Global Warming Validated

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

So what the hell do you think keeps Earth's heat from radiating into space?

 

Christ's love!?

This isn't telling us anything we didn't already know. The earth has always retained heat, as does every other planet except the gas giants (which actually produce heat, they let off more than comes in). If the earth didn't retain heat it would end up like the moon, where everybody would freeze to death at night. It isn't just the atmosphere either. A large part of it is absorbed by the oceans, and the earth itself. This study can't tell us anything unless they can give us the data from 100 years ago, 200 years ago, etc., probably up to about 2000 because climate change can happen over a long period of time and the 500 years before this century were abnormally cold. This study is a good starting point, since we have actual mathematical data which we can use to compare with future readings in say 100 years, but of itself it says absolutely nothing about global warming.

 

Mike do you even believe that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas?

 

It is, but its a really weak one that won't retain much heat unless there is just an absurd amount of it. It has been estimated that if you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from what we have right now, you will get an increase in global temperature of about 1.5 Celcius. The worst common greenhouse gas is H20, which volcanos spew out constantly and is produced from such things as burning hydrogen. The temperature increased more in 1998 alone due to the exceptionally strong El Nino than could ever result from a realistic amount of CO2. Go into a sauna, and you will see that H20 is very good at retaining heat.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Wow BigOleSmitty, so you're proving that parties interested in the matter are funding research?

 

Someone call Captain Obvious.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Wow BigOleSmitty, so you're proving that parties interested in the matter are funding research? 

 

Someone call Captain Obvious.

I'm trying to find serious scientists that believe global warming is a hoax or whatever. Ones not funded by Scaife or big oil.

[CanadianChris 0]

Wow BigOleSmitty, so you're proving that parties interested in the matter are funding research? 

 

Someone call Captain Obvious.

I'm trying to find serious scientists that believe global warming is a hoax or whatever. Ones not funded by Scaife or big oil.

David Bellamy does. And, of course, the global warming scientists instantly threw him under the bus.

 

Now, of course, his angle, if you want to call it that, is that he's a conservationist and is concerned about wind farms springing up as an alternate energy source and destroying the area's habitat. But, as far as I can tell, he hasn't been funded by an oil company or anything.

[EricMM 0]

The difference between CO2 emissions from cars and the CO2 emissions from volcanoes is that we can do something about one and not the other.

 

Everyone knows weather and things like El Nino are cyclical and inevitable, but things like Global Warming are not. And GW is NOT something we want. Even if the earth is on a temperature upswing right now, there's absolutely no reason to worsen things, and cause relatively permenant changes.

 

It has been estimated that if you double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere from what we have right now, you will get an increase in global temperature of about 1.5 Celcius.

 

If people are going to go on about me dropping junk science then I demand a source for this as well. And it better not be anyone on smitty's ever growing list.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The difference between CO2 emissions from cars and the CO2 emissions from volcanoes is that we can do something about one and not the other.

 

Granted. But isn't the point of this argument to find out if it is even necessary.

 

Everyone knows weather and things like El Nino are cyclical and inevitable, but things like Global Warming are not.

 

Of course it is. There are different periods of glaciation seperated by periods of relative warmth, even within the Quarternary. Any geologist will tell you that.

 

And GW is NOT something we want. Even if the earth is on a temperature upswing right now, there's absolutely no reason to worsen things, and cause relatively permenant changes.

 

It is good for some areas (ex. Ontario), bad for others (ex. California), and no difference to some (ex. Panama). It depends on regional conditions, continental alignment, latitude, etc. I really don't want to get into explaining weather patterns and climate change to specific regions as it would take a long time. Just generally speaking, the eastern interior of North America will benefit as will much of East Asia (specifically Japan, Korea & Northern China), the biggest losers (besides the Arctic) will be the west coast of North America and South-Western Europe (specifically France & Spain).

 

But generally speaking, if it isn't occuring natural, then yes, it probably isn't a good thing that it is happening.

 

If people are going to go on about me dropping junk science then I demand a source for this as well. And it better not be anyone on smitty's ever growing list.

 

From my climatology professor at Carleton, Dr. Tim Patterson, although most geologists I've met agree with him. The problem with alot of scientists working on this is that they simply aren't looking at a large enough scale. Geological societies (such as the Geological Society of America) and paleoclimatologists have the advantage of looking at the past to see if what is happening in the present is that abnormal.

 

The greenhouse effect has an important influence on the climate of the Earth. The temperature of the Earth is primarily maintained by the transport of energy by atmospheric circulation and ocean currents and the balance between the flux of incoming solar radiation and the amount of outgoing infrared radiation back to space. Greenhouse gases, clouds and aerosols in the atmosphere trap some of the reflected radiation from the surface, causing a natural greenhouse effect that makes the planet habitable. Without this natural greenhouse effect, the global ambient temperature would be substantially colder.

 

Atmospheric greenhouse gases comprise less than 0.1 per cent of the air. These gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), as well as the most important one, water vapour (H2O).

 

Water vapour is the principal greenhouse gas, comprising 99 per cent of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The amount of water vapour has the most significant influence on global temperature of any greenhouse gas, followed by the warming effect of water in all its phases in clouds.

 

Despite the rhetoric of the Kyoto Protocol, CO2 is at most a minor contributor to global climate change. The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere has varied significantly over geologic time. Through most of the last 500 million years atmospheric CO2 content has been higher — up to 18 times higher — than at present. Strikingly, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today's value during the Ordovician glaciation, around 440 million years ago. CO2 is simply a minor driver in the many factors that influence climate.

 

The percentages of CO2 in the atmosphere above the Antarctic Ice Cap for the last 150,000 years have been measured in air bubbles enclosed in ice cores. Over this interval, CO2 levels have closely paralleled temperatures. However, detailed analysis of CO2 concentrations indicates that CO22 levels often rose and peaked several hundred years after temperature. These results further emphasize that climate change drives major changes in CO2, not the reverse. Temperature change affects the carbon cycle, which then produces fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 concentration.

 

During the last 300 years, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen from 275 parts per million to around 360 parts per million, a 30-per-cent increase. Most of the increase has been recent, caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation. As discussed below, the increase in atmospheric CO2 content, while clearly linked to post-Second World War industrialization, cannot be closely linked to global surface warming trends.

 

Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their predictions of future climate changes are highly suspect. These models incorrectly assume that increased CO2 concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, and also assume large positive feedbacks arising from increased CO2 concentration, for which there is no scientific evidence. Without these speculated positive feedbacks, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical warming of only approximately 1ºC.

[CBright7831 0]

Is the world coming to an end?

[Vyce 0]

Is the world coming to an end?

Only as we know it.

 

And I feel fine.

[EricMM 0]

I referred to Global Warming in caps because I want to differentiate it from when the globe warms naturally.

 

Global Warming is, to me, when due to greenhouse gasses, the earth is unnaturally warmed.

 

Ergo it is NOT inevitable.

[CanadianChris 0]

I referred to Global Warming in caps because I want to differentiate it from when the globe warms naturally.

 

Global Warming is, to me, when due to greenhouse gasses, the earth is unnaturally warmed.

 

Ergo it is NOT inevitable.

Man-made greenhouse gases account for approximately one-quarter of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

 

Why? Because the greenhouse gas that has the largest effect by far is water vapour, virtually none of which is man-made. This never gets mentioned.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

I referred to Global Warming in caps because I want to differentiate it from when the globe warms naturally.

 

Global Warming is, to me, when due to greenhouse gasses, the earth is unnaturally warmed.

 

Ergo it is NOT inevitable.

Man-made greenhouse gases account for approximately one-quarter of one percent of the greenhouse effect.

 

Why? Because the greenhouse gas that has the largest effect by far is water vapour, virtually none of which is man-made. This never gets mentioned.

Pwned

[EricMM 0]

Fuck your pwned.

 

Even a tiny percentage of a change would change our climate.

 

Even a one percent change would influence temperatures, climate, and sea levels. The goal is to keep things as close to normal as possible, pollute the fucking least. Where is the disconnet in y'all's minds?

[CBright7831 0]

Is the world coming to an end?

Only as we know it.

 

And I feel fine.

And I'm scared shitless.

 

I honestly hate thinking about that kind of shit.

[Guest MikeSC]

Fuck your pwned.

 

Even a tiny percentage of a change would change our climate.

 

Even a one percent change would influence temperatures, climate, and sea levels. The goal is to keep things as close to normal as possible, pollute the fucking least. Where is the disconnet in y'all's minds?

A one percent change would have massive impact on the environment?

 

Man, makes it seem odd that the world has managed to survive volcanic activity and all.

 

You seem to think that WE are able to do jack-shit to the environment. You seem to think we can do jack-shit to prevent "global warming".

 

Your argument is as logical as me claiming that somebody understating their income by $3.00 on the tax returns is causing the national deficits.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

There have been warmer times in human history, and even in the post-Christ era than there is now, most notably during the Medieval Warm. If the environment survived then, why couldn't it survive now? Did polar bears not evolve until 500 years ago or something?

 

As a race we do enough bad things to environment that we shouldn't waste time complaining about things that aren't a problem. We've got enough of a mess as it is.

[Guest MikeSC]

As I pointed out earlier, Britain used to have VINEYARDS. Vineyards.

 

So, things clearly have changed.

-=Mike

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

As I pointed out earlier, Britain used to have VINEYARDS. Vineyards.

 

So, things clearly have changed.

-=Mike

In the last interglacial before this one they had hippos in the Thames.

[Guest MikeSC]

As I pointed out earlier, Britain used to have VINEYARDS. Vineyards.

 

So, things clearly have changed.

      -=Mike

In the last interglacial before this one they had hippos in the Thames.

Ever seen a portly British woman?

 

They still have hippos in the Thames.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

Is the world coming to an end?

Only as we know it.

 

And I feel fine.

And I'm scared shitless.

 

I honestly hate thinking about that kind of shit.

Not much of a music fan, are you?

[Guest MikeSC]

Isn't calling REM "music" stretching the terminology?

-=Mike

[Ted the Poster 0]

Like "Toby Keith", "Celine Dion" and "Linkin Park".

[Some Guy 0]

bigolsmitty, if I posted a bunch of stuff showing that global warming proponents accepted funding from environmental groups would that taint their claims in your opinion?

 

Just because someone accepts funding does not mean that his opinion is tainted and furthermore it does not mean that he came to his conclusions based soley on that money.

 

Ann Coulter gets paid to right columns expousing conservative politics by conservatives, I somehow doubt that she was politically neutral until evil conservatives came along and paid her to side with them. I would argue that said conservatives paid her to write columns because she was in fact already on their side.

 

On the flip side Al Franken gets paid to do much the same for the other side. He was full of shit before he ever got paid for it. The money that Air America is paying him had nothing to do with it. It just made him a wealthier man who is full of shit.

 

Money does not always indicate bias. This is something that many people tend to have trouble comprehending.

[NoCalMike 0]

bigolsmitty, if I posted a bunch of stuff showing that global warming proponents accepted funding from environmental groups would that taint their claims in your opinion?

 

Just because someone accepts funding does not mean that his opinion is tainted and furthermore it does not mean that he came to his conclusions based soley on that money.

 

Ann Coulter gets paid to right columns expousing conservative politics by conservatives, I somehow doubt that she was politically neutral until evil conservatives came along and paid her to side with them. I would argue that said conservatives paid her to write columns because she was in fact already on their side.

 

On the flip side Al Franken gets paid to do much the same for the other side. He was full of shit before he ever got paid for it. The money that Air America is paying him had nothing to do with it. It just made him a wealthier man who is full of shit.

 

Money does not always indicate bias. This is something that many people tend to have trouble comprehending.

I like how Franken is "full of shit" yet Coulter is merely "expousing conservative beliefs"

 

.......just saying

[EricMM 0]

And you all continue ignoring the point.

 

Yes, the climate has phases. This explains everything from fifty year cycles of weather to ice ages.

 

This is normal.

 

However, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't part of this, or any cycle, at least one that hasn't been repeated since the ages of the dinosaurs, when volcanoes were much more prevalent.

 

My point, Global Warming isn't a cycle. It's an accumulation of a pollutant in the atmosphere. It's not going to equalize itself. The only way is if we curb our emissions.

 

Fuck, you guys, I KNOW that we've had warm periods in the past. I never once denied it. I'm denying that Global Warming as caused by people is part of this cycle, or an acceptable thing.

 

You, of course, deny that putting more CO2, an established greenhouse gas, would have anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

[The Czech Republic 0]

My point, Global Warming isn't a cycle. It's an accumulation of a pollutant in the atmosphere. It's not going to equalize itself. The only way is if we curb our emissions.

How about we curb our enthusiasm

[Some Guy 0]

I like how Franken is "full of shit" yet Coulter is merely "expousing conservative beliefs"

 

.......just saying

That was part of the point about bias reporting on issues by people who hold certain beliefs. If I went to whatever site that bigolsmitty went to I'm sure I find everything he said, if I went to a site with the opposite view I'm sure I could find stuff refuting whatever global warming advocates say.

 

No one has paid me a nickel to believe what I do and yet I still do. If I were to be paid to express my opinion it would still remain the same. My point was that money doesn't always effect anything.

[NoCalMike 0]

And you all continue ignoring the point.

 

Yes, the climate has phases. This explains everything from fifty year cycles of weather to ice ages.

 

This is normal.

 

However, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't part of this, or any cycle, at least one that hasn't been repeated since the ages of the dinosaurs, when volcanoes were much more prevalent.

 

My point, Global Warming isn't a cycle. It's an accumulation of a pollutant in the atmosphere. It's not going to equalize itself. The only way is if we curb our emissions.

 

Fuck, you guys, I KNOW that we've had warm periods in the past. I never once denied it. I'm denying that Global Warming as caused by people is part of this cycle, or an acceptable thing.

 

You, of course, deny that putting more CO2, an established greenhouse gas, would have anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

*Not ignoring the point*

[Justice 0]

And you all continue ignoring the point.

 

Yes, the climate has phases. This explains everything from fifty year cycles of weather to ice ages.

 

This is normal.

 

However, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't part of this, or any cycle, at least one that hasn't been repeated since the ages of the dinosaurs, when volcanoes were much more prevalent.

 

My point, Global Warming isn't a cycle. It's an accumulation of a pollutant in the atmosphere. It's not going to equalize itself. The only way is if we curb our emissions.

 

Fuck, you guys, I KNOW that we've had warm periods in the past. I never once denied it. I'm denying that Global Warming as caused by people is part of this cycle, or an acceptable thing.

 

You, of course, deny that putting more CO2, an established greenhouse gas, would have anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

I think it all comes down to the fact that while yes, we are putting more and more up into the atmosphere, C02 is such a shitty, shitty greenhouse gas, and that it accounts for so very very little, that C02 emissions is just really an environmental McGuffin. I think that's what everyone but you and NoCal seemed to have realized.

 

And again, this study proves shit unless it goes as far back to something like the Middle Ages so we can get an accurate picture of what's going on.

[The Czech Republic 0]

C02 is such a shitty, shitty greenhouse gas, and that it accounts for so very very little, that C02 emissions is just really an environmental McGuffin.

I wish it was an environmental McMuffin. Mmm. McMuffins.

[NoCalMike 0]

And you all continue ignoring the point.

 

Yes, the climate has phases.  This explains everything from fifty year cycles of weather to ice ages.

 

This is normal.

 

However, the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere isn't part of this, or any cycle, at least one that hasn't been repeated since the ages of the dinosaurs, when volcanoes were much more prevalent.

 

My point, Global Warming isn't a cycle. It's an accumulation of a pollutant in the atmosphere.  It's not going to equalize itself.  The only way is if we curb our emissions.

 

Fuck, you guys, I KNOW that we've had warm periods in the past.  I never once denied it.  I'm denying that Global Warming as caused by people is part of this cycle, or an acceptable thing.

 

You, of course, deny that putting more CO2, an established greenhouse gas, would have anything to do with the greenhouse effect.

I think it all comes down to the fact that while yes, we are putting more and more up into the atmosphere, C02 is such a shitty, shitty greenhouse gas, and that it accounts for so very very little, that C02 emissions is just really an environmental McGuffin. I think that's what everyone but you and NoCal seemed to have realized.

 

And again, this study proves shit unless it goes as far back to something like the Middle Ages so we can get an accurate picture of what's going on.

Well what does CO2 gas to for the quality of breathing air though? There are more issues relating to having filthy air then just global warming. Plenty of reasons are out there to want to cut down on things we can control, so we are better prepared to handle the things we cannot control.