition, they are very familiar with it. they know and understand all the leading non human reasons, and are not censoring them in the litterature.

You keep talking that the data is there, but it's not, even Phil Jones (of the CRU) said that there has been no statistical increase in temperatures for the last 15 years. While at the same time the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm

ah, classic quote mine. might want to read up on what phil jones acutally said

I also call into question the Temperature records that we are using today. It has a warm Bias due to adjustments made by climate scientists. They seem to be corrupting data to show even more of a warming trend. New Zealand this is just 1 example http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/0...e-train-wreck/

since we don't use that data to compute global tempratures, there isn't a problem. we use satalite data.

Plus UHI (urban heat Island) effect is not taken into account. An explanation of UHI http://www.epa.gov/heatisld/

acutally, its well known and understood by climate scientists (they were the folks that figured it out in the firs place )

What really turned me around was climategate and the Quotes from Government officials and Climate scientists. http://green-agenda.com/index.html

nonscientists opinions and quotes are really irrellivent to a scientific discussion. what a politican says should never EVER be a scientific argument this was is silly though. a model is based on the data, ergo, the data he quotes in this quote isn't climite data. look it up yourself!

"I believe it is appropriate to have an 'over-representation' of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience."
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

"We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis..."
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

yeah, typical internet rumor mill type stuff. nothing substantial here.

i think its interesting that so many think those "climate-gate" emails show anything embarassing for global warming. there is acutally nothing suspicous in any of them, thats why the news story died off nearly instantly. no sensorship, no crushing of the opposition, just evidence that leading proponents are well familar with leading skeptics scientific arguments.

more info, and much better debunking work them my own -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nnVQ2fROOg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXesBhYwdRo&feature=related

[DevilMan]

Well I'm not a scientist and never will be... but here are my thoughts...

They say that there is global warming going on right?

Let's say that the AVERAGE global temp is 60 *F... (Close enough right? http://snr.unl.edu/lincolnweather/da...-Anomalies.asp)

Are we in agreement that there is an increase in population on a global scale? As in what was once 300 Million people on the planet, is now almost 7 Billion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

Do you agree that the average temperature of the human body is 98.6 *F?

Do you agree that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas?

And is partly responsible for the "global warming"?

Do you agree that CO2 is a naturally expelled gas via volcanic as well as lake based eruptions? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos & http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l?rel=nofollow)

Do you agree that animals (including humans) give off CO2 as a by-product of respiration?

Do you agree that plants give off O2 as a by-product of photosynthesis?

Do you agree that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form?

Do you agree that you can not MAKE cold?

So why would it not be safe to assume that the increase to 7 Billion little pockets of 98.6 *F heat that are each exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere would be the cause of "global warming"?

You say that one person isn't going to matter right? Say that when you get into an elevator packed full of people that the doors don't open on for a few hours. Tell me how much a person isn't going to matter. You say there are more people on the planet and that we are killing trees and plants that change the CO2 to O2. So there is even more CO2 in the atmosphere. Could this not be related to the increase in the global population?

You say it's irrelevant. Okay... So is a drop of water in a river. But when you add up 7 Billion drops of water you get one hell of a tsunami don't ya.

So my thoughts are this... If you wanna save the planet from global warming.... Kill yourself. That way you will take one of the 98.6 *F pockets of heat from the planet and save the rest of us. Not to mention you'd more than likely be a vegetarian. You see... You are killing us more. The plants are what pull the CO2 from the air. All of us meat eaters are saving your sorry butts while you are trying to kill us. PLUS we are eating the other critters that are giving off CO2... hmmmm funny how that works. You know you could relate the increase in global warming to the increase in vegetarians couldn't you? I mean both numbers have increased so it must be related. If the veggies would quit killing the plants that are turning CO2 into O2, then we could stop global warming. PLUS if they were gone we'd lose the 98.6*F pockets of heat that are almost 40*F warmer than the global average temperature.

Summary: Plants reduce CO2, Greenies/Veggies reduce plants and increase CO2, Karnis reduce CO2 by reducing animals that produce CO2 and that eat plants that reduce CO2.

Solution: Kill the greenies/veggies and SAVE THE PLANET!!!!

DM

EDIT! My research on this topic is privately funded and I am in no way sponsored by any outside entity so as to not have skewed results.

[cockerpunk]

Well I'm not a scientist and never will be... but here are my thoughts...

They say that there is global warming going on right?

yup

Let's say that the AVERAGE global temp is 60 *F... (Close enough right? http://snr.unl.edu/lincolnweather/da...-Anomalies.asp)

no, but k, ill follow you

Are we in agreement that there is an increase in population on a global scale? As in what was once 300 Million people on the planet, is now almost 7 Billion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population)

yup

Do you agree that the average temperature of the human body is 98.6 *F?
yup

Do you agree that CO2 is a "greenhouse" gas?
yup

And is partly responsible for the "global warming"?
yup

Do you agree that CO2 is a naturally expelled gas via volcanic as well as lake based eruptions? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Nyos & http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l?rel=nofollow)
yup

Do you agree that animals (including humans) give off CO2 as a by-product of respiration?
yup

Do you agree that plants give off O2 as a by-product of photosynthesis?
yup

Do you agree that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed in form?
yup, however the earth is not a closed system

Do you agree that you can not MAKE cold?
sure, you can lose heat

So why would it not be safe to assume that the increase to 7 Billion little pockets of 98.6 *F heat that are each exhaling CO2 into the atmosphere would be the cause of "global warming"?
yhaha, no, not even close. according to your own assumptions, energy can neither be created nore destoryed right? so where did all that energy come from for us humans to be at 98.6 rather then 60? thats right, the earth is not a closed system, it recieves energy for the sun. now, the other side of that equation is that the earth re-radiates much of that energy back into space (otherwise the earth wopuld always be warming). co2 (and methan) change the radative nature of the earth so that we can expell less energy into spance. so, since we measure solar output, and we know that for the last 40 years it has been constant (some even argue slightly decreasing), and we measure the level of carbon gases in our atmosphere and our average temps, then we can easily put two and two togther to see that yes, man mad carbon gases are insulating the planet and causing us to warm up.

at no point does more poeple at 98.6 change the equation.

You say that one person isn't going to matter right? Say that when you get into an elevator packed full of people that the doors don't open on for a few hours. Tell me how much a person isn't going to matter. You say there are more people on the planet and that we are killing trees and plants that change the CO2 to O2. So there is even more CO2 in the atmosphere. Could this not be related to the increase in the global population?

yes, deforestation is a big part of the problem. as you said, the rainforest in particular is a huge source of carbon gases to oxygen, and furthermore, trees essentially store the suns energy.

You say it's irrelevant. Okay... So is a drop of water in a river. But when you add up 7 Billion drops of water you get one hell of a tsunami don't ya.

you are still not grasping that the earth is an open system, taht energy has to come from somewhere, and we know why.

So my thoughts are this... If you wanna save the planet from global warming.... Kill yourself. That way you will take one of the 98.6 *F pockets of heat from the planet and save the rest of us. Not to mention you'd more than likely be a vegetarian. You see... You are killing us more. The plants are what pull the CO2 from the air. All of us meat eaters are saving your sorry butts while you are trying to kill us. PLUS we are eating the other critters that are giving off CO2... hmmmm funny how that works. You know you could relate the increase in global warming to the increase in vegetarians couldn't you? I mean both numbers have increased so it must be related. If the veggies would quit killing the plants that are turning CO2 into O2, then we could stop global warming. PLUS if they were gone we'd lose the 98.6*F pockets of heat that are almost 40*F warmer than the global average temperature.

this is rediculous. at no point did you even come close to what would be called a rational answer, i award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul.

Summary: Plants reduce CO2, Greenies/Veggies reduce plants and increase CO2, Karnis reduce CO2 by reducing animals that produce CO2 and that eat plants that reduce CO2.

no, becuase for every pound of beef produced, i think it is 6 pounds of plants are required. im not a vegitarian (mmm bacon), but meat is a terribly inneffient way to produce calories.

Solution: Kill the greenies/veggies and SAVE THE PLANET!!!!

DM

EDIT! My research on this topic is privately funded and I am in no way sponsored by any outside entity so as to not have skewed results.

seriously, do you guys think? i get the distinct impresson that no one i have argued with even knows about how the model predicts warming. it is like arguing about evolution, no one has any problems with it once they understand exactly what and how the model works. all im dealing with in this thread are internet rumor mill stuff. show me some real skeptics - gimmie some infared irris theory or cloud seeding theory. please, i challenge you to find some of the actual skepics and there papers. in this thread i have always dropped a few names, that should be a big hint (and those potholer54 video have more!).

[blake20]

Cockerpunk,
Why does the warming we are seeing have to be man made?

Also, Let me get this correct, you said in this thread "the current warming trend is much faster, and much more dramatic then seen prviously". If that statment is false would you conceed that the warming we are seeing is not all man made?? And that any thing we do short of killing off the human race will not affect the climate at all?

[cockerpunk]

Cockerpunk,
Why does the warming we are seeing have to be man made?

Also, Let me get this correct, you said in this thread "the current warming trend is much faster, and much more dramatic then seen prviously". If that statment is false would you conceed that the warming we are seeing is not all man made?? And that any thing we do short of killing off the human race will not affect the climate at all?

its doesn't have to be, it just is.

there have been more dramatic changes in climate on earth, and we know and understand why those took place. currently though, all those explainations do not explain what is happening, ergo, it must be something else.

and your last two sentences, even if the first was right (which its not) would still not be right.

[dahoeb]

Whenever you say "ergo" I think of the the Architect from The Matrix. Thank you.

Ergo...

[blake20]

its doesn't have to be, it just is.

there have been more dramatic changes in climate on earth, and we know and understand why those took place. currently though, all those explainations do not explain what is happening, ergo, it must be something else.

and your last two sentences, even if the first was right (which its not) would still not be right.

So you agree then that there was a medieval warm period? And that there was a little Ice age?

[cockerpunk]

So you agree then that there was a medieval warm period? And that there was a little Ice age?

i agree that the temprature has been fluctuating since we have been able to measure it. if you want to call a cooling trend a "little ice age" thats fine with me.

[blake20]

i agree that the temprature has been fluctuating since we have been able to measure it. if you want to call a cooling trend a "little ice age" thats fine with me.

no I'm reffering to the Medieval Warm period that the the Global warmers have tried to erase from history.

Also I have a "peer reveiwed" article for you

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/20/tipping-points-easy-come-easy-go/

[VailSkibum]

seriously, do you guys think?

Do you? It is pretty apparent in this thread that you summarily dismiss any links with contrary evidence without even taking a look at it, (just like the AGW proponents?) Pompus.

all im dealing with in this thread are internet rumor mill stuff. show me some real skeptics

OK, I will take another whack at it. Here is one with 31,487 non-burger-flipper skeptics. That's an awlful lot of people to be dead wrong.

http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

[dahoeb]

"...within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event [in England]....children just aren't going to know what snow is."
-Dr David Viner, making predictions about AGW's impact on UK winters.
Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia
March 20, 2000
The Independent


"After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years.....".
England's winter in 2009-2010
The Guardian


harharhar silly scientist! They must've had a flaw in their models or something, geesh, but I'm sure it's all fixed now!

[cockerpunk]

no I'm reffering to the Medieval Warm period that the the Global warmers have tried to erase from history.

Also I have a "peer reveiwed" article for you

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/20/tipping-points-easy-come-easy-go/

no one is tryign to erase anything from hisotry, the midevil warming period is well known.

can you cite these research papers? i'd love to to read them.

the press more often then not gets science wrong, so i like to read the papers myself.

[cockerpunk]

Do you? It is pretty apparent in this thread that you summarily dismiss any links with contrary evidence without even taking a look at it, (just like the AGW proponents?) Pompus.

OK, I will take another whack at it. Here is one with 31,487 non-burger-flipper skeptics. That's an awlful lot of people to be dead wrong.
http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php

no, i dismiss amature skeptics, i challenged you to read about what the actual skeptics think. the actual scientific skeptics know understand and agree with most of the science presented that shows climate change. they however have alternate theories, which i have NEVER seen an amature skeptic present. go - go to the scientific research and learn about this stuff rather then just puking up whatever internet blog you happen to read says.

also, might try googling some of your "qualified skeptics" in your link, i googled 5 from minnestoa (my home state) and none of them were scientists. they did hold the degrees they were credited with, but all be in business. fortuently science isn't a popularity contest, and if we look at the scientific litterature, its obvious there is a solid consensus for climate change. i linked to that paper earlier in the thread.

look, if these skeptics really want to make a name for themselves, and really have compelling science to present against global warming, there are many routes where they can be peer reviewed and published, and rock the world as THE scientist who changed the world.

[cockerpunk]

"...within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event [in England]....children just aren't going to know what snow is."
-Dr David Viner, making predictions about AGW's impact on UK winters.
Senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia
March 20, 2000
The Independent


"After suffering snow, sleet, rain and consistently freezing temperatures, the knowledge that the Met Office has officially recognised winter 2009-10 as the coldest in 31 years.....".
England's winter in 2009-2010
The Guardian


harharhar silly scientist! They must've had a flaw in their models or something, geesh, but I'm sure it's all fixed now!

im confused how you think this is a point.

[VailSkibum]

its obvious there is a solid consensus for climate change.

Consensus is not fact.