Do you believe in global warming, and If so, what is causing it?

Lakeside said:

Weather has only been recorded for a little over 100 years. The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. Global warming is FOLKLORE. Who is to blame for the second ice age?

Click to expand...

This post reminds me of this:

Bodhisattva said:

Global Warming is a natural part of Climate Change.
Global Warming is a scare term used by politicians...
Climate change is real and humans are contributing to CO2 emissions that are Greenhouse Gases.
It is India and China that are the major, and I mean major, contributors of Greenhouse Gases......

**** happens...

Click to expand...

Could you back that claim up with some facts? Let's start with the percentage of the total greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases (and please include H2O in the numbers so that we can see the whole picture).

OnWisconsin said:

At the accelerated rate that we are seeing now?

Click to expand...

Could you back that with some facts?? Lets say show us the rate of change in 10 year increments for the last 100,000 years so we have something at least vaguely close to a representative sample.

Lakeside said:

Weather has only been recorded for a little over 100 years. The Earth is 4.5 BILLION years old. Global warming is FOLKLORE. Who is to blame for the second ice age?

Click to expand...

Just because its only been recorded for a little over 100 years does not mean there is no evidence to show what the climate was like millions of years ago. We have scientists drilling out ice cores in Antarctica that show millions of years worth of climate data. The Co2 levels are increasing at a faster rate than at any other time excluding massive eruptions. Why is this? because we are burning massive amounts of fossil fuels.

faithful_servant said:

Could you back that with some facts?? Lets say show us the rate of change in 10 year increments for the last 100,000 years so we have something at least vaguely close to a representative sample.

Click to expand...

10 year increments over 100,000 years is asking a bit much don't you think? That image should suffice.

OnWisconsin said:

View attachment 67171651



10 year increments over 100,000 years is asking a bit much don't you think? That image should suffice.

Click to expand...

Dont be silly. He's asking for impossibly precise data because he knows it doesnt exist.

Its like a creationist saying that theyve never found a transistional fossil, and to prove it they point to more and more precise gaps in the fossil record to 'disprove' proof of evolution.

Threegoofs said:

Dont be silly. He's asking for impossibly precise data because he knows it doesnt exist.

Its like a creationist saying that theyve never found a transistional fossil, and to prove it they point to more and more precise gaps in the fossil record to 'disprove' proof of evolution.

Click to expand...

I am sure he is a creationist as well..

SouthernDemocrat said:

I am sure he is a creationist as well..

Click to expand...

Creationists and global warming deniers, like pizza and beer.

Threegoofs said:

Actually, if we go by NASA's GISS data (I know you love to pretend its a single guy you can then demonize), we have warmed .8 degrees in about 40 years. And the direct response to CO2 is only a fraction of the actual warming that will result....which has pretty much been validated by the fact that IT HAS WARMED THAT MUCH IN THE PAST 40 YEARS.

Thats just the air, of course. Most of that heat is being absorbed by the oceans, which will cause issues with ocean warming, climate changes, higher sea levels from thermal expansion, and massive disruption of an already stressed ecosystem.

So given that your numbers are off at the intial baseline, you're scratchy calculations are inherently dismissed by actual NON-AMATEUR scientists, who understand that the warming phenomenon by greenhouse gases is real, a problem, and potentially one that we have underestimated.

Click to expand...

You are using a graph, the actual data is a table,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
If you look at the J-D column 1880 is -.21 C, 2013 is .60 C, delta temp .81C, delta time 133 years.
Your graph shows the entire decade past year 2000 above .60C, the GISS table
only 4 years in that time above .60 C, therefore your graph reflects some other data set
than the GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index.

Cardinal said:

Creationists and global warming deniers, like pizza and beer.

Click to expand...

Except most creationists would never dream of drinking a beer with their pizza.

longview said:

You are using a graph, the actual data is a table,
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
If you look at the J-D column 1880 is -.21 C, 2013 is .60 C, delta temp .81C, delta time 133 years.
Your graph shows the entire decade past year 2000 above .60C, the GISS table
only 4 years in that time above .60 C, therefore your graph reflects some other data set
than the GISS GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index.

Click to expand...

That graph was pulled directly off the GISS website. And its not the land-ocean temperature index.
And the most appropriate measure for looking at variable data over the long term is a moving average.


Why would you try to compare the CO2 forcing in air with land/ocean temperature index??? Dont you know that water absorbs heat energy and does not warm as fast as air? Well, real scientists do understand that. Its called heat capacity. Look it up. I'd recommend a basic chemistry textbook - junior high level would be fine.

Why dont you leave the science to the big boys and try to absorb what they are telling you without silly critiques?

faithful_servant said:

Could you back that claim up with some facts? Let's start with the percentage of the total greenhouse effect caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gases (and please include H2O in the numbers so that we can see the whole picture).

Click to expand...

Why don't you debate a part that you disagree with instead...

Cardinal said:

Creationists and global warming deniers, like pizza and beer.

Click to expand...

There are global warming deniers and then there are global warming realists that deny that global warming is the doom that most make it out to be AND that it is part of the natural processes of climate change.

Bodhisattva said:

There are global warming deniers and then there are global warming realists that deny that global warming is the doom that most make it out to be AND that it is part of the natural processes of climate change.

Click to expand...

And I'll bet none of those "realists" are scientists or use actual scientists for their sources.

Cardinal said:

And I'll bet none of those "realists" are scientists or use actual scientists for their sources.

Click to expand...

You think that global warming is the doom that most make it out to be? Really?

We got some serious global warming going on here from the humidity rising after the climate change of rain just occurred. The sky is falling, the sky is falling.

Bodhisattva said:

You think that global warming is the doom that most make it out to be? Really?

Click to expand...

For those people that live in the zones that would be effected by a 5-9 meter raise in ocean levels... yes. That is a quarter of the worlds populations. Besides the economic factors involved, try relocating 1.8 billion people.

OnWisconsin said:

View attachment 67171651



10 year increments over 100,000 years is asking a bit much don't you think? That image should suffice.

Click to expand...

Ice core data.... Accurate to within a couple of centuries. What we're being told is that the rate of increase over a few decades is unprecedented, yet the best tool we have for analyzing historical data is something that has an accuracy of around 200-300 years. Try again, this simply doesn't cut it.

Also, your graph leaves out H2O, which is by orders of magnitude the most influential GG there is. Every bit of impact that all other GG gases have gets lost in the annual natural variation of this most important (and ignored) GG gas there is.

The earth has been warming since the last ice age. Does mankind contribute? Incomplete data, politicization of global warming, false data and fear mongers make it impossible for someone to actually get an idea of how much, if any, mankind contributes.

Ice reflects more solar energy than does water which reflects back more than bare earth which absorbs energy and emits it back to the atmosphere. More land and water exposed, more energy not reflected to space.

Inconsistent output of the sun. It goes in cycles with some cycles more intense than others.

Heating due to gravitational forces. Both Jupiter and Saturn have moons with liquids but do not receive enough energy from the sun. It is caused by gravitational forces acting upon them. We have that large body, the moon (Luna) which just recently made it's closest pass to the earth and is no moving back outwards from the earth and we have gravitational force from the sun itself.

Terra also has a molten core which is not always constant.

Some scientist say that, until recently, Terra's rotation speed has been slowing over a very long period. Some even claim that data show we once only had 16 hr days, not 24 hr ones.

Axial tilt also play a role in how much Sol's energy reaches and is absorbed by land mass.

Amount of cloud cover also plays a role. Some scientist say this can be affected by cosmic radiation as well as solar radiations.

Ozone layer plays another role. However, man made emissions causing ozone reduction has been debunked, some still believe it. The ozone layer and how much there is of it is a factor of interaction of the Oxygen and certain radiations from the sun.

Two things that mankind definitely has a hand in:

The amount of plant life also affects the heat in the atmosphere. (this will also affect CO2 levels as plants just love the stuff)

Who knows how many acres of asphalt and concrete now exist on earth? They absorb radiation and give back heat at a different rate than soil and rock.

So, until scientist put all those factors together and others I am sure I don't know about and then can account for every erg of energy from every source, to blame mankind for any significant amount of contribution to the process is just junk science and non-sense.

Threegoofs said:

That graph was pulled directly off the GISS website. And its not the land-ocean temperature index.
And the most appropriate measure for looking at variable data over the long term is a moving average.


Why would you try to compare the CO2 forcing in air with land/ocean temperature index??? Dont you know that water absorbs heat energy and does not warm as fast as air? Well, real scientists do understand that. Its called heat capacity. Look it up. I'd recommend a basic chemistry textbook - junior high level would be fine.

Why dont you leave the science to the big boys and try to absorb what they are telling you without silly critiques?

Click to expand...

Perhaps a better question would be why would you select the second graph on your own linked page?
When the top graph is what the GISS calls the "Global Land-Ocean Temperature index" I.E. the Average global temperature.
Your posted graph is of only the Meteorological stations,(as stated in the title).
The topic is Global Warming, shouldn't we look at Global temperatures?

longview said:

Perhaps a better question would be why would you select the second graph on your own linked page?
When the top graph is what the GISS calls the "Global Land-Ocean Temperature index" I.E. the Average global temperature.
Your posted graph is of only the Meteorological stations,(as stated in the title).
The topic is Global Warming, shouldn't we look at Global temperatures?

Click to expand...

Sure. But you were discussing CO2 forcing and temperature, which is specifically about AIR temperatures. Somehow, you used data that looks at oceans, and pretended you're little calculation was relevant based on that data.

That's either evidence of incompetence or deliberate deception.

Either way, it looks pretty clear. No matter how you measure it, warming is very very real.

Threegoofs said:

Sure. But you were discussing CO2 forcing and temperature, which is specifically about AIR temperatures. Somehow, you used data that looks at oceans, and pretended you're little calculation was relevant based on that data.

That's either evidence of incompetence or deliberate deception.

Either way, it looks pretty clear. No matter how you measure it, warming is very very real.

Click to expand...

It is the air temperature over the land and ocean averaged.
You are the one who selected a truncated graph of only Meteorological stations.
This is the title from the more complete set,

Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change

Click to expand...

longview said:

It is the air temperature over the land and ocean averaged.
You are the one who selected a truncated graph of only Meteorological stations.
This is the title from the more complete set,

Click to expand...

Which reflects water temperatures.

It's like pretending global warming doesn't exist because you can always go out on a boat and it will be cool 1/2 mile off shore!

You are pretending that your little calculation can ignore the giant heat sink of the ocean.

Threegoofs said:

Which reflects water temperatures.

It's like pretending global warming doesn't exist because you can always go out on a boat and it will be cool 1/2 mile off shore!

You are pretending that your little calculation can ignore the giant heat sink of the ocean.

Click to expand...

Or you pretending that the world is not 70% ocean.

longview said:

Or you pretending that the world is not 70% ocean.

Click to expand...

Like I said....you are the one pretending that the world is not 70% ocean with the fake math 'analysis'.

Heat is being trapped on the earth. Only part of it is manifesting as air temperature rise. A whole lot is going to the very energy intensive step of changing water to a different phase- ice to water, water to water vapor.