• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Global Warming a myth?

Is Global Warming a myth?

  • Total voters
    115
Oozlefinch said:
Not to mention that a sample of even 25, 50, 100, or 500 years really means nothing when we are thousands of years past the last ice age.
Click to expand...

The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH4 over the last 5000 years

"We propose that humans significantly altered atmospheric CH4 levels after 5000 years BP and that anthropogenic inputs just prior to the industrial revolution accounted for up to 25% of the CH4 level of 725 ppb (parts per billion). We base this hypothesis on three arguments: (1) the 100 ppb increase in atmospheric CH4 that occurred after 5000 years BP follows a pattern unprecedented in any prior orbitally driven change in the ice-core record; (2) non-anthropogenic explanations for this increase (expansion of boreal peat lands or tropical wetlands) are inconsistent with existing evidence; and (3) inefficient early rice farming is a quantitatively plausible means of producing anomalously large CH4 inputs to the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution. If the areas flooded for farming harbored abundant CH4-producing weeds, disproportionately large amounts of CH4 would have been produced in feeding relatively small pre-industrial populations."



"MORE EVIDENCE that the Earth is warmer than at any time in the past 1,000 years has come from ice cores in a glacier on the "roof" of the world.

Himalayan ice cores provide convincing evidence that the past 50 years - and the 1990s in particular - have been the warmest of the past millennium, says a study published today in the journal Science.

An international team of scientists drilled three cores each of about 150 metres (500ft) into the Dasuopu glacier, an ice field on the flank of Xixabangma, a peak that rises to 26,293ft on the southern rim of the Tibetan plateau."
Ice cores from a Himalayan glacier confirm global warming - The Independent (London, England) | Encyclopedia.com
 
Catawba said:

The case for human causes of increased atmospheric CH4 over the last 5000 years

"We propose that humans significantly altered atmospheric CH4 levels after 5000 years BP and that anthropogenic inputs just prior to the industrial revolution accounted for up to 25% of the CH4 level of 725 ppb (parts per billion). We base this hypothesis on three arguments: (1) the 100 ppb increase in atmospheric CH4 that occurred after 5000 years BP follows a pattern unprecedented in any prior orbitally driven change in the ice-core record; (2) non-anthropogenic explanations for this increase (expansion of boreal peat lands or tropical wetlands) are inconsistent with existing evidence; and (3) inefficient early rice farming is a quantitatively plausible means of producing anomalously large CH4 inputs to the atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution. If the areas flooded for farming harbored abundant CH4-producing weeds, disproportionately large amounts of CH4 would have been produced in feeding relatively small pre-industrial populations."



"MORE EVIDENCE that the Earth is warmer than at any time in the past 1,000 years has come from ice cores in a glacier on the "roof" of the world.

Himalayan ice cores provide convincing evidence that the past 50 years - and the 1990s in particular - have been the warmest of the past millennium, says a study published today in the journal Science.

An international team of scientists drilled three cores each of about 150 metres (500ft) into the Dasuopu glacier, an ice field on the flank of Xixabangma, a peak that rises to 26,293ft on the southern rim of the Tibetan plateau."
Ice cores from a Himalayan glacier confirm global warming - The Independent (London, England) | Encyclopedia.com
Click to expand...

So now it is the fault of rice farmers?

I notice you leave out in the second article who these scientist were and what organization was doing this research.
 
ptif219 said:
I notice you leave out in the second article who these scientist were and what organization was doing this research.
Click to expand...

That is what the link is for.
 
ptif219 said:
So now it is the fault of rice farmers?

I notice you leave out in the second article who these scientist were and what organization was doing this research.
Click to expand...

Can you tell us how who the scientists are affects the validity of the research?
 
No.

The scientific community is pretty unified on this, while most of the opposition seems to be funded by big business that doesn't want to have to alter its behavior.

The winters we've been having actually support global warming predictions. The
science predicts weird, out-of-control weather, not uniform warming. In fact, they're now talking about using the term "global weirding" instead of global warming.
 
Hatuey said:
Can you tell us how who the scientists are affects the validity of the research?
Click to expand...

Maybe you can ask the warmers the same question when they talk about "big oil" funding research that undercuts AGW...
 
Catawba said:
No one is discounting volcanoes potential for changes to the climate. And I already provided documentation that volcanoes can cause global heating:
Click to expand...

That is not documentation, that is theory. Documentation is when you have first-hand evidence. Or very strong second-hand evidence.

And dude, Toba was a SuperVolcano. It is the most powerful eruption ever recorded. And if that and every other volcano has resulted in cooling, who does he think he is kidding in saying it causes warming?

Once again, we have no proof, only WAGs. And ones that run counter to actual experiences with history.
 
Catawba said:

"We propose that humans significantly altered atmospheric CH4 levels after 5000 years BP and that anthropogenic inputs just prior to the industrial revolution accounted for up to 25% of the CH4 level of 725 ppb (parts per billion).
Click to expand...


Once again, WAGs being disguised as facts.

In 3,000 BCE, the world population was only 14 million. And by 2,000 BCE it increased to an amazing 27,000.

So we are supposed to believe 14-27 million paleolithic humans caused global warming? To give an idea, that is the size of the entire population of North America in 1800 (from Canada to Mexico). And it was also an era where lightning started fires would burn thousands of square miles of plains or forest.

And humans caused global warming even back then. Once again, a theory in search of real facts (and a few scattered facts trying to make "humans" fit the mold).
 
Oozlefinch said:
That is not documentation, that is theory. Documentation is when you have first-hand evidence. Or very strong second-hand evidence.
Click to expand...

We've had that evidence since 2005:

"Himalayan ice cores provide convincing evidence that the past 50 years - and the 1990s in particular - have been the warmest of the past millennium, says a study published today in the journal Science.

An international team of scientists drilled three cores each of about 150 metres (500ft) into the Dasuopu glacier, an ice field on the flank of Xixabangma, a peak that rises to 26,293ft on the southern rim of the Tibetan plateau."
Ice cores from a Himalayan glacier confirm global warming - The Independent (London, England) | Encyclopedia.com


"The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans.

The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed.
The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday.
t found that natural variation in the Earth’s climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world.
New proof that man has caused global warming - Times Online


"Some global warming skeptics say the computer models that simulate future climate change can be wrong.

Walter N. Meier, a climate scientist, agrees.
"They tend to be underestimating" how quickly global warming is melting arctic sea ice, Meier said. The models "can be wrong in both directions."
Meier, a researcher with the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder, was one of two scientists who spoke yesterday at a program on the state of climate science. The session was held at the University of Richmond Downtown, 626 E. Broad St.
The program coincidentally came two days after state Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed two legal actions seeking to block a federal move toward regulating heat-trapping gases. Cuccinelli said the Environmental Protection Agency has relied on faulty data, and he said new regulations could hurt jobs.

In interviews during yesterday's program, Meier and University of Massachusetts Boston hydrologist Ellen Marie Douglas said the evidence of man-made global warming is overwhelming."
Climate scientists defend global warming evidence | Richmond Times-Dispatch

"new conclusive evidence gathered from the geological record in the Arctic prove that the increasing temperatures are not a natural cycle and are indeed caused by human activity, mainly, the burning of fossil fuels.

Darrell S. Kaufman , a leading climatologist from Northern Arizona University, lead a team of researchers who collected tree rings, glacier ice samples, 14 ice cores from various lakes around the Arctic and other evidence that showed a clear trend, that temperatures in the Arctic did not begin to rise until the Industrial Revolution hit which is when we began to empty tons of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The past ten years has shown a sharper increase almost three times higher than any other period in the past 2,000 years.

So what about the arguments that this warming is just a natural trend? Because the Earth has been slowly tilting the Arctic away from the sun, the region should actually be a degree or so cooler. That would be the natural trend, for the gradual cooling of the Arctic not a warming as some naysayers have suggested. But instead, the Arctic temperatures have increased by more than a couple of degrees.

This evidence is also strengthened by the shrinking ice and high melt rate found in Arctic regions as well. With such overwhelming evidence, many are starting to realize that Global Warming deniers are clearly not motivated by the facts but are motivated by a personal, and profitable, agenda that has nothing to do with looking out for the best interest of the public.
Many are hoping that this large amount of evidence will finally get people to realize that the naysayers have been bullying them into supporting big pollution causing businesses such as the oil and coal industry for their own agenda which is harming all of us. It is time to say no to the oil and coal agenda and work together for a healthy and sustainable future."
Conclusive evidence of man made global warming found in Arctic geological record
 
Navy Pride said:
We are having record cold temperatures and snowfall in history across the United States so the question begs to be asked...
Click to expand...

Wasn't here a heatwave in europe a few years back that killed plenty of at-risk persons?

I didnt hear Global Warming "fans" saying "I told you so."
 
Catawba said:
We've had that evidence since 2005:

"Himalayan ice cores provide convincing evidence that the past 50 years - and the 1990s in particular - have been the warmest of the past millennium, says a study published today in the journal Science.
Click to expand...


And we have been having natural "global warming" since the ending phase of the last glaciation.

And many of these cycles are much more then 1,000 years in duration.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum]Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age]Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period]Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

The last of those gave me this little tidbit:

"Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period." The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record.

Hmmm, that is less then 1,000 years.

Remember, we are talking about climate over the entire planet. TO use a sample of 1,000 years is meaningless. You might as well make the claim "No new coal beds are being created today". Because in the 5+ billion years that our planet has existed, it has been totally destroyed at least once, and gone from hothouse hell to a giant snowball, then to the cycles we enjoy in modern times ("modern" being the last 65 million years).

Of course, most of my modern research interests have been in palentology and geology. That tends to make somebody very long-sighted.
 
Oozlefinch said:
And we have been having natural "global warming" since the ending phase of the last glaciation.
Click to expand...

You asked for evidence, which I provided above, and you completely ignored it.

The "evidence" has shown natural factors do not explain the current warming period.

And many of these cycles are much more then 1,000 years in duration.

Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Medieval Warm Period - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

Your very own source states:

"In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures."

Warming from this event peaked 9,000 years ago, so it hardly be a source of warming today.

"The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum]Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


The last of those gave me this little tidbit:

"Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period." The MWP has also been evidenced in New Zealand by an 1100-year tree-ring record.

Hmmm, that is less then 1,000 years.
Click to expand...

Your own link shows that the MWP was a regional warming, not a global one, and that: "had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago" in North America. So it is not the cause of our current warming either.

Remember, we are talking about climate over the entire planet. TO use a sample of 1,000 years is meaningless. You might as well make the claim "No new coal beds are being created today". Because in the 5+ billion years that our planet has existed, it has been totally destroyed at least once, and gone from hothouse hell to a giant snowball, then to the cycles we enjoy in modern times ("modern" being the last 65 million years).
Click to expand...

Correct and there are natural events to explain those events, but those natural events have, through study, been eliminated as causes for this warming period.

Of course, most of my modern research interests have been in palentology and geology. That tends to make somebody very long-sighted.
Click to expand...

Then review the geological study results I referenced here:
Conclusive evidence of man made global warming found in Arctic geological record
 
Last edited:
Catawba said:
As someone else pointed out on this thread, if you don't trust the IPCC data, look at the data from the hundreds of other scientific organizations that independently confirmed AGW.
Click to expand...

How can any scientific organization confirm AGW when the warming trend began 150 years before humans had the technology to alter the atmosphere?

Catawba said:
No one jumped to conclusions
Click to expand...

Yes they did.

What do you call it when scientists are falsifing data to arrive at pre-determined results?

Catawba said:
What right do we have to knowingly gamble with future generation's lives?
Click to expand...

None. So we should stop destroying today's economy so our grandchildren can have an economy to work with to combat the coming era of global cooling.
 
Catawba said:
You asked for evidence, which I provided above, and you completely ignored it.

The "evidence" has shown natural factors do not explain the current warming period.
Click to expand...

The evidence is that AGW does not explain the current cooling period.

Hence current AGW theories don't explain the earlier warming trend.
 
Catawba said:
You asked for evidence, which I provided above, and you completely ignored it.

The "evidence" has shown natural factors do not explain the current warming period.



Your very own source states:

"In terms of the global average, temperatures were probably colder than present day (depending on estimates of latitude dependence and seasonality in response patterns). While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures."

Warming from this event peaked 9,000 years ago, so it hardly be a source of warming today.

"The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer."
Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Your own link shows that the MWP was a regional warming, not a global one, and that: "had peak warmth first, from 11,000 to 9,000 years ago" in North America. So it is not the cause of our current warming either.



Correct and there are natural events to explain those events, but those natural events have, through study, been eliminated as causes for this warming period.



Then review the geological study results I referenced here:
Conclusive evidence of man made global warming found in Arctic geological record
Click to expand...

Who can believe anything they say. Here is more evidence of lies. Notice how they try to make excuses for their lies.


Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels | Environment | guardian.co.uk


Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study "strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results". The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper's estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

"Retraction is a regular part of the publication process," he said. "Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances."
 
Catawba said:
We've had that evidence since 2005:

"Himalayan ice cores provide convincing evidence that the past 50 years - and the 1990s in particular - have been the warmest of the past millennium, says a study published today in the journal Science.
Click to expand...


So what?

The issue is whether humans are cooking the planet, and the answer to that question is no, humans are not cooking the planet, they're cooking the books.
 
Catawba said:
Ice cores from a Himalayan glacier confirm global warming - The Independent (London, England) | Encyclopedia.com
Click to expand...
Incomplete story, wants you to subscribe to something.
No link to actual study.

Catawba said:
New proof that man has caused global warming - Times Online
Click to expand...
Story mentions "a major study", describes the study, but does not name it or provide a link to it for those interested.
Such as myself.

Catawba said:
Climate scientists defend global warming evidence | Richmond Times-Dispatch
Click to expand...
A story about a speech several scientists made on the subject of AGW/ACC.
Basically, reporting what they said, with no proof, nor any links to such.

Catawba said:
Conclusive evidence of man made global warming found in Arctic geological record
Click to expand...
Again, a story about "new conclusive evidence", a general description of such, and the conclusions made by some.
But no links to the actual study, mention of how to find it, or anything.
Just "a study".
 
The Mark said:
Incomplete story, wants you to subscribe to something.
No link to actual study.
Click to expand...

If you do not trust nationally and internationally recognized scientific findings, I would suggest looking up the studies themselves.
 
Catawba said:
Your article only states there was an error in the projections as to how much the oceans would rise by a certain date, not if would happen.
Click to expand...

More lies. This is just another in the current stream of lies we have been seeing from Nasa and IPCC.


The fact is they no longer are believable and they have no credibility.
 
ptif219 said:
More lies. This is just another in the current stream of lies we have been seeing from Nasa and IPCC.


The fact is they no longer are believable and they have no credibility.
Click to expand...

They have all the credibility they need, as we are taking action based on those scientific findings.
 
Catawba said:
They have all the credibility they need, as we are taking action based on those scientific findings.
Click to expand...

Only to the Koolaid drinkers. They going down hill and they know it.

I look for the IPCC to be gone in the near future.
 
Catawba said:
If you do not trust nationally and internationally recognized scientific findings, I would suggest looking up the studies themselves.
Click to expand...
But...but...ARGGGG!!!

That was my POINT.
There WERE no "nationally and internationally recognized scientific findings" in those articles, except as a unknown entity hovering in the background, apparently supporting the statements of the scientists and article.

There are no links to the "nationally and internationally recognized scientific findings", nor any indication of what they are called, or anything.

So how would I know if found the right study, or even where to start looking?
 
Catawba said:
You asked for evidence, which I provided above, and you completely ignored it.
Click to expand...

That is not proof of "Man Caused Global Warming". What you give is some statistics, the belief that it is causing climate change, and that man is the cause of this change.

This is why so many reject the "theory", because it is more "belief" then "fact". Because while they explain a possible theory for what causes the change, in reality nobody knows what is causing it.

And the largest problem with the "Man Made Global Warming" pushers is that they have a belief ("Man is causing it"), and then some statistics. And they are constantly shifting the theories to mesh the belief with the statistics. This is piss-poor science.

If you can even call it "Science", because I do not.

So what are we left with? A lot of double-talk. You hear things like "This may have ended the ice age", or "This may cause a mini ice age", but then on the next breath claims like "Man does cause global warming".

And there are so many side-steps in the "Theory" that all of the scientists might as well go to Radio City Music Hall and try out for the Rockettes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom