Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[talisman]

actually quite a few people in the thread said it didn't exist. well, a few anyway.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by madmatt621

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

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

[talisman]

that doesn't make much sense, seeing as how there isn't an ozone hole at the north pole and the one at the south pole is on its way to recovery.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by talisman

actually quite a few people in the thread said it didn't exist. well, a few anyway.

I can't speak for the others for certain, but I would assume that by saying "global warming doesn't exist" they meant "humans aren't doing anything that would cause an effect like global warming."
Classroom instruction on global warming tends to go hand in hand with saying that humans are the cause of it, so the phrase "global warming" becomes "human effect on the Earth's climate, causing the temperature to increase."

Originally Posted by talisman

the one at the south pole is on its way to recovery.

So the Earth is actually cooling at the south pole then? What I'm forced to assume is that since you don't believe the ozone hole is the cause of arctic melting, you believe global warming is the cause of arctic melting (which is entirely possible, even probable. Temperature goes up, things melt). Thus, if the south pole is recovering, the temperature must be going down.

If that isn't what you mean, elaborate please. Or just drop it if you like; you didn't bring up the argument anyway. You have no obligation to continue with it, in my opinion.

[Squeek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_l...zone_depletion

On January 23, 1978, Sweden became the first nation to ban CFC-containing aerosol sprays that are thought to damage the ozone layer. A few other countries, including the United States, Canada, and Norway, followed suit later that year, but the European Community rejected an analogous proposal. Even in the U.S., chlorofluorocarbons continued to be used in other applications, such as refrigeration and industrial cleaning, until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985. After negotiation of an international treaty (the Montreal Protocol), CFC production was sharply limited beginning in 1987 and phased out completely by 1996.

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

The Antarctic ozone hole is an area of the Antarctic stratosphere in which the recent ozone levels have dropped to as low as 33% of their pre-1975 values. The ozone hole occurs during the Antarctic spring, from September to early December, as strong westerly winds start to circulate around the continent and create an atmospheric container. Within this "polar vortex", over 50% of the lower stratospheric ozone is destroyed during the antarctic spring.[8]

[talisman]

yeah but until you actually can show me how the empirical literature is being misinterpreted, all of the internet global warming skeptics are just armchair contrarians to me.

[Squeek]

Until you can ask me a question I understand, I'm going to keep quoting random sections of Wikipedia articles without reading them.

[talisman]

as I understand it, the ozone hole problems and global warming are largely dissociable events... hence the closing of the ozone layer at the south pole does not have much to do with temperature changes there.

and squeek, make a point because I'm not drawing the connection.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by talisman

yeah but until you actually can show me how the empirical literature is being misinterpreted, all of the internet global warming skeptics are just armchair contrarians to me.

If that was directed at me, please elaborate/clarify. I'm tired and don't quite understand what you mean right now. Have pity for the sleepy :P

[talisman]

it's not a difficult question to understand... "empirical literature" refers to scientific studies on phenomena related to global climate change. The authors often interpret this data as supporting or rejecting hypotheses about the nature of global climate change. The vast majority of these scientists are in agreement about global climate change, and that it is due to human causes.

Therefore, I'm asking anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus to show me where, how, and why they do with respect to the work done in the field, or provide their own research that supports another hypothesis.

[Squeek]

Originally Posted by talisman

as I understand it, the ozone hole problems and global warming are largely dissociable events... hence the closing of the ozone layer at the south pole does not have much to do with temperature changes there.

and squeek, make a point because I'm not drawing the connection.

It was merely a reply to the question of how ice caps can melt.

I would think a massive hole in a UV-protectant layer of the atmosphere would be a candidate for such a thing.

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by talisman

it's not a difficult question to understand... "empirical literature" refers to scientific studies on phenomena related to global climate change. The authors often interpret this data as supporting or rejecting hypotheses about the nature of global climate change. The vast majority of these scientists are in agreement about global climate change, and that it is due to human causes.

Therefore, I'm asking anyone who disagrees with the scientific consensus to show me where, how, and why they do with respect to the work done in the field, or provide their own research that supports another hypothesis.

Oh, I figured it was something like that. Didn't totally understand it but...meh, you get the idea.

Anyway, one reason I'm skeptical about global warming having a human cause is the "hockey stick graph" mentioned earlier. If you look closely at an overlay of CO2 and temperature along the same timeline, you find that temperature increases shortly before the CO2 does. This leads to the conclusion that CO2 increase does not cause a temperature increase, but the other way around.

Once, again, look up/read/watch Climate of Fear for more information. I can't possibly hope to explain it as eloquently as that program did. The host isn't anything special; he doesn't have much scientific knowledge. However, the guests he brings on are specialists in climatology and offer reasoning and valid points as to why they do not believe in human-caused global warming.

While I have linked to the transcript in a previous post, watching it would undoubtedly create a more accurate effect. Unfortunately, the program has already aired and is thus most likely illegal to distribute over the Internet. Which means that if you tried, you could find it quite easily, not that I condone that sort of thing.

[talisman]

one biased documentary < the volume of scientific literature

[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by talisman

one biased documentary < the volume of scientific literature

By that same logic:

An Inconvenient Truth < the volume of scientific literature

And since An Inconvenient Truth supports global warming by human cause...well, you can make the connection.

My point: If you believe what An Inconvenient Truth says, then you should believe equally what Climate of Fear says. They are both biased documentaries that bring in supposed scientific facts, are they not?

EDIT: I'm going to bed now, I might not be back until the weekend. Don't miss me too terribly

[talisman]

look, the scientific literature is the gold standard here. If you disagree with what all these scientists are saying, then you'd better be prepared to read their work and demonstrate exactly where they go wrong, not point to a documentary who's stated aim is only "to show the other side". I'm not going to debate An Inconvenient Truth vs Climate of Fear. And I think it's a sad state of affairs if everyone is getting their information solely from documentaries. So forget the documentaries. Look at the science. Then come back to me.

[Xack24]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

Is anyone worried about all the bees dying?

Actually, that is a much more pressing issue now than Global Warming, but most people don't seem to care. We could lose a large amount of our food.

[tsugomaru]

Talisman, can you say that all the experts that support Man-made Global Warming are telling the truth or believe in that ideal. Most of the papers written about a Man-Made Global Warming have cited scientist that don't believe in a Man-Made Global Warming.

I don't deny that Global warming is happening because in truth, it is, but it's not because of man.

~Tsugomaru

[talisman]

It's not a matter of "telling the truth", and man-caused global warming isn't an "ideal" (far from it). It's a matter of a consensus interpretation of an enormous volume of scientific study. You absolutely cannot refute the data, and you can only refute the interpretation if you can pinpoint where it's going wrong, which means to deny this consensus you'd better have some evidence on your side or evidence that their interpretation is wrong.

Being skeptical is, in my estimation, a virtue. But you cannot pass judgment on an issue and expect to be taken seriously if you cannot support your position.

So go to the primary literature, if you want, and debunk that.

[tsugomaru]

Alright, I do admit the only source of information I have is the one video I watched. All I know about Global Warming comes from that and the Inconvient Truth video.

However, they did trace sun activity back a thousand years and found a better correlation between the sun activity and temperature than CO2 and temperature. In fact, if temperatures rely on CO2 in the atmosphere, why was heat lagging behind CO2 content in Al Gore's famous chart by 800 years?

~Tsugomaru

[kylehaas]

It exists, but people ignore it.
So, Perhaps it doesn't exist to them...

Saddening, really...