Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[Nezeru]

OK, time to ignore talisman, as he's just providing misinformation.

Seriously, all you are doing is assuming that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with you without doing research. Several 'authors' of the aforementioned IPCC work did not agree with the conclusions at all. You make these blanket statements like

In that case, the press blew a few studies out of proportion. The scientific community never seriously considered the possibility of global cooling.

which is clearly not true. Many leading scientists in the late 60's and early 70's believed not only that global cooling was possible, but that it was imminent and that we were headed for another ice age.

If you can't wrap your mind around that, try this one on for size: The world was, at two points in the Holocene era, several degrees warmer than it is today. And guess what? We still had land. Sea levels weren't too much higher. And people thrived just fine during the Medieval Warm Period.

[talisman]

Show me the ratio of IPCC authors who disagreed with the conclusion that humans have a greater than 90% of being a principal cause of global warming to those who don't.

I'm not assuming that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree with me, I'm agreeing with the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. I went to the web of knowledge just now and browsed around could not locate a single research article published in a major scientific journal in the last few years which called into question the anthropogenic nature of climate change.

also, a lazyman's quote of wikipedia: "Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[8]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports."

(reference 8 - Mason, B. J.. QJRMS, 1976, p 473 (Symons Memorial Lecture). Was an imminent Ice Age predicted in the '70's? No. Retrieved on November 17, 2005.)

[Jpshadsy]

Guess What!!!

Screw Global warming


I support Earth's Menopause!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[devonin]

Guess what!!!

That nonsense has no place being in CT.

[Nezeru]

Talisman, please check out Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.

[talisman]

Does that have the ratio I asked for in it? I kinda doubt it, seeing as it was published 6 years ago and the latest IPCC report came out 5 months ago.

[FaintScent]

I'd say real
The weather is so messup these days.

[Wlfwnd91]

Originally Posted by talisman

Does that have the ratio I asked for in it? I kinda doubt it, seeing as it was published 6 years ago and the latest IPCC report came out 5 months ago.

The IPCC seems to have you on a collar at their nut sack, I must say talisman. Everything you've said is "The IPCC this, and the IPCC that. Oh well the IPCC said this!" Do you have ANY other source of information at all? They teach you in the early grades of school to check multiple sources, because one may be wrong. What you're doing is basically following a religion. Believing everything without questioning. Are you a Christian? Yes, I'm going somewhere with that question that has good place here.

[Nezeru]

Wlfwnd91 beat me to it. =(

[talisman]

The IPCC is the most recent and most comprehensive evaluation of all the science on global warming. It's a perfectly valid source.

It's been endorsed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the US National Academy of Science, Joint Science Academies, the American Meteorological Society, and many other institutions. The only scientific institution publicly disagreeing with this consensus is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (I wonder why...), and even they admit they are reconsidering their position because "the current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members."

Hell, look at the Oreskes, 2004 review. 928 studies between 1993 and 2003 dealing with climate change were looked at, and not one challenged the consensus view.

all of this is on the wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change

Additionally, nezeru, you still haven't told me which contributing IPCC authors disagree with the consensus view that humans have a greater than 90% chance of being the primary cause of climate change. If you say that some disagree with this, then I want to know who. Otherwise you were just making it up.

Edit: oh and I'm nonreligious.

[Nezeru]

Professor John Christy is the only one whose name I can think of off of the top of my head, but I know there are quite a few others.

talisman, please find sources to back your claims. I don't consider the IPCC to be a reliable source because of the numerous controversies surrounding it.

[talisman]

Well, I DO find the IPCC to be a reliable source because there aren't "numerous controversies" surrounding it. As I already posted, it's widely endorsed by the scientific community and by governing bodies worldwide.

If you want, I could just pull up every single article written about global climate change in the past decade or so.

[Cavernio]

Question: The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2. It also releases heat. Could it not be that we're simply warming the earth with ALL of our activity which causes heat, from lighting homes to refining oil to just about everything that's powered?
Am I just being stupid?
I don't mean to say the greenhouse effect is nonexistant, or that other factors don't exist.

[Iam_a_Maid]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Question: The burning of fossil fuels releases CO2. It also releases heat. Could it not be that we're simply warming the earth with ALL of our activity which causes heat, from lighting homes to refining oil to just about everything that's powered?
Am I just being stupid?

No, you make perfect sense, just some people are too, how one should put it lightly, ignorant, dumb, in denial.

The title of the thread is Global Warming:Real or Fake?... guess what, it is real. Is global warming a natural occurrence or artificial. It is natural and happens in cycles, yet this cycle seems to be a lot more acute. Could it be that humans accelerated the process? After thinking about this rationally. It definitely seems like we do.

Now, one could argue that humans are just part of nature and even though we define things as artificial, we are just part of nature and for better or worse natural cycle will go on. In that case global warming is indeed a natural occurrence and we have nothing to worry about, because it is how it is. Even though we might be wiped out because balance has shifted and we couldn't adapt to natural* order of things. But hey, that's nature* for you .

I could go on and on and on. ;p

[Cavernio]

Errm, my point wasn't that global warming exists, there are facts saying that the world is warming up. The reason behind global warming is what's being hotly debated, and no one's mentioned that modern culture converts A LOT of energy, and in every single thing I think of, heat is a form of that energy which is always released. Even using wind energy, we'd still be creating heat, right?

I agree with you though Maid, that people are a part of the eco-system too, and that species living on the earth seem to have direct impacts on the geology of the earth. It's sad that things like extinction happen, but guess what, they'd happen without us around anyways.

[talisman]

In most cases with fossil fuel burning, the heat that is generated is converted into energy (obviously not perfectly). For example, in power plants it's used to boil water to make steam to turn a turbine to generate electricity. I couldn't tell you, though, if the dissipation of heat from just natural oil fires or whatever actually has any kind of a significant impact.

[Nezeru]

All living things give off heat. Humans are a very small percentage of that.

[GuidoHunter]

I doubt that the percentage of heat that we give off (through combustion and other things we do) is significant with respect to the reradiated solar energy.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Cavernio]

Compared to the total amount of solar energy reradiated in total, I'm sure that what we give off is insignificant too. However, is it insignificant compared to the amount of re-radiation that the increase in CO2, suspected to be caused by humans, causes? It's only 0.7 degrees that's been raised globally. For instance, there're significant differences in heat between a city and wilderness, often by a few degrees. (Yes, there're many things affecting this, one of them being heat by the sun trapped in concrete, just more re-radiation, but of a different type than greenhouse effect.) I don't suppose anyone has any figures about how much heat any given area of human development gives off? I'm completely willing to acceed my point as moot given some data.

Also, I wasn't talking about 'people' giving off heat. I'm talking about cars, factories, homes, businesses, etc. giving off heat, not just burning of fossil fuels. Like, conventional light bulbs give off something like 80% heat, 20% light. No other living thing harnesses energy the way humans do.

[sgkoneko]

Global warming is real. But here's where I'll probably lean my argument towards the right for once.

A. The only source is not humans, it was occurring anyways
B. Siberia(as a result of the land mass itself, not as a result of the people) is causing the most pollution because of methane being released from something I can't remember. It's not the people's fault and no one can do anything about it I know that much.
C. Humans are speeding the process up but never started it or caused it.
D. Yes we can do things to make the enviroment better, which would be good all around, but of course only when something like an ice age could be the result of our carelessness, do people do something about it, and not even then!
But the point is being that this will only slow down the inevitable. Global warming will cause an ice age whether we start caring for our enviroment or not.