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 64 of 102 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 1020

Thread: Is Global Warming a myth?

  1. #631
    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 Hatuey View Post
    Can you tell us how who the scientists are affects the validity of the research?
    Maybe you can ask the warmers the same question when they talk about "big oil" funding research that undercuts AGW...

  2. #632
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,363

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No one is discounting volcanoes potential for changes to the climate. And I already provided documentation that volcanoes can cause global heating:
    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.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  3. #633
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,363

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    [B]
    "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).
    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).
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  4. #634
    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
    That is not documentation, that is theory. Documentation is when you have first-hand evidence. Or very strong second-hand evidence.
    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 worlds 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 Earths 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
    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

  5. #635
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    In your dreams...
    Last Seen
    05-29-12 @ 02:53 PM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,621

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    We are having record cold temperatures and snowfall in history across the United States so the question begs to be asked...
    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."

  6. #636
    Sage
    Oozlefinch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Last Seen
    12-12-17 @ 07:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    11,363

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    We've had that evidence since 2005:

    [I]"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.
    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 (40.67S, 172.43E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75C 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.
    War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. - John Stuart Mill

  7. #637
    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
    And we have been having natural "global warming" since the ending phase of the last glaciation.
    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."

    [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 (40.67S, 172.43E) suggested the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75C 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.
    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).
    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.
    Then review the geological study results I referenced here:
    Conclusive evidence of man made global warming found in Arctic geological record
    Last edited by Catawba; 02-21-10 at 07:50 PM.
    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

  8. #638
    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
    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.
    How can any scientific organization confirm AGW when the warming trend began 150 years before humans had the technology to alter the atmosphere?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No one jumped to conclusions
    Yes they did.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    What right do we have to knowingly gamble with future generation's lives?
    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.

  9. #639
    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
    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.
    The evidence is that AGW does not explain the current cooling period.

    Hence current AGW theories don't explain the earlier warming trend.

  10. #640
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: Is Global Warming a myth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    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
    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."

Page 64 of 102 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674 ... 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
  •