AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Global Warming is a Myth

199 29554
Sassin
offline
Sassin
170 posts
Nomad

I think global warming is a myth if anyone wants to prove me wrong try.

  • 199 Replies
SuperzMcShort
offline
SuperzMcShort
325 posts
Nomad

And sorry, I meant to say an increase to .5%, as you pointed out the chaos of putting .3% into textbooks would make highschoolers think of mass planet destruction (Not)


I think you may have misread. It was .02 to .03 witch is a 50% increase, so an increase of .5% would be about a 1500% increase. Which would be something like a tripling of the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Also, Its fair to assume that the biomass of the dead photosynthesizing bacterial plankton/nonbacterial plants is nothing in comparison to the size and the dramatic temperature change of the Oceans and the amount of carbon they hold beneath their weighted pressure. Only the shallow parts of the ocean even have plants that photosynthesize.


A large portion of that huge amount of carbon is dead biomass. What the links you guys have presented have been talking about is increasing water temperature effected dissolved CO2 (and carbonic acid etc). That increasing water temperature would only be effecting the top reaches of the ocean, not all of it. An increased temperature could actually spur increased plant growth, which would remove carbon.
FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

I see evidence that the environment is changing. I see evidence that emissions are rising. I see no evidence that rising emissions cause climate change.


Can you read?

'' Changes in climate occur as a result of both internal variability within the climate system and external factors (both natural and anthropogenic). The influence of external factors on climate can be broadly compared using the concept of radiative forcing8. A positive radiative forcing, such as that produced by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, tends to warm the surface. A negative radiative forcing, which can arise from an increase in some types of aerosols (microscopic airborne particles) tends to cool the surface. Natural factors, such as changes in solar output or explosive volcanic activity, can also cause radiative forcing. Characterisation of these climate forcing agents and their changes over time (see Figure 2) is required to understand past climate changes in the context of natural variations and to project what climate changes could lie ahead. Figure 3 shows current estimates of the radiative forcing due to increased concentrations of atmospheric constituents and other mechanisms.''

Then:

''Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities.''

Also, click the link at the bottom. What I linked was only one page of one report among many.
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

Can you read?


Yes. But I don't always agree with what I read.

What you don't get it this:

If I find out that children at age 8 are on average, less intelligent this year than last. And I also find out that 8 year olds watching television has increased this year compared to last. Doesn't mean I can say that telivision watching had anything to do with the decrease in intelligence.

Just because the earth is getting hotter (which it isn't, it has gotten colder in the last decade) and greenhouse gas emmissions are up, doesn't mean greenhouse gas emissions are causing the earth to get hotter.

Changes in climate occur as a result of both internal variability within the climate system and external factors


Yup.

A positive radiative forcing, such as that produced by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, tends to warm the surface.


Nope.
Karoc
offline
Karoc
433 posts
Nomad

It isn't a myth its the matter of fact in which it will actually happen or not.

Sassin
offline
Sassin
170 posts
Nomad

It is a myth people the earth does this naturally we have nothing to worry about it will go away.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

If I find out that children at age 8 are on average, less intelligent this year than last. And I also find out that 8 year olds watching television has increased this year compared to last. Doesn't mean I can say that telivision watching had anything to do with the decrease in intelligence.


Blues, that analogy is horrible, because not all of television is bad for children to watch, some of it is actually good. The same cannot be said for CO2. Now then, if many reports suggest the same thing, that it is a contributing factor to GW, then maybe there isn't something we are getting at, hmm?
jjwood69
offline
jjwood69
134 posts
Nomad

If people would study the geological evidence and take into the equation of retardation [the axial tilt of the earth] they might find that this is a normal occurance of our planet. Which is also why the line of the equinox will change. It is a slow process, but so is global warming. Or are they the same? Asthe axial angle changes more sun will warm the polar regions melting ice and changing the enviorment. At one time [approx. 10,000 yrs. ago] Egypt was an oasis with plenty of rain and fertile soil. The earth is a living entity and purges herself when and if needed.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Yes. But I don't always agree with what I read.


So the majority of scientists are lyting or wrong? Interesting position to take. I guess evolution is make believe as well.

If I find out that children at age 8 are on average, less intelligent this year than last. And I also find out that 8 year olds watching television has increased this year compared to last. Doesn't mean I can say that telivision watching had anything to do with the decrease in intelligence.


To go into a bit more depth on your analogy, I found one flaw, (other than the one Freakenstein already pointed out), being that 'television' or in this case, emissions have never really been around in any real force since the Industrial Age.

Just because the earth is getting hotter (which it isn't, it has gotten colder in the last decade)


Since the 1300s, we haven't hit any period of noticable cooling. In fact, winter weather has become more erratic than ever before.

In any case, cooling won't matter, as it is a part of global warming. Dimming as a result of atmospheric pollution could more than contribute to sudden and drastic change in overall temperature (something that could become prevalent if say the economy were to turn around.)

In any case, there is a reason we don't call it global warming. What you are saying equates to claiming Fireflies don't exist because they aren't actually on fire. Weather is complex. Not every part of the world is going to get hotter. The correct term is 'Global Climate Change', as various parts of the world are going to be effected in different ways.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

So the majority of scientists are lyting or wrong?


reminded me of this

'Global Climate Change',


fine, i'll be politically correct. i do not believe in man-made global climate change however i do believe in global climate change.
Sassin
offline
Sassin
170 posts
Nomad

But its natural so we have nothing to worry about therefore global warming is a myth.

deserteagle
offline
deserteagle
1,633 posts
Nomad

But its natural so we have nothing to worry about therefore global warming is a myth.


(facepalms)

Oh my God are you serious?!

I like it how you think that the Ice Caps are melting magically.
Graham
offline
Graham
8,051 posts
Nomad

@Sassin your efforts are null. read up on the subject.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

@ Graham:

From the site you linked:

''Bob Livingston is an ultra-conservative American who has been writing a newsletter for 39 years. Bob has devoted much of his life to research and the quest for truth on a variety of subjects. Bob specializes in health issues such as nutritional supplements and alternatives to drugs, as well as issues of privacy (both personal and financial), asset protection and the preservation of freedom.''

First off, this man is not a scientist, but a political commentator, and a ultra conservative one at that. The 30,000 scientists sueing Al Gore are in the vast minority of scientists, of whom about 90% believe in the existence of man made climate change. Most of the other 10% work for petroleum companies.

But its natural so we have nothing to worry about therefore global warming is a myth.


Loving that logic. ''Hurricanes are natural so we have nothing to worry about therefore natural disasters are a myth''.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

This is going to be my mega post. With, links, graphs and best of all, lots of pretty BB code to make it look fly. Hopefully this should prevent me from having to repeat myself.

Global Climate Change

There are two main arguments that have been swatted around this thread, which I seek to discredit. The first being that warming is not anthropogenic (ie., man did not cause it, and that it's a natural process.) The second argument is that even if man is affecting the planet, it is not enough for it to cause warming on such a large scale.

I will adress these arguments using a mixture of links to articles containing data and factual information collected by the Met Office, the UK's national weather service, so before you ask, yes it is reliable. I will then post graphs relevant to the aforementioned arguments. The source of the information used in the graphs appears at the bottom, so again, reliable. Here goes:

Fun Fact #1: Climate Change is happening, and it is our fault
Fun Fact #2: The temperature is increasing to rise
Fun Fact #3: This isn't part of a natural cycle
Fun Fact #4: This cannot be explained by the Sun or other factors

The global temperature is rising -

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif

Global temperature is clearly linked to C02 levels -

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/co2-and-temp-trends_013007_092528.gif

C02 levels are higher than they should be in the natural cycle of human emissions -

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/vostok-ice-core_013107_062554.gif

Observed temperatures correlate most closely with climate forecasts that take into account human emissions than 'natural' C02 levels -

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/meehl-attribution.gif

P.S.

I hope none of this BB screws up.
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

Blues, that analogy is horrible, because not all of television is bad for children to watch, some of it is actually good. The same cannot be said for CO2.


CO2 is wonderful I don't know what you are talking about. Without CO2 there would be no life on Earth.

Now then, if many reports suggest the same thing, that it is a contributing factor to GW, then maybe there isn't something we are getting at, hmm?


You STILL don't get it.

Co2 and global temperature have zero correlation, and are not a cause and effect.

As previously pointed out, why does the rise in CO2 follow the rise in temperature in the graphs Al Gore used in "The Inconvenient Truth" as well as the graphs Carlie showed earlier?

To go into a bit more depth on your analogy, I found one flaw, (other than the one Freakenstein already pointed out), being that 'television' or in this case, emissions have never really been around in any real force since the Industrial Age.


That ins't really a flaw in the analogy. Telivison hasn't been around long, neither have emissions. Children as well as the Earth have been around much longer in comparison. Just because you find two statistics that match up (CO2 is up, more ice is melting, CO2 melts ice) doesn't mean that they are correlational.

Show me an experiment where a scientist created an environment with an atmosphere and then added CO2 and it got warmer and screwed around with the climate and organisms living on it. Oh wait, you can't. And this is why global warming can't really be proven, because all I hear are studies based on correlation not experiments that prove cause and effect.

So the majority of scientists are lyting or wrong? Interesting position to take. I guess evolution is make believe as well.


Noooo, I'm good with evolution. And the majority? Hmmmm, maybe there's a reason. Global Climate Change is "in" right now. Loads of $ out there for those willing to take it. I'm basically suggesting they've sold out =P

reminded me of this


me too.
Blu3sBr0s
offline
Blu3sBr0s
1,287 posts
Nomad

Alright give me time to read the above post which was not there a sec. ago before you try blow my arguments to hell and back =P

Showing 151-165 of 199