Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[Squeek]

I always mention this in every global warming thread, but it's fun saying it again.

Crazed global warming fanatics always seem to attribute weird weather patterns with global warming. For example, this Winter, we had a few weeks of really warm weather right before two months of severe cold. And that continued well into Spring. It's almost completely turned around, but I still don't feel safe putting away the Winter coat.

So what are these "crazy weather patterns" attributed to if not global warming?

El Niño / La Niña

The media stopped covering them so people assumed they went away, since anything that's not in the news doesn't exist.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Adamaja456

But the program was showing different aspects of Earth in 100 years, and they were saying how in 100 years, HALF of the Amazon Rain Forest will turn into desert.

personally, i dont find it that hard to believe.

I do. In order to turn something into desert you have to completely remove all sources of life and food. Lots of catastrophic things could happen due to global warming, but desertification of the Amazon is certainly not one of them.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Engler]

I've heard of El Nino. Science class is usually boring, but I thought it was fascinating.

[lavakeese]

I became a vegetarian because all of the factory farms in the US produce more CO2 than every single car on the road today. Global warming is real, and if you don't believe me, you've been duped by a government that profits from oil and doesn't want the American people to realize what they've done to the earth.

[JasonKey]

I think something is going on .. however, I think its simply politics to debate the "why".

Are things changing globally? Yes. Can we change it? Likely no .. Should we prepare for the changes to accelerate? Duh!


THATS what annoys me .. politicians debate the why, or who is responsible .. ect .. Why does it matter who,what or why?

The simple question is: is something changing, and will "it" get worse?

[madmatt621]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

[6 p01nt3d*st@r]

global is deffintley real
i study weather a lot and i know that pollution in the atmousphere can cause a greenhouse affect. Rasing the earths tempeture by a couple degrese every decade or so.
its the reason all these tornadoes and hurracanes are hitting and the sea leval rising.
i predict i will get worse untill we do something about it. The tornado that hit greensburg,kansas was a 1 1/2 mile wide EF-5 and more tornadoes like that will hit more often maby even lager cities with a bigger death tool.
i predict we will get about 2-4 large hurracanes the season
i live whear one of the biggest tornades hit at that time on april,3,1974. It relly affected the area.
tornades can hit anywear and mabey even my town again.
global warming is real.

[sharpnova]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

sharpnova, quit listening to Sean Hannity. He gives a bad name to logical conservatives.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

afraid i'm not a conservative either. i find politics to be another religion or football. just something absurdly idiotic for people with low IQ's to get passionate about. maybe I'm wrong. maybe it is important to get passioante about a bunch of figureheads touting the agenda of the corporations that sponsored their campaigns.

i just don't buy into the global warming craze.

[madmatt621]

Originally Posted by Engler

I've heard of El Nino. Science class is usually boring, but I thought it was fascinating.

El Nino causes rain and fires. El Nino doesn't really have an effect towards global warning. It's an annual storm that targets the southwest United States.

Originally Posted by 6 p01nt3d*st@r

The tornado that hit greensburg,kansas was a 1 1/2 mile wide EF-5 and more tornadoes like that will hit more often maby even lager cities with a bigger death tool.

The tornado that hit Greensburg, Kansas formed from a super cell off of a hook echo. Storms like that one form when cool, moist air collides with warm, dry air. Seems like you hardly know weather. In other words, that super cell is typical this time of year.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by 6 p01nt3d*st@r

global is deffintley real
i study weather a lot and i know that pollution in the atmousphere can cause a greenhouse affect. Rasing the earths tempeture by a couple degrese every decade or so.
its the reason all these tornadoes and hurracanes are hitting and the sea leval rising.
i predict i will get worse untill we do something about it. The tornado that hit greensburg,kansas was a 1 1/2 mile wide EF-5 and more tornadoes like that will hit more often maby even lager cities with a bigger death tool.
i predict we will get about 2-4 large hurracanes the season
i live whear one of the biggest tornades hit at that time on april,3,1974. It relly affected the area.
tornades can hit anywear and mabey even my town again.
global warming is real.

I refuse to believe you have any sort of high-level knowledge of weather, simply because of your grammar and spelling. Being unable to spell "temperature," "degrees," "hurricanes," and "tornadoes" does not support your claim that you "study weather a lot." It may be a lot to you, but judging from your post, it's paltry compared to some of the others.

But allow me to discuss some of your points anyway.

Hurricanes becoming more common? They're not. This past hurricane season for eastern USA was NOTHING like expectations, and was very calm. Tornadoes are not increasing at any sort of noticeable rate.

Simply go into the transcript of the special I talked about (earlier on in this thread), and you will see several scientists with Ph.D's in climatology talking about how there have been no noticeable increases in severe weather. I'm much more inclined to believe them than you, since you can't even spell "atmosphere."

As for madmatt621:

Graph 1: A temperature graph over a 140-year span, is it? Try a graph of the Earth's climate changes over a much longer period of time, since only 140 years could easily be part of a standard climate variation.

Graph 2: Once again, only 10 years. Standard climate variation theory applies.

Graph 3: See graph arguments in previous posts.

Graph 4: Only 40 years, standard climate variation.

Graph 5: Solar changes don't really interest or concern what I've been talking about, so I don't think it really applies.

Graph 6: Notice the regular spikes in the graph? Now would be about the time another spike would be warranted. Besides, according to that graph, the most recent spike started occurring 10,000 years ago, well before humans developed any sort of civilization (with the five traits of a civilization; that started about 5,000 years ago in Sumer)


Graph 7: See graph arguments in previous posts. Also, it would be nice if there was some explanation as to what each color represented.

Graph 8/9: These are predictions, therefore there is nothing to refute.

Graph 10: Once again, only 40 years. The thickness would decrease as the world got warmer, wouldn't it? Standard climate variation, once again.

I have a question for the global warming supporters, though, that hasn't been answered yet.

Why, in the graph shown in An Inconvenient Truth, hailed as the champion documentary for global warming, did temperature tend to rise BEFORE CO2?

[archbishopjabber]

Is anyone worried about all the bees dying? I don't think it is really tied into this, but it certainly could be. Even the slightest climatic fluctuations can lead to a butterfly effect.

I think global warming is used as a political tool and I think Al Gore is a self righteous ass but I also believe that it is ignorant to think our pollution has no effect on the world around us. The bottom line is fossil fuels are not very efficient and we should get off them regardless of whether or not they are increasing global temperature. If a trillion dollars of research could lead to cold fusion, it would be more than worth while with all the energy we could produce. It could open up almost unlimited potential. If global warming lights the fire under people to get them to look into alternative energy, then I care not whether it is real or fake. Oil sucks, end of story.

[talisman]

I'm not a climatologist (neither is anyone else here) and I haven't read all the scientific literature on recent climate change (neither has anyone else here).

But I don't see how anyone could manage to thoroughly refute what the IPCC, a nongovernmental body of thousands of disagreeing, nitpicky scientists has said. It states that global warming is unequivocally occurring. It also states that this is "very likely" (>90% chance) that this is due to human activities.

I know science doesn't prove anything, scientists can be wrong, blahblahblah. But when thousands of scientists contribute and hundreds argue over every minute detail and still agree on the above claims, I don't see how any nonexpert can refute their claims.

In fact, I'll give anyone a dollar who can run through the latest IPCC report (the january one) and refute, logically, every argument it makes, and refute every study it cites. Until you can do that, let the science speak for itself.

[sjoecool1991]

Supposedly, the average temperature of the earth increases one degree every 78 years.

[6 p01nt3d*st@r]

this is why i dont ussaly post in the critical thinking

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by talisman

I'm not a climatologist (neither is anyone else here) and I haven't read all the scientific literature on recent climate change (neither has anyone else here).

But I don't see how anyone could manage to thoroughly refute what the IPCC, a nongovernmental body of thousands of disagreeing, nitpicky scientists has said. It states that global warming is unequivocally occurring. It also states that this is "very likely" (>90% chance) that this is due to human activities.

I know science doesn't prove anything, scientists can be wrong, blahblahblah. But when thousands of scientists contribute and hundreds argue over every minute detail and still agree on the above claims, I don't see how any nonexpert can refute their claims.

In fact, I'll give anyone a dollar who can run through the latest IPCC report (the january one) and refute, logically, every argument it makes, and refute every study it cites. Until you can do that, let the science speak for itself.

Thousands may be disagreeing, but 19,000 who signed the Oregon Petition agree that global warming does NOT have a human effect.

And I encourage you to read the transcript of Climate of Fear linked to earlier in this thread. It contains information about the IPCC and is very insightful; it may change your opinion since there are several experts on the subject talking about the other side of the argument.

[-Fallen-]

I believe the global warming is just a part of the earth's "life" and cycle. The "Ice Age" was certainly not a human consequence, and nor is this.

[talisman]

19,000 experts in recent climate change?

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by talisman

19,000 experts in recent climate change?

I would assume that scientists wouldn't be so idiotic as to support something they have no idea about.

So perhaps not "experts" in that they're not gurus about it, but close. Enough to know what they're talking about more than the average scientist, I'd wager.

But I don't know much about the Oregon Petition beyond what I posted earlier, so I can't be certain.

[madmatt621]

If there was no such thing as global warming, then how do you explain the ice melting in the Arctics?

[-Fallen-]

Nobody said it didn't exist. It's whether it's just a part of the earth's cycle or because of human activities.