• 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
repeter said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh!!!!

There's TOO MUCH water in the air.

Well, that explain's California's drought all right. Africa's, too.
 
The Mark said:
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.
Click to expand...

apparently it is:roll:

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.
 
Oozlefinch said:
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.
Click to expand...

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"
 
Catawba said:
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)
Click to expand...

Statement doesn't say glob


Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

Catawba said:
The line of empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming is as follows:

We're raising CO2 levels
Click to expand...

Yep.

Catawba said:
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).
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Catawba said:
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."
Click to expand...

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?

Catawba said:
CO2 traps heat
Click to expand...

The question is: How much.

Catawba said:
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).
Click to expand...

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?


Catawba said:
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."
Click to expand...

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.

Catawba said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?

Catawba said:
So we see a direct line of evidence that we're causing global warming.
Click to expand...

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:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...
umm....yes, the air is warmer than it was in the past. i rest my case.
 
Catawba said:
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"
Click to expand...

Are you deliberately missing the point?

The point is that naturally occurring global warming events are beneficial enough to melt ice caps, as has been shown in the historical record.

Today's warming trend has not melted the ice caps, ergo, today's trend is not as severe as those found in the past.
 
Catawba said:
I don't run from them. I have been ignoring them because they are idiotic, with absolutely no evidence to back them up, which you have confirmed by not providing any evidence of your claim that there has been no warming from 1995 - 2010.

"The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) said in its year-end report on the climate that the decade spanning 2000 to 2009 was the warmest on record.
NCDC report: Decade of 2000 to 2009 hottest on record
Click to expand...


Can I ask you why you call yourself a Conservative? Is it a joke or something?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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?
Click to expand...

Neither were global events, and we have not have frequent volcanic activity in this warming period to account for the warming. Unless you have proof beyond the scientist's data.

"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."
[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum]Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


I already posted a link to the scientist's conclusion there is no evidence the Medieval warm period was a global event and attributed it to frequent volcanic eruptions.
Medieval Climate Not So Hot
 
Navy Pride said:
Can I ask you why you call yourself a Conservative? Is it a joke or something?
Click to expand...

Look up the definition of the root word, conserve, and you will understand.
 
Catawba said:
Neither were global events, and we have not have frequent volcanic activity in this warming period to account for the warming. Unless you have proof beyond the scientist's data.

"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."
Holocene climatic optimum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I already posted a link to the scientist's conclusion there is no evidence the Medieval warm period was a global event and attributed it to frequent volcanic eruptions.
Medieval Climate Not So Hot
Click to expand...



Oh, Rule Number Two: When confronted with facts that you can't refute, pretend they're not true.

Are you seriously trying to claim the planet's highest year ever was 1998?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Are you deliberately missing the point?

The point is that naturally occurring global warming events are beneficial enough to melt ice caps, as has been shown in the historical record.

Today's warming trend has not melted the ice caps, ergo, today's trend is not as severe as those found in the past.
Click to expand...

As has been shown, what you referenced were regional events caused by natural sources that peaked tens of thousands of years ago. What is happening today is a global event caused by man that has not peaked and will not peak as long as we continue our overloading the atmosphere with C02.
 
Catawba said:
Look up the definition of the root word, conserve, and you will understand.
Click to expand...

You differ on every single issue with every conservative in DP....:confused:

Even if I stretch it I can't even see you as a RINO......

A perfect example is this thread......
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
Could you get another source for that data? The article was quite obviously bias against global warming, and I would like to see the Doctor's full statement, not paraphrased and shortened.

Then of course, is the problem about births vs. fully grown. How many polar bears of the 2,100 born survive to adulthood to reproduce?
Click to expand...

Dr Taylor is not good enough?
 
While all of you sit on your chairs debating whether global warming is real or not, the earth is silently preparing its attack on the human populations:july_4th:
 
repeter said:
Or they could be wrong. Corporations quite often are. And corporations always act on their own interests (and that of their stock holders). Considering what is being considered in terms of a cap and trade system, they might very well want to leave the group that they did.
Click to expand...

Cap and trade is not likely now with all the lies and corruption being shown. Even the Top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer is quitting.
 
repeter said:
Could you get another source for that data? The article was quite obviously bias against global warming, and I would like to see the Doctor's full statement, not paraphrased and shortened.

Then of course, is the problem about births vs. fully grown. How many polar bears of the 2,100 born survive to adulthood to reproduce?
Click to expand...

Ask The Experts - Polar Bears International


In the 1950s the polar bear population up north was estimated at 5,000. Today it's 20- to 25,000, a number that has either held steady over the last 20 years or has risen slightly. In Canada, the manager of wildlife resources for the Nunavut territory of Canada has found that the population there has increased by 25 percent."
 
Navy Pride said:
You differ on every single issue with every conservative in DP....:confused:

Even if I stretch it I can't even see you as a RINO......

A perfect example is this thread......
Click to expand...

Yes, it would be ironic indeed for some Conservatives to actually want to conserve their environment, wouldn't it?
 
Last edited:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fCP_nHRjP8"]YouTube- Evidence CO2 does not cause dangerous Global warming[/ame]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom