Debate time: Global Warming

[dt3]

*Sniffs*

Smells like science in here...

 

[Maulds]

*Sniffs*

Smells like science in here...

My scientific explanation...I tooted. It happens in cycles triggered by having Taco Bell for lunch.

 

[dt3]

My scientific explanation...I tooted. It happens in cycles triggered by having Taco Bell for lunch.

And you're adding greenhouse gasses, you bastard!

 

[AUDRAA]

*Sniffs*

Smells like science in here...

whats that smell like?

 

[dt3]

whats that smell like?

Apparently, Chris' taco farts :dunno

 

[Alien Allen]

somebody folded up their tent :24:

Guess she got blinded by the science.

and you some fookin funny guys:thumbup

Time for some music while we wait for the response

YouTube - Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science

 

[Makedde]

Why is that everytime it gets really cold, people say 'So much for global warming' as if it can't be cold and MUST be hot? More of them today going on about the weather, 'It's called global warming so why is it cold in some places'? they ask.

Me thinks these people should do a little research. It ain't called climate change for nothing.

 

[Alien Allen]

Why is that everytime it gets really cold, people say 'So much for global warming' as if it can't be cold and MUST be hot? More of them today going on about the weather, 'It's called global warming so why is it cold in some places'? they ask.

Me thinks these people should do a little research. It ain't called climate change for nothing.

and it is not called a weather cycle for nothing either

only idiots are denying there is a warming trend. The problem is whether that is natural or man made. And there is way too many that question the cause to take knee jerk reactions.

Remember all the genius scientists 30 years ago said we were headed for an ice age.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

I plan on giving you a response Maulds, but I have only heard of this in a different type of context, so I need to do more research.

Remember all the genius scientists 30 years ago said we were headed for an ice age.

Your wrong about this one alien, as most skeptics are, there was only a very small amount of scientists who believed in global cooling, and even they had their doubts (but were taken out of context by the media)

For example:

An often cited 1975 Newsweek article The Cooling World:

"Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend… But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century."
​

A 1974 Times Magazine article Another Ice Age?:

"When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."​

However, these are media articles, not peer reviewed scientific papers. And when you look at the scientific papers, no consensus arises there either.


A 2003 Washington Post op-ed by James Schlesinger, Climate Change: The Science Isn't Settled, quoted a 1972 National Science Board report as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end . . . leading into the next glacial age."​

The full quote from the report is as follows:

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end, to be followed by a long period of considerably colder temperatures leading to the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now. However, it is possible, or even likely, that human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path.
For instance, widespread deforestation in recent centuries, especially in Europe and North America, together with increased atmospheric opacity due to man-made dust storms and industrial wastes, should have increased the Earth’s reflectivity. At the same time increasing concentration of industrial carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should lead to a temperature increase by absorption of infrared radiation from the Earth’s surface.
When these human factors are added to such other natural factors as volcanic eruptions, changes in solar activity, and resonances within the hydro-atmosphere, their effect can only be estimated in terms of direction, not of amount"


​

Even the scientists that did believe in global cooling didn't show a sudden climate change looming on the horizon, this was all blown out of proportion by the media, and by skeptics like you.

And there wasn't even a consensus, or large amount of scientists that believed in global cooling.
There is a paper that surveys climate studies from 1965 to 1979 (and in a refreshing change to other similar surveys, lists all the papers). They find very few papers (7 in total) that predict global cooling. This isn't surprising. What surprises is that even in the 1970s, on the back of 3 decades of cooling, more papers (42 in total) predict global warming due to CO2 than cooling.

Figure 1: Number of papers classified as predicting future global cooling (blue) or warming (red). In no year were there more global cooling papers than global warming papers.

So in fact, the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

 

[ConTRo13R]

I don't feel like trying to explain this to you anymore. Here is a quote from somewhere to finish this up.

you've just backed my argument up even more! Cheers

 

[Goat Whisperer]

you've just backed my argument up even more! Cheers

That site proved you wrong, just because I didn't want to take my time to explain it to you in my own words with more sources doesn't mean your any less wrong. I don't like to waste my time on people that don't even know how to use their own argument.

 

[Alien Allen]

The guy who started the Weather Channel is not falling for the BS

And yes I know he is probably not a climatologist.

Follow the money

The Amazing Story Behind Tho Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax we citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way, the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have lead to a rise in public awareness that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not a significant greenhouse gas that is triggering runaway global warming.

How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government we have to struggle so to stop it?

