Now Do You Believe in Global Warming?

Originally posted by fenceSitter

Originally posted by The X
Anthropomorphic global warming, well, different parts of the world will have record breaking hot/cold at different times.
The weather in the uk has been cold, and miserable and wet.
Just because one area of the world is having a freak heatwave does not imply the rest of the world is heating up.
AGW is a scam designed to provide the money through carbon credits to implement world government.

I agree that one area having a freak heatwave does not imply the world is heating up. I am looking at various extremes in conditions around the world. Is a cold, wet summer in the UK normal? Maybe that is an argument for the cause, not against it. I did say climate change right?

Climate change as a scam to implement world government sounds like to dumbest way to do it in my opinion, no offense.

Actually it would be the fastest and easiest way to accomplish it as people are easily manipulated by even subtle changes in weather.

AGW....

Thats why the outer planets are warming up too then??

Mannn

We humans are a powerful lot are we not??

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by fenceSitter

 

And so you just IGNORE 400,000 years of climate data?

Its just a cycle?

All those pesky scientist are just wrong, the earth is flat, and its at the center of the Solar System.

When we finally wake up, it will already be too late. Some may say, it already is.

Keep denying, doesn't matter any more.

400,000 years of data doesn't lie, nor deny.

Ummm. I didn't say it was 'just' a cycle. I recognize that the earth goes through natural cycles which plays a part but I thought I was clear in my post that I also believe humans play a large role in expediting the changes in our climate. I am not denying anything.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by fenceSitter
...
The same way Inhofe used 'Snowmageddon' as proof that climate change does not exist is no different than saying this year's heat wave is proof for the argument. I refuse the take part in that senseless 'tit for tat' debate.
...
If you are a skeptic and believe it is all a 'hoax' setup for a 'money grab' then at least stop blaming the scientists and put the blame where it belongs... the capitalists. I think most scientists are trying hard to prove the changes happening on our planet but there will always be greedy people trying to capitalize any way they can.

First of all, you need to learn the difference between Climate Change and ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change/ ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming...

Climate Change is NATURAL, and occurs ALL THE TIME, meanwhile AGW/ACC (ANTHROPOGENIC Global Warming/ANTHROPOGENIC Climate Change) is what people like me, and other skeptics, say are part of a hoax...

Second of all, now you want to blame AGW/ACC on Capitalists?... REALLY?...

You should be blaming it on the SOCIALIST/FASCIST global elites who want to implement a One World SOCIALIST/FASCIST Government...

AGW/ACC, just like the Occupy movement, and the economic crisis are being used as excuses to implement a One World Government. "Capitalism" is not to blame...

I get the difference between the two and I think both are happening. Why does it seem everyone only believes one side or the other?

I in no way blamed 'AGW/ACC on Capitalists'. You seem to believe that AGW is just a hoax by the scientists to make money. If anyone is making money on AGW (whether it is a hoax or not), it is not the scientist, it is the capitalists. They will take advantage of anything if it means they will make money off it. Concepts like carbon taxes were just ideas put forth by scientists in an effort to curb CO2 emissions. When the capitalist figured they could make money off of the idea, they ran with it.

And lastly, want to know who I blame? EVERYONE! I am not pointing fingers at anyone, this planet belongs to all and therefore it is everybody's responsibility to look after it. You and me included.

reply to post by geobro

Hopefully we can at least put this 'hoax' to bed once and for all...

HUMANS DWARF VOLCANOES FOR CO2 EMISSIONS

Despite statements made by climate change deniers, volcanoes release a tiny fraction of the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by human activities every year.

In fact, humans release roughly 135 times more carbon dioxide annually than volcanoes do, on average, according a new analysis. Put another way, humans emit in under three days the amount that volcanoes typically release in a year, according to the best estimates of volcanic emissions.

Originally posted by The X
Anthropomorphic global warming, well, different parts of the world will have record breaking hot/cold at different times.
The weather in the uk has been cold, and miserable and wet.
Just because one area of the world is having a freak heatwave does not imply the rest of the world is heating up.
AGW is a scam designed to provide the money through carbon credits to implement world government.

Deep sigh. Have you heard of the jetstream? Do you know how it moves? Do you know how its shape affects the weather underneath?.....Well quite obviously not. Please study and understand why we are having the extremes of hot and cold due to a locked jetstream meandering around the world. Its shape has changed due to worldwide average warmer conditions.

Your comment about a scam is utter illogical nonsense. In case it has escaped your notice governments are failing miserably in implementing anti GW measures. They should be going hell for leather if your statement was true. The US has been fed lies by its own government for years and here is the really shocking bit : a few years ago THEY ADMITTED IT. But the US skeptics ignored that ?!?!?!?!? Jesus you really could not make up how deeply entrenched cognitive dissonance about GW conspiracy is could you!

Jaw dropping ignorance and denial.

reply to post by ErEhWoN
Sorry, but you are jumping to conclusions here. Just because you think you can see atmospheric CO2 rising to unprecedented levels it doesn't mean that humanity is responsible for putting it up there. You are ignoring Henry's law of solubility which ordains that only about a 50th (at most!) of the CO2 that human society emits will end up as a permanent addition to the atmospheric greenhouse. The rest will be absorbed by the oceans and the other sinks on the planet. According to the IPCC, human CO2 emissions amount to about 30Gt (ie. 30 gigatonnes) per year at present, so the amount of that which gets added to the resident CO2 greenhouse is about 0.6Gt/year. This is equivalent to about 0.08ppmv/year. But the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse is growing at the rate of about 2ppmv/year. Now 0.08 is only 4% of 2, so where is the other 96% coming from? It has to be from natural emissions. So it appears that global human CO2 emissions are hardly adding anything to the CO2 greenhouse in fact and the amount of AGW that will be produced by such small annual increments will not even register on the thermometers that are being used for the temperature measurements. Really, the IPCC do seem to have made a vast mountain out of a very tiny molehill to me

Personally, I would be skeptical of the ice-core data. I suspect the ice-core data is only representative of the relative concentration of atmospheric CO2 – not absolute values. Gravitational compression from the snow compacting causes CO2 and other gases to be forced to the surface and back out into the atmosphere, so when measurements are taken of the CO2, they're likely to be an underestimation. However CAGW-advocates are careful to never mention this. Neither do they mention that the ice-core data has been edited and measurements as high as 2350ppmv were deleted from the record, they were not outlines or anomalies either, they were arbitrarily deleted by CAGW-proponents. The prevalence of such arbitrary decisions seems to be rife in the Warmist practice. There is a weight of evidence to suggest that the ice-core data underestimates true paleo-atmospheric CO2. 90,000 chemical measurements with a 3% error-margin show atmospheric CO2 as high as 440ppmv during 1880 and Stomata-data shows atmospheric CO2 as high as 459ppmv.

Then there's also the fact that the solubility of CO2 is some 70 times greater than N2O and 30 times greater than O2 and the ice-bubbles contain liquid even at very low temperatures which means the bubbles selectively absorb CO2 over the other gases, which are used as a baseline. Hence every CO2 molecule that is removed from the air-bubble into the water will underestimate the amount of CO2 that is measured in the air, since a lot of it has been absorbed by the water because of its high solubility. This is why different extraction methods yield such hugely different results, the wet-extraction method (which is a process where the water is melted) invariably shows greater CO2 levels (as high as 2350ppmv) than the dry-extraction method. However, don't get me wrong. I am by no means saying that the ice-core data is useless, it is not, I am saying that it should only be interpreted as relative measurements, not absolute measurements. The 'evidence' that the atmospheric CO2 level is unprecedented is weak at best and is based on manufactured data that has been edited deliberately in favor of CAGW. CAGW is a scam, it's a fraud. Believe in it at your peril.

I would recommend reading this brilliant article about global warming and environmentalism that has gripped society as of late. The following quote comes from the Club of Rome, whose current members include Bill Gates, Al Gore, Bill Clinton and David Rockefeller:

"The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself." - Club of Rome

They go on to say:

"Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely. Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature of many of today's problems do not always allow elected representatives to make competent decisions at the right time." - Club of Rome

Read the 'Agenda 21' section. Could be the most important thing you ever read.

Originally posted by ErEhWoN
reply to post by Bilk22

 

And what have the Co2 levels been in the last 2000 years? Can u find some info on that?

Don't lose focus on the problem by looking only at TEMPS.

Look at the Co2 levels.

Show me the Co2 levels, and give me your thoughts.

And there is nothing to be enthusiastic about. The climate fluctuations will effect you and your family as much as if does mine.

Although 3rd world countries will probably bear the brunt of discontent and death.

edit on 11-7-2012 by ErEhWoN because: (no reason given)

Can you prove cause and effect between CO2 levels and temps? It was anecdotal at best. Now it seems this bit of data pretty much puts that to rest.

Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling.

Source

I agree with the other poster, I believe it's a climate cycle more than global warming. Other planets in out solar system are also heating up. I think if I remember right, the polar ice caps on Mars are melting. Our planet continues to evolve and I think this is another period in its cycle.

reply to post by Advantage
The Dust bowl was a manmade disaster

The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent wind erosion.[1] Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural deep-rooted grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. These man-made conditions are again in place today, leading to speculation of a future Dust Bowl.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by EvanB
The rest of the solar system is not 'warming up'. If you are going to keep repeating this tired old argument, at least try to back it up with some evidence.....

I believe that the temperature fluctuates naturally.
It's normal.

And I especially believe that it's normal when you see graphs of the climate since the last ice age.



It fluctuates naturally.
This chart shows that.

reply to post by grey580


Yes, temp flucuates naturally. No scientist will disagree. To suggest otherwise is a straw man (electricuniverse knows all about them )

But ....

Elephants die from natural causes. Does that mean humans cannot be responsible for the decline in elephant population?

It's not a case of one or the other. It's a case of whether you accept only one cause, or many causes - including humans.

I find it funny less than 30 years ago TPTB were pushing 'Global Cooling'.

A new article in Nature should do the trick of debunking global warming. The question is, will anyone notice? Here's an article a bit more user firiendly describing the issue.

Must we go through what "hide the decline" means again? I can't believe how easily people swallowed the Kool Aid on this warmist agenda.

Originally posted by Atzil321
reply to post by Advantage

 

The Dust bowl was a manmade disaster

The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent wind erosion.[1] Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural deep-rooted grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. These man-made conditions are again in place today, leading to speculation of a future Dust Bowl.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now get out of wikipedia and go research the climate issues at the time. The Bowl may have been exacerbated by the overfarming, but the root was drought and unusual periods of intense heat. Are you saying that overfarming changed the climate of the time???

reply to post by AndyMayhew


I certainly do think that humans aren't helping the environment with pollution and things of that nature.
We do locally influence the environment and certainly can cause ecological disasters with things like oil spills.
And certainly CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

But to say that worldwide we are definitely causing the temperature to rise?
Especially when we are not 100% sure about all the variables involved in climate change.
Even if most scientists think they do.

I"m not convinced.

To add to my post above, here is the trend line showing the climate is cooling, not warming:



A snippet from the article in Nature:

Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records. The long-term trend now revealed in maximum latewood density data is in line with coupled general circulation models indicating albedo-driven feedback mechanisms and substantial summer cooling over the past two millennia in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes. These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructions relying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.

And an explanation from the Johannes Guttenberg University in Mainz:

Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods."

I also hope we haven;t forgotten the outright scientific fraud perpetrated by the scientists involved in the Climategate emails released a couple of years ago now. Here's the pic:



It's been awhile and I forgot where I grabbed it, but the whole story is quite well presented in The Hockey Stick Illusion; climategate and the corruption of science. (It reads like a mystery thriller, by the way.)

But back to the pic, here's what happened. The green line disappears on the right because it would show a decline in temperatures. Well, all the rest there show an increase, so what's the big deal? The deal is that the green line is a graph of tree ring data. The tree ring data show a decline in temperature when real temperature gauges show an increase. Why is this important? Because they used tree ring data to make the Medieval Warming Period go away. They needed to do that because this Warming Period (and the Roman Warming Period) showed temperatures hotter than today, when Scotland grew grapes and Greenland has substantial agriculture. It's COLDER today than it was then, not warmer.

So if tree ring data is inaccurate today, how can you use it to show temperature in the past? You can't have it both ways, so the scientists, in their honorable way, just fudged the data to match their philosophy of Global Warming.

This whole thing is fraught with fraud to serve a political agenda.

reply to post by schuyler



Thats what I had gathered when cutting through the hysteria and global warming nonsense. The truth of it is the solid research shows a pattern of global cooling is in effect and will be a "snap back" event. When records are being broken for heat and everything is dying its hard to realize this doesnt contraindicate a cooling trend though Everything agrees with a cooling trend, including the upcoming period of solar inactivity. Astronomers have evidence that periods of solar calm coincide with global cooling and we are getting ready for that to occur.