• 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
"Scientists believe retreating glaciers are the clearest expression of climate change, and 50 years of research in Alaska and in Washington's northern Cascades shows glaciers have not only shrunken but are losing mass at an increasingly fast pace.

The findings by the U.S. Geological Survey could mean bad news for mountain streams, endangered fish and hydro-electric utilities, said Edward Josberger, a researcher at the USGS Water Science Center in Tacoma."

"From a global perspective, all of these glaciers are really living on the edge," he said. "They're the canaries in the coal mine."

Long-term study details glaciers shrinking in Washington and Alaska | Oregon Environmental News - – OregonLive.com

I would be very interested in hearing from anyone how Phil Jones caused the glaciers to shrink over the last 50 years!!!!


Actually, retreating glaciers are evidence that precipitation is less than that needed to maintain positive accumulation rates. Doesn't say a thing about global warming, doesn't say anything at all about any alleged human causes for the alleged warming.
 
If Jones was the only scientist making the claim you might have a point, but since he is not..........
Fallacy: Appeal to popularity
That just one person is making the claim in no way means that one person is wrong
 
Actually, retreating glaciers are evidence that precipitation is less than that needed to maintain positive accumulation rates. Doesn't say a thing about global warming, doesn't say anything at all about any alleged human causes for the alleged warming.
actually, according to scientists, yes it does, because what you conveniently left out is the significance of the melt rate.

SOTC: Glaciers
 
Fallacy: Appeal to popularity
That just one person is making the claim in no way means that one person is wrong

That's assuming every other person who believes in climate change has exactly the same data. Needless to say, that is not stipulated.
 
actually, according to scientists, yes it does, because what you conveniently left out is the significance of the melt rate.

SOTC: Glaciers

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.
 
That's assuming every other person who believes in climate change has exactly the same data. Needless to say, that is not stipulated.
Not, its not. An appeal to popularty is a fallacy, period.
 
For all the deniers out there:

1. "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced."

"Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. (p. 13)

2. Climate changes are underway in the United States and are projected to grow.
Climate-related changes are already observed in the United States and its coastal waters. These include increases in heavy downpours, rising temperature and sea level, rapidly retreating glaciers, thawing permafrost, lengthening growing seasons, lengthening ice-free seasons in the ocean and on lakes and rivers, earlier snowmelt, and alterations in river flows. These changes are projected to grow. (p. 27)



3. Widespread climate-related impacts are occurring now and are expected to increase.
Climate changes are already affecting water, energy, transportation, agriculture, ecosystems, and health. These impacts are different from region to region and will grow under projected climate change. (p. 41-106, 107-152)



4. Climate change will stress water resources.
Water is an issue in every region, but the nature of the potential impacts varies. Drought, related to reduced precipitation, increased evaporation, and increased water loss from plants, is an important issue in many regions, especially in the West. Floods and water quality problems are likely to be amplified by climate change in most regions. Declines in mountain snowpack are important in the West and Alaska where snowpack provides vital natural water storage. (p. 41, 129, 135, 139)



5. Crop and livestock production will be increasingly challenged.
Agriculture is considered one of the sectors most adaptable to changes in climate. However, increased heat, pests, water stress, diseases, and weather extremes will pose adaptation challenges for crop and livestock production. (p. 71)



6. Coastal areas are at increasing risk from sea-level rise and storm surge.
Sea-level rise and storm surge place many U.S. coastal areas at increasing risk of erosion and flooding, especially along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Pacific Islands, and parts of Alaska. Energy and transportation infrastructure and other property in coastal areas are very likely to be adversely affected. (p. 111, 139, 145, 149)



7. Threats to human health will increase.
Health impacts of climate change are related to heat stress, waterborne diseases, poor air quality, extreme weather events, and diseases transmitted by insects and rodents. Robust public health infrastructure can reduce the potential for negative impacts. (p. 89)



8. Climate change will interact with many social and environmental stresses.
Climate change will combine with pollution, population growth, overuse of resources, urbanization, and other social, economic, and environmental stresses to create larger impacts than from any of these factors alone. (p. 99)



9. Thresholds will be crossed, leading to large changes in climate and ecosystems.
There are a variety of thresholds in the climate system and ecosystems. These thresholds determine, for example, the presence of sea ice and permafrost, and the survival of species, from fish to insect pests, with implications for society. With further climate change, the crossing of additional thresholds is expected. (p. 76, 82, 115, 137, 142)



10. Future climate change and its impacts depend on choices made today.

The amount and rate of future climate change depend primarily on current and future human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases and airborne particles. Responses involve reducing emissions to limit future warming, and adapting to the changes that are unavoidable. (p. 25, 29)"
Key Findings

For further data regarding 2009, see:

State of the Climate Global Analysis 2009
 
Last edited:
How does it do this? Who says it does this? How do they know this? What proof do they have of this?
I personally don’t fully understand how this works (or perhaps at all).

I personally do not understand the exact science behind how greenhouse gases are able to trap energy within the atmosphere, but I understand the overall effect is more and more energy being trapped inside the biosphere, as more greenhouse gases are released. The following link details how it works, but I'm frankly not interested in it, this is just in case you are wondering.

The ozone layer protects us from UV rays. Decreases in the layer in some areas would, indeed, seem to then cause increased amounts of UV rays. It would seem also to logically follow that an increase in UV rays, as they are a form of energy, would cause some increase in heat levels of the earth, at least to a small extent.
But ozone is also a greenhouse gas. It would then seem to follow that depletion would result in lower temperatures.

Ozone depletion is different then CO2 depletion, or depletion of water vapor. Ozone is primarily in the stratosphere, where the air is thinner. At that height, it blocks more then it could trap, because most energy trapped within the atmosphere is trapped within the first few thousand feet (link). Above that, energy is bounced away. Below that level, is where all the greenhouse gases are, which trap the heat, therefore increasing temperature.

On an odd side note, all the Wiki articles I read on this bit seem to at some point link to IPCC reports or some such. IF, and I stress IF, there is some doubt as to the validity of the IPCC reports, then… Ah well.

Then don't use information from the IPCC :D

I would prefer “most effective”. “Dangerous” implies danger, bad, ect. And the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases is not a bad thing.

Okay, that's fair enough. Without this effect, Earth would essentially be like Mars in terms of organisms.

Precisely, water vapor and the other greenhouse gases are supposed to be there. The amounts, or more precisely the increase/decrease in said amounts, is the issue.

But it isn't important just how much water vapor we start with. It also depends on how much of the other greenhouse gases are in the atmosphere. CO2, for example, could start the chain reaction just like methane could. An overt increase in any greenhouse gas can potentially trigger climate change, albeit slowly.

I ask for some links to prove this, as I haven’t found anything regarding it, and it sounds interesting.

Here is another link just to be sure.

But how do you KNOW the logic is so sound it cannot possibly be wrong?
What you are basically saying is, “it is this way because it is this way”.
What if it isn’t?
Hell, I hold the belief that anything is possible…Although not probable.
Always question.
Always wonder.

If CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas, which is to say that it does increase the amount of energy contained inside the atmosphere, and if it is true we have been increasing the amount of CO2, it is only logical to think that the cahin reaction which I have described is in fact taking place.

How do you know this? What proof do you have?
This is another case of your stating “X will happen because of Y”, but without proving Y.

In truth, it doesn't matter if I'm the least bit right about this, as long as you concede that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere increases the temperature in the atmosphere

Your assumptions are as follows:
  1. That AGW/ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) is happening, and will result in a change major enough to cause the effect you state.
  2. That animals cannot adapt at the pace you assume the change will occur.
  3. That the change will be permanent.

Point one is the only necessary stipulation, which I believe I have layed the foundation for, in the links provided. Point two is a topic which I was guessing at, and I'd accept being wrong about my statement. Point three doesn't need to be true. If climate changes for say 1,000 years, to a warmer climate, there will be species which won't adapt in time, or not enough adapt or whatever happens, but there will be extinctions. Thats besides the point of climate change though.

I understand your argument, partially.
I don’t necessarily agree that “it is undoubtedly happening”. Nothing that exists (or doesn’t, as the case may be) is incapable of being doubted.
I assume by referring to the recent snow storm you refer to the El Niño effect and it’s affect on the weather?
I further assume that you are assuming climate change affects El Niño?
I also assume that you are assuming ACC would then further affect El Niño?

I concede all the stipulations except that El Nino caused the recent snow storm. I was merely guessing at that, but I would think that ENSO would mostly affect the Pacific Ocean, rather then the Atlantic.

All those ideas MIGHT help, assuming there is a problem to begin with, and the earth can’t fix itself.
Better, I think, to focus those funds on aggressively pursuing ever higher technology levels.
We may find a solution, or that there wasn’t an issue to begin with. And keeping those scientists in the lab will keep em’ off the roads, producing CO2…:mrgreen:

Well, I think it depends on what you mean by, "the earth can't fix itself." Can it return to some equilibrium point? Yes, it most certainly can, and will. The question is whether that equilibrium will be the same as it was say in the 1950's, or now. I personally think the new equilibrium will be at a hotter global temperature, with slightly higher ocean levels (maybe 6 inches).
But, you see, the recent events that everyone opposed to the AGW/ACC theory are excited about…If those events are as reported (by some), then the “facts” some of those books are based on might be faulty.

I don’t really understand it all myself…but I think I have a basic grasp.

I really don't think anyone fully understands the climate.
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess that ends the argument. Someone used the "Unequivocal Bomb".

:roll:

The mainstream science debate of AGW has been over for some time. We world has moved on to action to help slow it down.
 
For all the deniers out there:

1. "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced."

The problem is that in this kind of case, figures and facts can be twisted and distorted to show whatever they want to claim.

I can show you some great statistics that claim that blacks are inferior to whites, but that certainly does not mean it is true. It is all in how you can make figures lie, depending on how you present them.

And answer me this, if "Global Warming" is primarily human-induced, what caused the end of the ice age? Humans? And since we are still technically in an ice age, what will it mean when the polar ice cap finally disolves?

And that alone is something I highly question. I am actually seeing dates of 2013 as to when the North Polar Ice Cap will no longer exist!

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

So when we revisit this in a few years, can those of us that do not believe in "Man Made Global Warming" then laugh at those that make such claims?
 
Do you have anything to contribute to the thread? Or do you just try to act like a smart-ass everywhere you go?

Yes, I've been contributing all along.

And when a post is so clearly missing the point that smiley's are indicated, I indicate with smileys.

It's why they're here.

:doh
 
The mainstream science debate of AGW has been over for some time. We world has moved on to action to help slow it down.

No, the debate over AGW never ended.

That's why we now know AGW is a hoax.

NOW the debate over AGW is over.
 
Care to address the facts I've provided? And the explanation?

Care to address the fact that the current warming trend began 150 years before the Industrial Revolution?

Care to addresss the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended?

Care to address the fact that since no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended they can't possibly be certain to understand the factors driving current climate trends, since the initiating factors terminating the Little Ice Age may still be playing a role?

Care to address the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age started?

Care to address the fact that current AGW theories are focused on cherry-picking historical data to show desired (as opposed to actual) trends, and this fraud reaches into the heart of the IPCC, which included the Medieval Warm Period in it's original report but re-wrote the inconvenient portion of the graph to emphasize the true scariness of the Hockey Stick?

Care to address the fact that the current cooling trend violates the predictions of AGW theory, and since AGW is a theory, it's controlled by the facts, not the other way around?

Care to address the fact that climate changes without help from little old us?

Care to address the fact that there's no "hockey stick"?

Care to address the fact that the ice caps are not melting?

Care to address the fact that polar bears are not going extinct?

Care to address the fact the planet was significantly warmer in historical times and yet we're still here?

Care to address the fact that H2O serves in a negative feedback manner to regulate global temperatures in balance with solar irradiation?

Care to tell us what historical epoch has the most optimal climate ever?

Care to tell us why the IPCC decided that the 1950's were bestest and any deviation from that is just bad. I say, buh-buh-bad!

You can point to incidents of global warming.

That's nice. I'm not denying the globe's annual mean temperature shifts hither and yon. It's an inherently chaotic system regulated with limiting feedback loops. It got warmer in the 90's, it's gotten colder since. Big whoop-ti-do, that. Show the conclusive evidence that car exhaust and cow farts are able to dominate the global atmospheric heat balance.
 
So you don't to discuss facts relevant to the failure of AGW as a theory?

No?

Then don't be so insistent that others grub around adressing facts that aren't relevant.
 
Care to address the fact that the current warming trend began 150 years before the Industrial Revolution?

Cite that. And regardless of the facts 150 years ago, there is general consensus that the current warming trend, which started about 50 years ago, is caused by an increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Care to addresss the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended?

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age]Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] Just because you don't know doesn't mean no one knows.

Care to address the fact that since no one knows why the Little Ice Age ended they can't possibly be certain to understand the factors driving current climate trends, since the initiating factors terminating the Little Ice Age may still be playing a role?

Look at the link.

Care to address the fact that no one knows why the Little Ice Age started?

Again, link.

Care to address the fact that current AGW theories are focused on cherry-picking historical data to show desired (as opposed to actual) trends, and this fraud reaches into the heart of the IPCC, which included the Medieval Warm Period in it's original report but re-wrote the inconvenient portion of the graph to emphasize the true scariness of the Hockey Stick?

I'm not arguing with global warming theorists. I'm arguing the facts of the case. Those facts indicate a much more moderate view of climate change then global warmists say, but more serious then you probably will argue.

Care to address the fact that the current cooling trend violates the predictions of AGW theory, and since AGW is a theory, it's controlled by the facts, not the other way around?

Again, I'm arguing the facts, which don't indicate necessarily what global warmists say is happening. And a more appropriate term is climate change.

Care to address the fact that climate changes without help from little old us?

I don't think you are stupid enough to think that just because climate can change without anthropogenic sources means that it is changing without outside input.

Care to address the fact that there's no "hockey stick"?

Again, I never argued there was a hockey stick.

Care to address the fact that the ice caps are not melting?

Actually, the glaciers at the North Pole are melting, but because these are already floating, their weight is already displaced across the oceans, so honestly, who cares if they melt? The only impact might be on animals, and I'm not arguing for or against that.

Care to address the fact that polar bears are not going extinct?

I do no care, and I will not argue for or against, because I have not researched this topic enough.

Care to address the fact the planet was significantly warmer in historical times and yet we're still here?

Explain what you mean by "historical times."

Care to address the fact that H2O serves in a negative feedback manner to regulate global temperatures in balance with solar irradiation?

Assuming that there is nothing else effecting H20 concentrations in our atmosphere, that would be true. However, there is a lot more to climate then solar events.

Care to tell us what historical epoch has the most optimal climate ever?

In regards to what?

Care to tell us why the IPCC decided that the 1950's were bestest and any deviation from that is just bad. I say, buh-buh-bad!

I'm not arguing for the IPCC, I'm arguing for myself, with facts which are essentially stipulations.

That's nice. I'm not denying the globe's annual mean temperature shifts hither and yon. It's an inherently chaotic system regulated with limiting feedback loops. It got warmer in the 90's, it's gotten colder since. Big whoop-ti-do, that. Show the conclusive evidence that car exhaust and cow farts are able to dominate the global atmospheric heat balance.

You apparently need a math lesson. There was, that is to say before the Industrial Revolution, 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now, there are about 380 parts per million. The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth

If you had even looked over what I've stated maybe three times now, you would realize that I have never argued immediate, and devastating climate change. The data I have provided is the basis for my argument, which is that the CO2 increase will result in more evaporation, which will eventually lead to higher mean temperatures (albeit very slowly) and therefore more extreme/powerful weather events. I have argued a gradual shift, a reasonable change, and nothing but facts.
 
Last edited:
So you don't to discuss facts relevant to the failure of AGW as a theory?

No?

Then don't be so insistent that others grub around adressing facts that aren't relevant.

Don't count your eggs before they are in the basket.
 
Gee Whiz the pseudo scientists among us that listen to idiots like Rush Limbaugh experience below average temps and more snow in the eastern half of the continental United States -- while the rest of the world is experiencing more record high temps, and poof it's the end of Global warming! Duhhhhhhhhh! :doh


NOAA: Global Average Surface Temperatures in January are 4th Warmest on Record


The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released today (12 February 2010) data indicating that January 2010 was the fourth warmest on record. Land surface temperatures were the highest on record in the Southern Hemisphere; and global ocean surface temperatures were the second warmest on record.

Global Highlights

Among the highlights (emphasis added):

* "The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record.
* The global land surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.83°C (1.49°F) above the 20th century average of 2.8°C (37.0°F)—the twelfth warmest January on record. Land areas in the Southern Hemisphere were the warmest on record for January. In the Northern Hemisphere, which has much more land, comparatively, land surface temperatures were 18th warmest on record.
* The worldwide ocean surface temperature for January 2010 was the second warmest—behind 1998—on record for January, 0.52°C (0.94°F) above the 20th century average of 15.8°C (60.5°F). This can be partially attributed to the persistence of El Niño across the equatorial Pacific Ocean. According to NOAA's Climate Prediction Center (CPC), El Niño is expected to continue through the Northern Hemisphere spring 2010. "

NOAA: Global Average Surface Temperatures in January are 4th Warmest on Record | WWF Climate Blog
 
Last edited:
Cite that.

LIA reached it's minimum ca. 1650.

After that, it was warmer.

Hence, the warming trend started then.

Kinda silly to claim the warming trend started 150 years after it started, isn't it?


And regardless of the facts 150 years ago, there is general consensus that the current warming trend, which started about 50 years ago, is caused by an increase in the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

You mean the consensus of people pushing the failed AGW theory? That's mighty convenient for them, isn't it?

Since the warming started before the Industrial Revolution it's more than disingenuous to claim the IR was the cause, is it not?

Little Ice Age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Just because you don't know doesn't mean no one knows.

When I state "no one knows", it's what I meant. One can assign probabities to various theories....and there's arguments over what the real cause for both beginning and end are, just like the precipitate causes for commencement and termination of global ice ages is uncertain.

I'm not arguing with global warming theorists.

Yeah, we know.

You're arguing for them.

I'm arguing the facts of the case.

The facts of the case are that there's no definitive evidence of human impact on global thermal balance.

Those facts indicate a much more moderate view of climate change then global warmists say, but more serious then you probably will argue.

I don't see longer growing periods, lower winter heating bills and fewer cold related deaths, plus a Northwest Passage as anything to sweat about.

I see coldness as the bigger threat.

Again, I'm arguing the facts, which don't indicate necessarily what global warmists say is happening. And a more appropriate term is climate change.

No.

The appropriate term is global warming.

Unless you're going to start arguing that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to lead to colder earth, the issue is global warming, not generic "climate change". Just because the IPCC wanted to get in front of the reality to hide their hoax doesn't mean I'm required to play along.

If the threat is global warming, then discuss global warming. If you feel global cooling is the issue, as most of the "consensus" robots who now preach AGW one were, then discuss global cooling.

However, any human addition of CO2 can have only one effect on global climate, warming, and it's deceitful to claim anything else or to be "generic" about the matter.

People who aren't afraid of facts don't use "climate change", they speak to the issue they're concerned about.

I don't think you are stupid enough to think that just because climate can change without anthropogenic sources means that it is changing without outside input.

"Outside input"...hmmm....the Sun is "outside"....you think maybe that star has something to do with earth's thermal balance? You might be onto something. And, of course I know you're aware that the Earth radiates energy to the universe in proportion to the fourth power of the temperature difference between the Earth and the Universe. Maybe the Sun isn't getting hotter, the whole Universe is, and that would explain the recent temperature increases.

The Universe is outside too, and clearly we need to get the government to do something about the warming Universe.

Again, I never argued there was a hockey stick.

So? The fraudulent Hockey Stick is central to AGW.

Oh.

