View Poll Results: Is Global Warming a myth?

Voters
151. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, explain

    52 34.44%
  • No, Explain

    99 65.56%
Page 53 of 102 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast
Results 521 to 530 of 1020

Thread: Is Global Warming a myth?

  1. #521
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    They did that, the have eliminated the other sources of significant natural sources of C02, such as volcanic action or solar activity. They were at a minimum during this warming period.
    That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?

    I did above, and you have provided nothing to refute it except your opinion. Show me your studies that refutes radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements.
    How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?

  2. #522
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?
    My meaning was there has been no unusual solar activity measured to account for the warming during this warming period. If you nave proof to dispute that, present it.


    How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?
    Scientists have concluded there is no evidence to prove the Medieval warm period was a global event. They further found it was caused by frequent volcanic eruptions during that period.
    Medieval Climate Not So Hot

    If you have proof it was a global event, present it.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  3. #523
    Professor
    bowerbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    australia
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?



    How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?
    Because there are cycles within cycles - as with everything.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation]Solar variation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    Greenhouse gases: Any gas that, by an accident of chemistry, happens to absorb radiation of a type that the Earth, by an accident of history, would like to lose.
    The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.


  4. #524
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,370

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The difference is this not just some statistics this the conclusion of every major science organization on the planet, with measurable visible proof.
    And most major science organizations once believed in eugenics. That does not mean it was true. And they have also believed in things like Earth at the center of the universe, the universe consisting of only our galaxy, and a great many other things.

    At one time, mathmaticians thought that negative numbers were impossible. So throwing out the concept that every organization accepts it is not proof.

    And not every organization does accept it. It is that those that reject it are ostracized, as we have been seeing in the press the last few months.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    You need to go back to GW 101. There are several natural causes of global warming before man including Volcanoes and maximum solar activity. The difference now through records kept, we know there was no significant volcanic or solar activity during this warming period. If the ice caps melt we are in big trouble as about half the animal species on the planet will become extinct, many of which are food species for billions of people.
    Go back to what, Global Warming 101? Sounds more like you need to go back to some basic Earth Science (and not the sham that is being paraded out as that today).

    For one, I keep looking at all of these statistics that show the earth warming each and every year for decades. Yet I also remember several major volcanos erupting, and the ash produced cooling the planet for a year or so afterwards. But these "blips" never seem to appear in the statistics.

    And going back to other "Junk Science", many of the Global Warming theories are based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist that in 1901 talked about the Greenhouse Effect and how CO2 affected it. His writings have been the basis of such work for over a century.

    Of course, he was also one of the founders of the State Institute for Racial Biology, an organization that conceived of Compulsory sterilization. When I find a "scientist" who believed in such disgusting topics as eugenics and the like, it makes me question all of his or her works.

    Of course, Margaret Sanger (the founder of Planned Parenthood) also believed in such things, and her organization was founded to persue such goals. But that is another topic entirely.

    And yes, the ice caps will melt, that always happens in an interglacial period. The fact that they have not melted yet means little, because it will happen. And it will get hotter, that also happens in an interglacial.

    At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now, though some areas were actually slightly cooler than today. The Hippopotamus was distributed as far north as the rivers Rhine and Thames. Trees grew as far north as southern Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago instead of only as far north as Kuujjuaq in northern Quebec, and the prairie-forest boundary in the Great Plains of the United States lay further west near Lubbock, Texas, instead of near Dallas, Texas, where the boundary now exists.

    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian_Stage]Eemian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Now think about that. Hippos in the Thames. Prairie and forest in Northern Quebec, where tundra and permafrost exist today. So get ready, because things are going to get a lot hotter. A lot hotter.

  5. #525
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    That doesn't even make any sense. How can solar activity be at a minimum during one-hundred years of warming when the typical solar cycle is only eleven years long?
    Don't baffle them with facts. It's unfair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    How do you explain the Medieval Warm Period?
    They don't, so the IPCC simply made it vanish.

  6. #526
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by repeter View Post
    Have you missed everything I've said?

    The CO2 emissions do not have the significant effect on climate, it is the increase in water vapor that has it. CO2 simply has to start this reaction, and then it keeps going.
    Oh!!!!

    There's TOO MUCH water in the air.

    Well, that explain's California's drought all right. Africa's, too.

  7. #527
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    03-31-11 @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,331

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    No, it is not, because:

    As far as I am aware, the earth has always been warming, cooling, and in general constantly changing its temperature.

    Nothing mythical about it.
    apparently it is

    I don't get how some people believe that you fix global warming by policy when it isn't policy that is affecting the planet. The planet has its own schedule and it's following it's own path not what we decide to do with it will have any effect.
    Remember all of life on this planet are just visitors after we are all gone the planet will still be here.

  8. #528
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Oozlefinch View Post

    Eemian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    And yes, the ice caps will melt, that always happens in an interglacial period. The fact that they have not melted yet means little, because it will happen. And it will get hotter, that also happens in an interglacial.
    Your link states that the Eemian interglacial period peaked in warmth 125,000 years ago, so that does not explain our current warming.

    "The warmest peak of the Eemian was around 125,000 years ago....."

    "At the peak of the Eemian, the northern hemisphere winters were generally warmer and wetter than now"
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #529
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    At least I give you credit for recognizing that global warming is happening. That puts you a step up from the dolts in this country that think its not, despite the overwhelming scientific evidence and visual proof that is.

    Here is the science behind man's contribution to global warming:

    "The skeptic argument...

    "There is no actual evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Note that computer models are just concatenations of calculations you could do on a hand-held calculator, so they are theoretical and cannot be part of any evidence." (David Evans)
    Statement doesn't say glob


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What the science says...

    Direct observations find that CO2 is rising sharply due to human activity. Satellite and surface measurements find less energy is escaping to space at CO2 absorption wavelengths. Ocean and surface temperature measurements find the planet continues to accumulate heat. This gives a line of empirical evidence that human CO2 emissions are causing global warming.
    Uh, no. The last line is incorrect. The last line presumes that coincidence implies causation.

    The historical reality is that CO2 concentrations go up AFTER the warming cycle starts.

    The reality is that the CO2 concentrations in the current warming cycle began to rise hundreds of years after the cycle's commencement. Just like in the past. That humans have added more CO2 is undeniable.

    The case that this additional gas caused the warming is false.

    The case that the warming is being driven by the excess CO2 is unproven.

    The case for the Runaway Greenhouse is absurd.

    And unproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

    We're raising CO2 levels
    Yep.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Human carbon dioxide emissions are calculated from international energy statistics, tabulating coal, brown coal, peat, and crude oil production by nation and year, going back to 1751. CO2 emissions have increased dramatically over the last century, climbing to the rate of 29 billion tonnes of CO2 per year in 2006 (EIA).
    Fair enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Atmospheric CO2 levels are measured at hundreds of monitoring stations across the globe. Independent measurements are also conducted by airplanes and satellites. For periods before 1958, CO2 levels are determined from air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores. In pre-industrial times over the last 10,000 years, CO2 was relatively stable at around 275 to 285 parts per million. Over the last 250 years, atmospheric CO2 levels have increased by about 100 parts per million. Currently, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing by around 15 gigatonnes every year."
    Yeah, that's the third time you've said humans have raised CO2 levels. I think we all agree on that part.

    Now. You say the CO2 concentration was "relatively stable" for the last 10,000 years.

    So, during the Mid-Holocene Altithermal and the Medieval Warm period, the CO2 levels were "relatively stable". That means there are significant causes of warming not related to CO2 levels, so significant they can raise global temperatures significantly above current levels with out causing lasting harm to the environment.

    What are those sources of warming and are they active today?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    CO2 traps heat
    The question is: How much.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).
    You are aware that no one denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, right? And that we know what the phrase "greenhouse gas" means, right?

    Naturally one expects that increased CO2 in the atmosphere will show stronger absorbtion bands. Duh.

    That does not mean CO2 is CAUSING global warming. After all, CO2 is merely a small percentage of the total greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. Think WATER VAPOR. Water vapor is a thousand times as prevalent as CO2, and it's concentration shifts daily. How's the IR absorption bands from H2O coming along? Any significant changes? How's the emission spectra for the earth's surface doing? And impressive declines there?


    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    When greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation, the energy heats the atmosphere which in turn re-radiates infrared radiation in all directions. Some makes its way back to the earth's surface. Hence we expect to find more infrared radiation heading downwards. Surface measurements from 1973 to 2008 find an increasing trend of infrared radiation returning to earth (Wang 2009). A regional study over the central Alps found that downward infrared radiation is increasing due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (Philipona 2004). Taking this a step further, an analysis of high resolution spectral data allowed scientists to quantitatively attribute the increase in downward radiation to each of several greenhouse gases (Evans 2006). The results lead the authors to conclude that "this experimental data should effectively end the argument by skeptics that no experimental evidence exists for the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming."
    Again, you have to show that this warming can be attributed 100% to CO2, and not to other factors. Cloud cover is amazingly effective at keeping the planet warm...but clouds are made of water, not CO2. So, yeah, I can dispute his conclusions because he's not providing a big enough picture. Also, no one says that greenhouse gases don't keep the planet warm. They do. The discussion is to what extent does human activity contribute.

    Got any evidence sorting the natural from the unnatural contributions? Don't forget, you have to include the cause of the current warming cycle, and you don't even know what that is.

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    From 1970 to 2003, the planet has been accumulating heat at a rate of 190,260 GigaWatts with the vast majority of the energy going into the oceans. Considering a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 GigaWatt, imagine 190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into our oceans. What about after 2003? A map of of ocean heat from 2003 to 2008 was constructed from ocean heat measurements down to 2000 metres deep (von Schuckmann 2009). Globally, the oceans have continued to accumulate heat to the end of 2008 at a rate of 0.77 0.11 Wm−2, consistent with other determinations of the planet's energy imbalance (Hansen 2005, Trenberth 2009). The planet continues to accumulate heat.
    Amazing.

    All the heat, and the planet's been cooling for almost a decade.

    Are you people sure you want to turn the heaters off?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming.
    No, that's not what you presented. You presented a set of unconnected facts and drew unsupported lines between them. I believe this is called "stringing them along".
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 02-18-10 at 03:48 PM.

  10. #530
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Their logic is circular.

    No, what I didn't mention was the fact that glaciers retreat and come back. How fast do you think the glaciers were melting during the Mid-Holocene Altithermal or during the Medieval Warm Period?

    Want to know what the melt rate means?

    It means the air is warmer now than in the recent past.

    Warmer air speeds melting. Try it with a hair dryer and some ice cubes if you don't believe me.

    But it does not speak to why the air is warmer.

    Or, rather, the air was warmer in the 90's. The earth has been cooling since.
    umm....yes, the air is warmer than it was in the past. i rest my case.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


Page 53 of 102 FirstFirst ... 343515253545563 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •