• 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!

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

Do you believe in global warming, and if so, what is causing it.

  • I believe in global warming, and that it is caused by man.

    Votes: 26 52.0%
  • I believe in global warming, but I don't think humankind has anything to do with it.

    Votes: 3 6.0%
  • I don't believe in global warming.

    Votes: 4 8.0%
  • Other - Explain

    Votes: 17 34.0%

  • Total voters
    50
I was other. I do believe in Global Warming. Living in a country where a large part of the country lays beneath the sea level and is only protected by man made obstacles, I am very aware of global warming.

I believe it but I am not sure it is totally down to human beings but I do think we have a large impact on it but it could be that it has a nature component too.
 
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.
Please show where my math is fake.
I used the accepted GISS "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You selected a graph of only Meteorological stations.
The models and their catastrophic predictions are all based on warming air temperature,
Maybe if we are looking for evidence to validate the models,
air temperature would be a good place to start.
If the warming predicted in the models is not present,
There is chance that the models are wrong, rather than the heat is going elsewhere.
The additional forcing is only theorized to exists, it has never been validated.
 
Please show where my math is fake.
I used the accepted GISS "Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature Change"
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
You selected a graph of only Meteorological stations.
The models and their catastrophic predictions are all based on warming air temperature,
Maybe if we are looking for evidence to validate the models,
air temperature would be a good place to start.
If the warming predicted in the models is not present,
There is chance that the models are wrong, rather than the heat is going elsewhere.
The additional forcing is only theorized to exists, it has never been validated.

You got pwned, and now you're just restating your original failed point.
 
You got pwned, and now you're just restating your original failed point.
Why don't you just admit you posted a graph with only the Meteorological stations,
instead of the more complete Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature,
because your were trying to make a point, however erroneous,
that temperatures were increasing faster than I stated.
What was your original comment again from post #74.
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.
So you are trying to show the temperature warming faster than the official GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature
by selecting out only the data from the Meteorological stations.
 
Does the globe warm ? Of course and it cools too. Been doing it forever.
Is CO2 the problem ? Not a chance. CERN has demonstrated solar activity to produce warming with repeatable experimentation. CO2 guys have not, only computer modeling.
 
I believe the earth has perpetual climate change.

I do not think it is the scientific community's best interest to say that. If they say its natural and man isnt causing it, they likely would not get as much funding.

There is disagreement in the scientific community, which is why these opinions are theories and not fact.

It is more of a political issue than scientific. Its a means for democrats to scare voters into their party. And also a means for democrats to raise taxes.

Im an outdoorsman and naturally i want the environment protected, but i wish the g would put money into cleaning up something concrete like polluted water ways rather than some boogeyman that no one knows for sure is being caused by man
 
Why don't you just admit you posted a graph with only the Meteorological stations,
instead of the more complete Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature,
because your were trying to make a point, however erroneous,
that temperatures were increasing faster than I stated.
What was your original comment again from post #74.

So you are trying to show the temperature warming faster than the official GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature
by selecting out only the data from the Meteorological stations.

Lets review:

You came up with a (wrong, but lets go with it anyway) forcing for the doubling of CO2 that translates into temperature.

You then used the temperatures measured over both land and a giant cold sink of ocean to claim that temps have only gone up .6 degrees C (and apparently, you are under the illusion that this temperature change happens instantaneously, and water heats up immediately under the air).

You use this number because... well, its smaller. And gawsh, oceans should go up in temperature the same amount as air, right? (apparently, heat capacity is not in your knowledge base. Again... middle school textbooks will help here).

You then throw up some basic calculation that apparently shows 97% of all scientists are totally mistaken by believing AGW is an issue. (this, of course, is laughable on its face, dontcha think?)

I then show you that the data you have is wrong, the assumptions you have are wrong, the interpretation you have is wrong, and the conclusions you have are wrong.

That, my friend, is being pwned. Can we leave this stuff to the grown ups now? Because thousands of people who have studied this issue and are very, very smart are saying the opposite of what you, a total amateur armchair 'scientists' are claiming.
 
Lets review:

You came up with a (wrong, but lets go with it anyway) forcing for the doubling of CO2 that translates into temperature.
IPCC, AR5 1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science.
Baede et al.
If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously,
with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared
radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm−2. In other words, the
radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration
would be 4 Wm−2. To counteract this imbalance, the
temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to
increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of
other changes.


You then used the temperatures measured over both land and a giant cold sink of ocean to claim that temps have only gone up .6 degrees C.
Wrong again, in post #69 I clearly stated the the GISS temperature had warmed .8 C in the last 133 years.
The GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature, is their accepted average global temperature.

You use this number because... well, its smaller. And gawsh, oceans should go up in temperature the same amount as air, right? .
Wrong again, the .6 C I used in post #69 was for the direct response of CO2, as defined by Baede et al,
you know, the IPCC's 1.2.2 Key Concepts in Climate Science

You then throw up some basic calculation that apparently shows 97% of all scientists are totally mistaken by believing AGW is an issue.
You are free to show any errors in my calculations, in fact you should do that.
Show how you would arrive at a curve to fit a warming of 1.2 C doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
The use your own calculation, and enlighten us as to what the direct response temperature should be.

I then show you that the data you have is wrong, the assumptions you have are wrong, the interpretation you have is wrong, and the conclusions you have are wrong.
You showed you selected a graph of only Meteorological stations,
and not the GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature

That, my friend, is being pwned. Can we leave this stuff to the grown ups now? Because thousands of people who have studied this issue and are very, very smart are saying the opposite of what you, a total amateur armchair 'scientists' are claiming.
I wonder why you think so highly of your skills, you have not made any of your points,
nor presented any data supporting your case.
 
LOL. I guess you just proved the entire scientific community wrong with your single post with a couple simple equations.

I bet you will modestly decline the certain Nobel which will follow.
 
LOL. I guess you just proved the entire scientific community wrong with your single post with a couple simple equations.

I bet you will modestly decline the certain Nobel which will follow.
Don't just hide behind a no reply, please show your work.
Point out the error in my calculation as you stated exists.
or better yet come up with your own.
Baede et al, tells you all you need, a 1.2 C increase would be the direct response
of increasing CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
Please enlighten us where that direct response should be at at 401 ppm.
 
Don't just hide behind a no reply, please show your work.
Point out the error in my calculation as you stated exists.
or better yet come up with your own.
Baede et al, tells you all you need, a 1.2 C increase would be the direct response
of increasing CO2 levels from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.
Please enlighten us where that direct response should be at at 401 ppm.

6 unicorns plus 5 unicorns divided by 2 equals 5.5 unicorns.

That doesn't change the fact that half unicorns do not exist.
 
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.

Will they let me? ...and it is a gradual process. Those thinking that it will be like the Day After Tomorrow are high.

[video]http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+eday+after+tomtorrow&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=B3D88E398369626FCA9FB3D88E398369626FCA9F[/video]
 
6 unicorns plus 5 unicorns divided by 2 equals 5.5 unicorns.

That doesn't change the fact that half unicorns do not exist.
Now you are just embarrassing yourself.
You have made comments that my basic calculations are somehow inaccurate,
Please prove you case with mathematics.
You used a graph showing only Meteorological stations as evidence of warming
greater than the GISS .8 C since 1880, when the accepted graph of
GISS Global Annual Mean Surface Air Temperature was right above it,
(on your own link). I will assume you posted the wrong graph by accident,
rather than a purposeful attempt to mislead.
 
LOL. You really think you've proven the IPCC and thousands of scientists wrong about this with a fifty word post, don't you?

I clarified why you are wrong- it's not my problem if you don't understand it.

When you start from the wrong assumptions, your mathematics are irrelevant.
 
LOL. You really think you've proven the IPCC and thousands of scientists wrong about this with a fifty word post, don't you?

I clarified why you are wrong- it's not my problem if you don't understand it.

When you start from the wrong assumptions, your mathematics are irrelevant.
Still hiding behind the no reply.
It is you who are making incorrect assumptions.
I am not trying to prove the IPCC wrong,
but rather showing with their own data, how their predictions
are at the extreme low end of their enormous range.
So again where am I wrong?
Let's start with the basic calculation.
1.2 C increase from moving CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm
(I will go slow for you,)
4 * log (560)- 4 * log (280)= 1.204
Now that we know the function,
4 * log(560) -4 * log(401)= .580,
But this is what is left of the doubling, to get the first part
we subtract from 1.2 C.
1.2 -.580= .62 C from increasing CO2 from 280 ppm to 401 ppm
There are other ways to find a function, but this one is the the +-10% of Baede 1.2 C.
If I am wrong, please enlighten us as to where?
 
Will they let me? ...and it is a gradual process. Those thinking that it will be like the Day After Tomorrow are high.

[video]http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=the+eday+after+tomtorrow&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=B3D88E398369626FCA9FB3D88E398369626FCA9F[/video]

So because its a gradual process, and because we wouldn't be around to have to deal with the enormous mess we are creating, we shouldn't worry about it?

Why do so many people get their panties in a bundle over debt, and debt that we are passing on to our children/grandchildren but we don't get all upset about the complete destruction of our ecosystems that we are passing on to our children/grandchildren? In my opinion, debt is quite simple to solve compared to destroying the environment around us.
 
So because its a gradual process, and because we wouldn't be around to have to deal with the enormous mess we are creating, we shouldn't worry about it?

...and you are assuming that, why?

Why do so many people get their panties in a bundle over debt, and debt that we are passing on to our children/grandchildren but we don't get all upset about the complete destruction of our ecosystems that we are passing on to our children/grandchildren? In my opinion, debt is quite simple to solve compared to destroying the environment around us.

I agree...
 
...and you are assuming that, why?.

Because the argument I always hear, and what it sounded like you were making, is that its a gradual process. It wont all happen at once therefor we shouldn't be alarmed. I just think that's a bull**** argument.
 
Because the argument I always hear, and what it sounded like you were making, is that its a gradual process. It wont all happen at once therefor we shouldn't be alarmed. I just think that's a bull**** argument.

It is a gradual process... that is simply a fact. The rest is all you buddy...
 
I replied. You just don't want to comprehend it!
People who reply usually hit the reply button.
You clearly have nothing Scientific to add to the discussion.
This thread is about if you believe in global warming, and if so what is causing it.
If you want to challenge what I find in the data, do so with mathematics.
This is not about what conclusions others, Scientist included reach, but what
conclusions you reach.
The data is there, so prove your case without appeals to authority!
 
Back
Top Bottom