How long before Global Warming kills us all?

Originally posted by melatonin
I'm not even bothered to scare you. Just telling you the current science.

I don't mean you personally, I mean the whole GW agenda. In fact that is why I started this. Telling me we are all gonna die doesn't mean squat until you say we are all gonna die tomorrow. Most if not all of what we (the public) have been told is fantastic lies meant to scare us all into blindly following Al Gore. Some of us wont do that. I haven't seen any evidence to convince me that this is a legitimate concern. I get the fact that you have. I just don't agree at this point. I think this became a politically driven entity. It's for the money, not the science.

Originally posted by Aristophrenia
At 6 degrees the methane hydrates will become unstable and potentially cause fire storms hundreds of times larger than any normal hurricane and wipe out all life.

I was right there with you thinking that maybe you could sway my opinion,
and then that came up. 6 degrees warmer and we all die in a firestorm? Really? What about 6 degrees cooler? Day after Tomorrow kind of death?
For the record, you are the kind of guy I was talking about.

Just for sh*ts and giggles, who ELSE posting their opinions here about global warning has more than one college degree in the hard physical sciences?
Anyone, anyone, Beuler, ...Bueler...
Mr Gore has never earned ANY degree, having flunked out of every college he's attended, including divinity school.

How long before Global Warming kills us all?

OK so the climate warms, resulting in more water evaporation and precipitation.

That results in more cloudy skies, and what do we see from cloudy skies........A cooling.

I don't think the Earth would have survived 4.5 billion years without some inbuilt safety systems.

If i recall correctly, wasn't the email leaked saying Global Warming isnt real and it is just the earths natural cycle?

Global warming is already killing people.

Sometimes a hurricane's winds are a couple of mph stronger, or there's a quarter of inch extra rainfall in a storm or a heatwave is a degree higher ...... and as a result someone who might not otherwise have died, dies. We can't prove it of course, maybe GW didn't have an effect, maybe the person would have died anyway. But over time, as such events become slightly more extreme or slightly more frequent, it's likely the some such deaths will ultimately be down to GW. There's been an increase in mortality rate in the UK over recent weeks compared with normal - attributed to the warm weather. Has human activity meant that temps are a little higher than they would otherwise be? And if so has human activity contributed to these deaths? At the very least we've created concrete jungles which retain the heat more ....

Meanwhile thousands of people die each year due to deforestation ....... And that's something which not only affects the climate as well, but which we can stop right now. Today.

reply to post by Essan


Sorry no, just... no.
Your assumptions are absolutely unproven and indicate circular reasoning. Your line of reasoning is based on a string of unproven conditional "ifs" which have at least as much likelyhood to be "nots". Dear leader stacks a dozen implausible if-thens and draws fantastical conclusions and its no less pernicious and fraudulent and unacceptable here.
Do you assume that if we control the climate at some level that nobody will die?
Please fill me in on the details of terraforming earth into the garden of eden.

Ah the usual Al Gore attacks because the anti-GW crowd doesn't have anything constructive to ad. So all they can do is constantly drag out the over-beaten horse called Al Gore, who was a guy in a movie.

So much easier to hate a messenger(one guy in a movie) then too debate real information.

Instead it is either one of two things: Al Gore and some email from the IPCC.


Only five months ago the talking heads on Fox were saying that there couldn't be gw with the record snowfall in the Northeast. Now in only five months we have record breaking heat and drought. Yea, funny how it got quiet.

I agree with the poster though there are just more pressing matters going on in the news right now.

reply to post by nixie_nox


One cannot attck the credibility of one that has none.
WHen Mr Failure gives his homes and vehicles to charities and moves to a 2 br batchelor pad and takes the bus, I'd be willing to believe at least some of what he says.
Like other elitist multimillionaires, he needs to hoard and control ever more money so that the can afford a masseause that can keep her dang mouth shut

Just when you think that Global Warming has been completely debunked, up pops a thread like this.

For years scientists, hungry for grant money and government approval, distorted, manipulated, and deleted data, in an all out effort to fool the alarmists and the gullible.

Note to the alarmists and the gullible: THEY LIED TO YOU!

reply to post by mordant1


Human activity creates urban heat islands. Urban heat islands mean higher temps. People die due to higher temps. Human activity causes climate change which causes people to die. QED. And not a molecule of CO2 involved!

btw I assume you do not disagree with my comments about deforestation?

reply to post by Carseller4


And the earth is flat and was created in 4004BC

You can beleive in religion or you can accept science. Up to you.

(either way, don't believe what you read in the newspapers!)

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by Carseller4

 

And the earth is flat and was created in 4004BC

You can beleive in religion or you can accept science. Up to you.

(either way, don't believe what you read in the newspapers!)

Or you can just accept distorted, manipulated, and deleted data that scientists used to get grants and receive favor from the government, by promoting Global Warming.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by Carseller4]

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by mordant1

 

Human activity creates urban heat islands. Urban heat islands mean higher temps. People die due to higher temps. Human activity causes climate change which causes people to die. QED. And not a molecule of CO2 involved!

btw I assume you do not disagree with my comments about deforestation?

Your assumptions are on the order of saying if I scratch myself on the knee, I bruise and bleed everywhere. Micro climate and global climate are separate issues. The temp of mars has gon up as well, the same way, that you cant explain by any 'man made' explanations
Deforestation is bad, but has nothing to do with the total energy being dumped on the planet by the sun, and in any even, if you want forest to grow faster you need higher CO2 levels. In any event all evils are not connected functionally, and to think so is simply sloppy and wishful thinking because not all dots are intended to be connected no matter how much we'd like them to be.
The only salient issue is can it be proven that man affects global temp and it cannot be done. There is no benefit wrt global temps to allow a ruling elite to extract vast sums of money from the people to pay themselves for a self serving assumption. The planets big and has survived bigger threats and is still here. It's not going anywhere in your lifetime. i'd rather burn up than pay the elites which essentiall created problems with the environment for their lives of luxury and disproportional consumption than live in a ditch while they party on their walled estates and yachts and jets criss crossing the globe. I've been following this issue objectively as a scientist for many years and while having started on the premise that man made warming is likely I have disproven it for myself completely and that CO2 is acutally a good thing. ALL the carbon on this planet is cycled continuously it existed at the beginning and doesnt stray much to be destructive one way or another. Can other substances be actually deadly? Sure, but nobody is doing anything about THOSE because the PTB are already making money off of creating those, so the real pollutants that are a threat already serve the elites in their quest for ever increasing wealth and control and THATS why nobody wants to control sulfides and nitrogen oxides that ARE toxic.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by mordant1]

Unfortunately, to answer your question the global warming set would need to be able to make predictions with a high empirical content that could be easily refuted when those predictions are tested in the future. Instead the believers have tried to be as vague as possible by renaming there movement with something nobody disagrees with; the climate is changing (Climate Change).

Last time I went on a weather site and watched a radar loop I could tell that indeed it looks like the the climate is alway changing. Actually I didn't need to watch the loop to realize that flux occurs in the gaseous plazma mixture that makes up our atmousphere that constitutes our climate. The gases in our climate are materials made of atoms and all material items in the universe exist in a constant state of flux; always changing. The rate of change may vary but change is always occuring in the material world. Even at absolute zero, atoms are still moving due to the powers of zero point energy.

In order to corroborate any scientific theory I think it is necessary to make predictions with a high empirical content (thermometer readings around the globe) that would have a low probability of ocurring without the theory being true(higher co2 emmissions = higher than expected surface air temps). And for a theory to be considered well corroborated, repeated such predictions would have to be accurate. But what I have seen from the global warming movement has seemed to me to rely more on ad hoc confirmations.

Originally posted by QtheQ
Instead the believers have tried to be as vague as possible by renaming there movement with something nobody disagrees with; the climate is changing (Climate Change).

Please show me exactly where in the chronological history of this issue they "renamed their movement". Or better yet, read this thread and then come back and talk to me.

And for a theory to be considered well corroborated, repeated such predictions would have to be accurate. But what I have seen from the global warming movement has seemed to me to rely more on ad hoc confirmations.

The global warming issue emerged over 100 years ago when people like Nobel prize winner Svante Arhennius made predictions about the effects of rising CO2 levels that turned out to be very close to what we're seeing today.

The thing is though - 100 years ago emissions were nowhere near what they are now, so the "movement" wasn't considered particularly urgent. As industry and emissions began to dramatically increase over the next century, so did the scientific focus. And since then all the science and observational data has done is completely corroborate and reaffirm what those 100 year old predictions said from the start:



So if global warming really was nothing but an ad-hoc political movement, it's amazing how they managed to get people like Arrhenius in on it. I wonder what sort of benefit he stands to make from carbon trading considering he's been dead for over 80 years.

reply to post by mc_squared


So, this Aranus fellow, he's a god or something and infallible? The more detailed data, which couldnthave possibley bee established 100 yr ago as ice and mud core data were not available and analytic instrumentation wan not invented demonstrate that CO2 rises as a FOLLOWING indicator of temperature determined by decreased solubility in CO2 stored in the oceans.
CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas at 4 one hundreths of one percent of the atmosphere, even oxygen and nitrogen are much more significant. Association is not causation.
Water vapor is one of the most important and even so, given the complication of calculating water vapor because it varies so much throughout the day, isnt even included

reply to post by mordant1


Arrhenius is not a God, just a visionary scientist whose original hypothesis is being increasingly reaffirmed with each passing decade.

The "carbon lags temperature" argument is just another beaten to death red herring/myth pushed out by the denial industry to try and obfuscate the facts about CO2's role as a greenhouse gas.

Here are a number of proper debunkings on this myth:

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

Climate Denial Crock of the Week - The "Temp leads Carbon" Crock

‘CO2 doesn’t lead, it lags’—Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming

Of course carbon was part of a natural cycle in the past, and it still is today - but that has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether or not human caused emissions have in effect completely corrupted and altered this natural process.

In fact, if you'd read through some of the links I left in the last post - you'd see the entire anthropogenic global warming theory was largely born out of attempts to first understand CO2's natural role in previous cycles such as ice ages and deglaciations.

The fact that CO2 would lag temperatures in the historical record is exactly what was predicted by scientists validating AGW, and confirming this prediction through ice core records is what helped establish the science that much more - not detract from it.

It helped the science because it largely confirmed how much CO2 ultimately amplified those orbital temperature effects that initially released it. The denialists of course never bother mentioning this part though. They simply love pointing to the graph and banking on the public's weak understanding of these things, saying "Loooook: CO2 follows temperature! It's an effect and therefore can't be a cause, case closed."

Then they try to act like this is some embarrassing gaff that the scientists don't want you to know, when in fact it is one of the most conclusive pieces of evidence out there for AGW. Because the CO2 in that graph is not merely following temperature - it is also pushing it from behind.


Meanwhile:

CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas at 4 one hundreths of one percent of the atmosphere, even oxygen and nitrogen are much more significant. Association is not causation.

Yes, and quantity is not quality.

CO2's importance as a greenhouse gas has much less to do with it's relative abundance in the atmosphere than it does with the shape and bonding properties of the molecule itself. It is all about how well carbon dioxide functions as a (temporary) dipole that determines it's significance as a greenhouse gas.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d6604ec17f5a.gif[/atsimg]

This is why molecules like O2 and N2 have no significance, despite their relative abundance. Because from an infrared dipole perspective they are essentially "inert", while CO2 is quite volatile. If you want to actually investigate the physics involved yourself, maybe have a look here.

Because as I've said on this site numerous times now: 99% of AGW can basically be proven in the core physics and mathematics - which is nothing but number crunching and established scientific principles that have no ambiguity or political agenda. Anyone can verify these things for themselves if they're willing to put in the mental effort. But of course nobody ever wants to bother...




[edit on 11-7-2010 by mc_squared]

Have a read from a site that doesn't hide and manipulate figures and findings.

NZ climate science

Originally posted by Essan
Global warming is already killing people.

I wouldn't argue with that, but not from hurricanes, because the number of hurricanes has actually been declining in recent years and there's been no statistically significant warming since 1998. All the wasted money that has gone into AGW-propaganda could have easily have been put into more worthwhile endeavours, like cancer treatment, helping lift less-industrialised nations out of poverty, or feeding Somalia babies. The rush for biofuels has already claimed millions of lives, thanks to the AGW scare. It baffles me as to why so many people have just credulously bought into AGW; no theory in history has ever been so transparently false and riddled with so much corruption. People really will believe in anything.

[edit on 14-7-2010 by Nathan-D]

reply to post by network dude

Its not just our planet heating all the planets in our solar system are. Recently i viewed a youtube vid mr. akako" i dont know how to spell his name sorry" and europa was spewing out huge geysers of water he said this was a game changer.