The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. He served with the Navy in World War II. After the war he became the Director of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute in La Jolla in San Diego, California. Revelle saw the opportunity to obtain major funding from the Navy for doing measurements and research on the ocean around the Pacific Atolls where the US military was conducting atomic bomb tests. He greatly expanded the Institute’s areas of interest and among others hired Hans Suess, a noted Chemist from the University of Chicago, who was very interested in the traces of carbon in the environment from the burning of fossil fuels. Revelle tagged on to Suess studies and co-authored a paper with him in 1957. The paper raises the possibility that the carbon dioxide might be creating a greenhouse effect and causing atmospheric warming. It seems to be a plea for funding for more studies. Funding, frankly, is where Revelle’s mind was most of the time.

Next Revelle hired a Geochemist named David Keeling to devise a way to measure the atmospheric content of Carbon dioxide. In 1960 Keeling published his first paper showing the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and linking the increase to the burning of fossil fuels.

These two research papers became the bedrock of the science of global warming, even though they offered no proof that carbon dioxide was in fact a greenhouse gas. In addition they failed to explain how this trace gas, only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, could have any significant impact on temperatures...................

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Now...For our moment of levity....With BB

 

[groundpounder]

You know your wrong and instead of admitting it, you just want to forget about it.

not really. You're just being a royal pain in the ass, that's all.

 

[Dana]

Now...For our moment of levity....With BB

LMFAO

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Look you 'proving' that people agree with you, proves nothing to me. Your proving that science agrees with you, that is when I become convinced.

So far you have made no steps to prove scientifically that global warming to be false or at least false enough for us to not worry about it at all.

 

[dt3]

from heartland.org:​

Carbon Dioxide is such a small component of Earth's atmosphere (380 ppmv) that the "slice" it represents in this chart is really only a "line" about 1/2 as thick as the line shown. Compared to former geologic times, Earth's atmosphere is "CO2 impoverished."​

In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have


witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm, except during periods of glacial expansion during ice ages.​

Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period).
Temperature after C.R. Scotese Climate History
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example:
During the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today.
The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.
The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today -- 4400 ppm.
According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence Earth temperatures and global warming.










Now don't be hateful, this is the kinda thing you've been begging for.

Bump.

 

[Goat Whisperer]

Bump.

Maulds brought that graph forward, not alienallen, whom I was directing that comment towards. Alienallen has not yet used any science.

First off, I'm working on it. I asked one of my scientist friends from the arctic about it

Next, it still doesn't prove anything scientifically. It doesn't give a reasonable explanation at to why there was a large amount of CO2 and no temperature change.

Why has CO2 in the past followed temperature changes?
Why didn't this one?

Could we actually get a clear picture of the temperature and CO2 levels from 600 million years ago?

Are these numbers real?

Did the site share all the facts, or just some; to lead you to false conclusions?

I am trying to find the answers to these questions, but the site doesn't share any of them and rarely do I see people who actually use the argument, meaning there is only a small amount of information I can find on the internet.

Still, can you or they answer, scientifically, why the correlation didn't occur?

I think this has to do with the leading/lagging phenomenon. I am still researching it, not much too find....

 

[groundpounder]

give me that post *right there* (points to post right above this one) and I'll give you my previous assessment.

But now, it's royal pain in the fuckin ass...

 

[groundpounder]

Maulds brought that graph forward, not alienallen, whom I was directing that comment towards. Alienallen has not yet used any science.

so?:dunno

First off, I'm working on it. I asked one of my scientist friends from the arctic about it

you would roast someone for saying the same thing. :nod:

Next, it still doesn't prove anything scientifically.

it is exactly the same type of data that you provide. In fact, it might even be better quality information than anything you have put in this far useless thread.

It doesn't give a reasonable explanation at to why there was a large amount of CO2 and no temperature change.

it's far more informative (read: better) than any explanation you have offered :humm:

Why has CO2 in the past followed temperature changes?
Why didn't this one?

you need to prove the flip side of this statement as much as you ask for it to be proven. The double standard is staggering, yet understandable given the overt displays of narrow-mindedness (see: below) :cool

Could we actually get a clear picture of the temperature and CO2 levels from 600 million years ago?

good question, which is why the warming theory is only a theory - no real frame of reference. :laughat:

Are these numbers real?

these are the types of questions that people ask who are reluctantly seeing that there is a chance they could be wrong...

Did the site share all the facts, or just some; to lead you to false conclusions?

I'm sure all the sites you are so fond of quoting are full of stone-cold fact and evey single one that presents an opposing viewpoint is full of lies, deceit, derelicts and weak science. :cool That's a good P.O.V. to keep for the rest of your life - anything that stands in contrast to whatever you believe is founded upon false premise, so why bother even trying to see it any other way?? :thumbup

I am trying to find the answers to these questions, but the site doesn't share any of them and rarely do I see people who actually use the argument, meaning there is only a small amount of information I can find on the internet.

GTFO! Are you serious?!?! No fucking way! :24: