Global Warming

[Radicool]

Let's start with; I don't give a flying f*** about your opinion on Global Warming, I don't give
a s*** about what channel nine news has said, and I don't want to read any articles without
scientific proof and sources. THIS IS ABOUT SCIENCE NOT UNJUSTIFIED STATEMENTS!

I'm sure there have been threads about Global Warming but I wanted to reopen a new thread to
discuss more modern science regarding Global Warming. We only need to discuss:

Is Global Warming Caused by Man?

I've always been against global warming, but of course I will follow the science. This video is
very informative:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI (Please also watch parts 2, 3 and 4)

This was posted in 2007. Please post more modern sources of information regarding man's effect on global
warming. Let's please stick to science and if you quote information, please source it or it's invalid.

 

[gorillabull]

like tha man said: its gonna get colder its not a matter of if again, its a matter of when
if i were you id listen to him and start hoarding all the canned food i can find.
winter is coming

 

[Chaosy]

I dont care about it, simple as that

 

[Radicool]

I dont care about it, simple as that

Look this thread is for everyone to learn a little about Global Warming. I was interested to see if somebody could provide some more recent scientific evidence which proves or disproves man made global warming. I didn't want stupid comments like yours popping up. Don't post here again if you have nothing relevant to say please.

 

[Dawn]

I couldn't watch the video but as far as I know and as far as I understand about it, Global Warming is natural. It is just amplified my man's activity.

 

[Heinvers]

I already knew those facts. I also knew about that little ice age during medieval era in Europe. Nothing new soo far. Although it could raise the sea levels, which of course could mean the relocation or death of millions from the low coastal areas

 

[nhs325]

Mainly by man, ofcourse. We created those holes on the ozon layer, so we basicly created global warming.

 

[DESTROYER123]

Burning carbon emits carbon dioxide (co2) and water (H2O).
co2 creates a barier around earth that doesn't allow sun beams to be reflected back at space from where they came.
We need to reduce the amounts of co2 in the atmosphere.
Plants use Co2 for photosynthesis.
CO2 + H2 + photons → 2(CH2O) + O2 (not sure if that's the right equation)
If we plant more plants (lul plant plants) then co2 in the atmospehre will be reduced (or reduce the amount of carbon getting burned).
Now go plant some plants.

 

[Radicool]

Can we source valid evidence of anybody's claims? I'm hearing a lot of "it's caused by man", "we need to plant more plants", but its unsupported theories until scientific proof comes in. Can we also keep this on topic.

Is Global Warming Caused by Man?

 

[GhostWolf]

It's funny how you open this thread with that bold paragraph, when nobody actually knows why it happens.
You essentially made this thread have zero value. But hey, maybe all the highly intelligent scientists on the hive will crack the case!

 

[nhs325]

YES IT IS. Mainly by man, in every cause. We always said not to cut trees and stuff, but the true reason is we are creating and will create holes on the ozon layer. Those holes make the sunbeams shine back at Earth, causing ices to melt, water to rises, and extreme wheather like. The superstorm in Philipines, or even worst, the super- tsunami in Japan. So we caused it. There is no way we can prevent it. We only made those solutions but only to noting. The only thing we can do now is to "repair" the ozon layer somehow, or we just killed ourdelves.

 

[Zombie]

Global warming is caused by man.

Someone published a study somewhere, which predicted a "Global Warming". It got into the media, people overreacted and over exaggerated it, and created an unconscious 'awareness' and finger pointing for a phenomenon that has been returning every 500 years to Earth by itself.

"Global warming" is just a mass panic, created by people, for people. So yeah. It was created by man. I guess "environment conscious" products didn't sell properly.

 

[Heinvers]

Yeah that too. But also the Earth goes through periods of ice ages and moist greenhouse eras u know! Maybe we just accelerated a bit. In a few thousands of years the next ice age should be coming. So yeah man could have a lil' bit helped at it's acceleration. But I don't think it could be that serious.

 

[Nuclear]

Anyone who considers making ignorant statements might want to look here first:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

 

[Heinvers]

Ahem. It was not an ignorant statement! I know about the increased CO2 levels. Thank you very much!

 

[gorillabull]

Anyone who considers making ignorant statements might want to look here first:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

according to that human activities have a close to zero effect on global weather its mostly natural processes that dictate it

 

[Heinvers]

also the Earth goes through periods of ice ages and moist greenhouse eras u know! Maybe we just accelerated a bit. In a few thousands of years the next ice age should be coming.

exactly what I said here

 

[Radicool]

It's funny how you open this thread with that bold paragraph, when nobody actually knows why it happens.
You essentially made this thread have zero value. But hey, maybe all the highly intelligent scientists on the hive will crack the case!

Ehh what? The paragraph was trying to stop people commenting without evidence to support their statements. Unfortunately it didn't work. Yet there is definitely a point of this thread. I am having trouble finding modern scientific information regarding man made global warming. There is nothing wrong with asking somebody to provide such information.

 

[Zombie]

Read this if you want scientific information: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Global-Warming-Hoax-Expanded/dp/1934956139

EDIT: ehehehe....

 

[Nuclear]

according to that human activities have a close to zero effect on global weather its mostly natural processes that dictate it

You mean this?

Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.

It means that most of the previous climate changes are attributed to natural causes, not that the current changes are.

Literally the next paragraph:

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read this if you want scientific information: http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Global-Warming-Hoax-Expanded/dp/1934956139

Looks like bullshit.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

Unfortunately it didn't work.

I wonder why Kappa

 

[jonhysone]

There is nothing which's called 'Global Warming' Trust me , there is another thing we should worry about

 

[Nuclear]

You're not making sense.

 

[Radicool]

You're not making sense.

He may be referring to global cooling which is ironic seeing as we are so concerned about global warming. The modern term for this phenomenon is in fact "climate change" as the scientists are accepting there is more to it than just warming. I think climate change has come in because too many are too stubborn to admit their global warming was a load of horse shit.

Many sources (including the videos I posted) are proposing that the Earth goes through cycles of warming and cooling and we are currently in a peak of warmth. This peak is possibly the reason why so many people believe the industrial revolution was the cause of these increases in temperatures. The "other thing we should be worrying about" is perhaps the plummet in global temperatures as predicted in scientific studies. Not sure how many degrees this plummet is however.

Anyway, I'm open to discussion if people can source any other studies to say otherwise.

 

[Nuclear]

Yes, there's a natural process which we are accelerating, here's a very simple link which shows that we're well past the point of natural rise:

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

And regarding the terms

the term climate change has become synonymous with anthropogenic global warming. Within scientific journals, global warming refers to surface temperature increases while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas levels will affect.

And obviously it's easy to find professors and crooks who are paid by the industry to spread the idea that everything is fine and we should just relax and keep releasing greenhouse gases.

I found this handy link about the guy whose lecture you posted, you can see his every statement refuted
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

 

[jonhysone]

Umm and that thing which is named 'Ozone hole' ... doesn't it release some of CO2 ?? Wtf ?

 

[Nuclear]

Ozone hole is a hole in the ozone layer (duh), so it doesn't release anything, it just lets more UV radiation through, since ozone layer absorbs UV radiation.

 

[Adaethus]

Umm and that thing which is named 'Ozone hole' ... doesn't it release some of CO2 ?? Wtf ?

Next time please keep out of discussions you know nothing about.

-----

I completely agree with what Nuclear has been saying.

The issue of global warming when it comes to scientific support is nowhere near 50/50, in fact 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

The 3% are either ignorant, misinformed or they get donations from oil companies.
Probably a combination of all of those.

Global warming is caused by man.

 

[TriggerHappy]

There is nothing which's called 'Global Warming' Trust me , there is another thing we should worry about

Yeah, we totally trust you over the entire scientific community.

Anyways we're all fucked.

 

[Radicool]

Next time please keep out of discussions you know nothing about.

Agreed. Johnny, check out this mate: http://www.environment.gov.au/topic...ic-greenhouse-gases/ozone-science/ozone-layer

The issue of global warming when it comes to scientific support is nowhere near 50/50, in fact 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

The 3% are either ignorant, misinformed or they get donations from oil companies.
Probably a combination of all of those.

I find this comment ironic. The fact you have provided is based of bias science. The investigation looked over 12000 papers regarding a verdict on whether humans caused global warming or not. Of these 12000 papers, 4000 expressed a position (undecided) and only 1200 papers actually stated a position.

Of the overall 12000 papers:

- Less than 11.6% scientists agreed that humans are causing global warming.
- Less than 33.3% scientists were taken as believing humans are causing global warming. Don't forget the study decides which side the 33.3% scientists are taking despite their actual opinion.

Btw, don't think this study reflects all scientists. I'm pretty sure there are more than 12,000 scientists in the world yet alone papers! Who's to say how fairly they picked these papers in the first place? For all we know all these papers could have come from the one scientist...

Yes, there's a natural process which we are accelerating, here's a very simple link which shows that we're well past the point of natural rise:

I have looked into a lot of this websites claims which supports the idea that humans are causing global warming. I have found multiple sources to be incorrect, inconsistent or irrelevant. I can elaborate if needed, just ask (was typing a long discussion then comp powered out...lol). However, the main point I think I have concluded is the large rise in CO2. It appears we have risen CO2 beyond its natural level (even in past cycles of warming and cooling) however I need to find more sources to confirm that these levels of CO2 are in fact abnormal. Additionally, I'm yet to be convinced CO2 is actually the cause of rising temperatures at all...

 

[Nuclear]

I find this comment ironic. The fact you have provided is based of bias science. The investigation looked over 12000 papers regarding a verdict on whether humans caused global warming or not. Of these 12000 papers, 4000 expressed a position (undecided) and only 1200 papers actually stated a position.

Of the overall 12000 papers:

- Less than 11.6% scientists agreed that humans are causing global warming.
- Less than 33.3% scientists were taken as believing humans are causing global warming. Don't forget the study decides which side the 33.3% scientists are taking despite their actual opinion.

Btw, don't think this study reflects all scientists. I'm pretty sure there are more than 12,000 scientists in the world yet alone papers! Who's to say how fairly they picked these papers in the first place? For all we know all these papers could have come from the one scientist...

What investigation? Source? And just because something is "a paper" doesn't mean it's worth even wiping your ass with, there are thousands of crooks publishing shit science for their corporate overlords.

I have looked into a lot of this websites claims which supports the idea that humans are causing global warming. I have found multiple sources to be incorrect, inconsistent or irrelevant. I can elaborate if needed, just ask (was typing a long discussion then comp powered out...lol).

Yes please, do elaborate.

However, the main point I think I have concluded is the large rise in CO2. It appears we have risen CO2 beyond its natural level (even in past cycles of warming and cooling) however I need to find more sources to confirm that these levels of CO2 are in fact abnormal.

How is it not clear? Look at the graph, it shows continuous cycle until massive surge (the levels from hundreds of thousands of years ago are measured from ancient ice that has trapped air from those times).

Additionally, I'm yet to be convinced CO2 is actually the cause of rising temperatures at all...

Here's why: when solar radiation is absorbed by the earth's surface, it's converted into heat energy and that causes the emission of infrared radiation. Now, that emitted infrared radiation begins it's journey to the space, but some of it is absorbed by the greenhouse gases (like CO2), and then some of it is reflected back to earth. That's why it's called the greenhouse effect, like a greenhouse, it lets in energy, but doesn't give away energy as easily.

Again: Light goes in, infrared goes out, but some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases.

 

[Radicool]

What investigation? Source?

The study has been sourced already. My comment was my own analytical conclusion drawn from their study. I'm trying to discredit the "97%" study.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
In Depth: http://skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-cook-et-al-2013.html

And just because something is "a paper" doesn't mean it's worth even wiping your ass with, there are thousands of crooks publishing shit science for their corporate overlords.

I know. And I already dis valued the notion of scientific papers.

Yes please, do elaborate.

Maybe later. Its late here at the moment.

How is it not clear? Look at the graph, it shows continuous cycle until massive surge (the levels from hundreds of thousands of years ago are measured from ancient ice that has trapped air from those times).

Scientific studies must be repeated for reliability. I cannot draw a conclusion from a single graph. I need to see the data from many different sources which ultimately say the same thing. A lot of websites source the same graph and hence I sense a load of horseshit.

Its simple scientific and research principles. Test hypothesis, retest.

Here's why: when solar radiation is absorbed by the earth's surface, it's converted into heat energy and that causes the emission of infrared radiation. Now, that emitted infrared radiation begins it's journey to the space, but some of it is absorbed by the greenhouse gases (like CO2), and then some of it is reflected back to earth. That's why it's called the greenhouse effect, like a greenhouse, it lets in energy, but doesn't give away energy as easily.

Again: Light goes in, infrared goes out, but some of it is absorbed by greenhouse gases.

Yes I paid attention in year 9 class. This isn't a high school debate. There have been many articles suggesting CO2 really isn't that big of a greenhouse gas. It seems pro global warming scientists completely ignore all greenhouse gases but CO2. The biggest one out there is what? Water vapor. That's right. Clouds.

Theoretically (my speculation) increases of temperatures would increase precipitation, creating more water vapor in the atmosphere (clouds) and hence temperatures rise further. This brings more precipitation and so on. It's a cycle. I'd be interested to see if such studies have been conducted.

 

[Nuclear]

Scientific studies must be repeated for reliability. I cannot draw a conclusion from a single graph. I need to see the data from many different sources which ultimately say the same thing. A lot of websites source the same graph and hence I sense a load of horseshit.

Its simple scientific and research principles. Test hypothesis, retest.

You're being absolutely ridiculous. The sources are at the bottom of the page that the graph is from. Or shall we meet and go together to do our own studies and extract ancient ice?

It seems pro global warming scientists completely ignore all greenhouse gases but CO2. The biggest one out there is what? Water vapor. That's right. Clouds. Theoretically (my speculation) increases of temperatures would increase precipitation, creating more water vapor in the atmosphere (clouds) and hence temperatures rise further. This brings more precipitation and so on. It's a cycle. I'd be interested to see if such studies have been conducted.

This isn't a "CO2 vs other causes" discussion, this is about whether or not climate change is happening, and I don't see how it being caused partially by water vapor helps your point.

Besides, that's one of the worrying things, when temperatures rise, it also causes a rise in water vapor, and now we've got ourselves a nice cycle.

 

[Deleted member 219079]

This isn't a "CO2 vs other causes" discussion, this is about whether or not climate change is happening, and I don't see how it being caused partially by water vapor helps your point.

Somehow I find that funny

But if you guys really want serious debates, why not post about this on medivh's tower? :/

 

[Nuclear]

Because nobody posts there.

 

[Radicool]

You're being absolutely ridiculous. The sources are at the bottom of the page that the graph is from. Or shall we meet and go together to do our own studies and extract ancient ice?

I didn't see them. Ill look into it.

This isn't a "CO2 vs other causes" discussion, this is about whether or not climate change is happening, and I don't see how it being caused partially by water vapor helps your point.

Yes it is. Let me use an analogy. Say humans are pumping nitrogen into the atmosphere and nitrogen levels increase. Nitrogen only contributes to 0.00000001% of global warming, yet we worry about pumping nitrogen into the atmosphere. Its silly right? Whether or not CO2 has any significant impact on global warming is an important issue. If CO2 is not that big of a deal then why worry about it? As I said, the largest greenhouse gas is water vapor.

If anybody has information regarding the matter, bring it up please.