The Hockey Stick that held up the AGW tent is broken, isn't it?

Something about falsified data, cherry picking, and deterministic data manipulation....

Actually, the glaciers at the North Pole are melting, but because these are already floating, their weight is already displaced across the oceans, so honestly, who cares if they melt? The only impact might be on animals, and I'm not arguing for or against that.

I didn't realize Greenland wasn't an island. Thanks for letting us know.

Explain what you mean by "historical times."

Watch Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part I" sometime.

Assuming that there is nothing else effecting H20 concentrations in our atmosphere, that would be true. However, there is a lot more to climate then solar events.

You think maybe the continents have moved that much in the last 350 years? Are they accelerating? Should I wear a seat belt while riding North America?

Maybe the precession of the poles is happening faster now?

Maybe the ocean currents are still adjusting from the impact of the end of the last Ice Age, so everything is in flux. Well, unless the Indians melted the Laurentian Ice Sheet, it's pretty hard to attribute the end of the Ice Age to the Indians.

There's a lot to climate. A lot of really HUGE factors. CO2 isn't one of them. CO2 is a minor component.

I'm not arguing for the IPCC, I'm arguing for myself, with facts which are essentially stipulations.

I don't stipulate your facts. And I certainly don't stipulate the conclusions you're drawing from them.

You apparently need a math lesson. There was, that is to say before the Industrial Revolution, 300 parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere. Now, there are about 380 parts per million.

And CO2 comprises 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere.

So a change from 300 to 380 is a +26% change in 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere, so CO2 now comprises umm...0.1% of the GHG in the atmosphere. Big change, that, from 0.1% to 0.1%.

If you had even looked over what I've stated maybe three times now, you would realize that I have never argued immediate, and devastating climate change. I have argued a gradual shift towards a climate that would, IMO, be less favorable for humans because weather will become more extreme.

Yes, you've made the argument with out any facts to back it up. As the poles warm, the thermal engine driving the convection cells slows down and the weather becomes less severe, not more. Things become nicer and more predictable.

But the reality is that there's no statistically significant change in the weather patterns.
 
LIA reached it's minimum ca. 1650.

After that, it was warmer.

Hence, the warming trend started then.

Kinda silly to claim the warming trend started 150 years after it started, isn't it?

For all I know, you are pulling every bit of that out of your ass. So cite it or I will assume that.

You mean the consensus of people pushing the failed AGW theory? That's mighty convenient for them, isn't it?

Since the warming started before the Industrial Revolution it's more than disingenuous to claim the IR was the cause, is it not?

If that was the case, it still wouldn't be as disingenuous as claiming something without any citations/sources to back it up. So you want to cite that now?


When I state "no one knows", it's what I meant. One can assign probabities to various theories....and there's arguments over what the real cause for both beginning and end are, just like the precipitate causes for commencement and termination of global ice ages is uncertain.

You've never heard of reasonable doubt have you? Because it applies in this case, so you should look it up. There are disputes as to when the Little Ice Age started exactly, and there is some dispute as to when it ended. As for the reasons of why, I defer to my previous source.

Yeah, we know.
You're arguing for them.

The facts are pretty close to them, but admittedly not on them.

The facts of the case are that there's no definitive evidence of human impact on global thermal balance.

Based upon the logic of the case, which is that CO2 does increase global temperature and does lead to greater amounts of evaporation and that CO2 has increased somewhat since the Industrial Revolution, we can infer that there is climate change, it's just extremely apparent, and is, in a normal person's view, going too slowly to be of consequence. In terms of planet Earth, however, the rate of climate change is quite fast.



I don't see longer growing periods, lower winter heating bills and fewer cold related deaths, plus a Northwest Passage as anything to sweat about.

I see coldness as the bigger threat.

In the United States, that would be a bigger concern. In relatively undeveloped countries, the former would be a bigger problem.



No.

The appropriate term is global warming.

That's the wrong term. Some areas might actually cool down as the Earth gets warmer on average. Therefore, it is climate change, because not everything is getting warmer.

Unless you're going to start arguing that man's contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to lead to colder earth, the issue is global warming, not generic "climate change". Just because the IPCC wanted to get in front of the reality to hide their hoax doesn't mean I'm required to play along.

You're acting as if I'm the IPCC. I'm not, and my views aren't that of the IPCC either. If you want to argue with them,go right on ahead, but address the views I give when you argue with me.

If the threat is global warming, then discuss global warming. If you feel global cooling is the issue, as most of the "consensus" robots who now preach AGW one were, then discuss global cooling.

Thats a bit ridiculous. Your logic in this is, "if it isn't global warming, then it has to be global cooling." That logic is flawed.

However, any human addition of CO2 can have only one effect on global climate, warming, and it's deceitful to claim anything else or to be "generic" about the matter.

Again, not every part of Earth will get warmer even if the world's average temperature increases. Meteorology still applies.

"Outside input"...hmmm....the Sun is "outside"....you think maybe that star has something to do with earth's thermal balance? You might be onto something. And, of course I know you're aware that the Earth radiates energy to the universe in proportion to the fourth power of the temperature difference between the Earth and the Universe. Maybe the Sun isn't getting hotter, the whole Universe is, and that would explain the recent temperature increases.

You can start a thread in the conspiracy theory section for that, otherwise keep it out of here, it's wasting everyone's time.


So? The fraudulent Hockey Stick is central to AGW.
Oh.
The Hockey Stick that held up the AGW tent is broken, isn't it?
Something about falsified data, cherry picking, and deterministic data manipulation....

If only I was arguing the AGW standpoit :roll:

I didn't realize Greenland wasn't an island. Thanks for letting us know.

If you read my statement, you would have seen I stated ice that is floating is already displaced, therefore that ice melting has no effect on sea levels. And on top of that, I personally don't feel that the amount of ice melting in Greenland can significantly affect the world's sea levels, maybe a few inches.

You think maybe the continents have moved that much in the last 350 years? Are they accelerating? Should I wear a seat belt while riding North America?

Maybe the precession of the poles is happening faster now?

Maybe the ocean currents are still adjusting from the impact of the end of the last Ice Age, so everything is in flux. Well, unless the Indians melted the Laurentian Ice Sheet, it's pretty hard to attribute the end of the Ice Age to the Indians.

There's a lot to climate. A lot of really HUGE factors. CO2 isn't one of them. CO2 is a minor component.

Thats the problem with your arguement. You are taking the direct effects of CO2 into account, and you aren't thinking of what CO2 effects in terms of evaporation. The problem with too much of any greenhouse gas, by anthropogenic sources, is that it increases the rate of evaporation. Water vapor is a much more potent greenhouse gas then CO2, and if water vapor increases, global temperatures on average will increase, and there will be more radical weather as well.

I don't stipulate your facts. And I certainly don't stipulate the conclusions you're drawing from them.

So you are arguing that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, that water vapor is not a greenhouse gas, that the amount of CO2 has not increased since the Industrial Revolution, and you are also arguing that increased temperature does not increase rate of evaporation? If you want to argue even one of those, I think this discussion is over...

And CO2 comprises 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere.
So a change from 300 to 380 is a +26% change in 0.1% of the green house gases in the atmosphere, so CO2 now comprises umm...0.1% of the GHG in the atmosphere. Big change, that, from 0.1% to 0.1%.

Again, you need to think beyond the direct consequences, and think in terms of logic trains.

Yes, you've made the argument with out any facts to back it up. As the poles warm, the thermal engine driving the convection cells slows down and the weather becomes less severe, not more. Things become nicer and more predictable.

But the reality is that there's no statistically significant change in the weather patterns.

Ever heard of the ITCZ? That's where all the storms form. Sunlight is most direct at this area, at 23.5 Degrees (Earth's tilt on its axis). Because of this, it has the hottest surface water temperatures. If this area becomes warmer, there is more wind, more evaporation, and higher temperatures. These variables in conjunction are the equation for the perfect storm; an overall increase in the amount of storms, and the power of those storms.
 
Even companies are giving up on being green after the lies prove GW is a scam.


BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com


hree big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.



Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin's push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ's Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom