Global Warming is Bunk

[Geodude]

Global warming is total bunk, seriously I don't know why people and many scientists buy into it. First of all, the Earth has been much warmer millions of years into the past, in fact it has been a little warmer in the recent past.

 

The climate models that are used are not very good at all. There are thousands upon thousands of variables and new ones are being added every once in a while. There is no possible way that you can possibly predict the climate, because of the chaotic nature of the climate. Didn't anyone ever hear of the butterfly affect? Also, many predictions were wrong.

 

And it has been shown that it is solar irradiance is the cause of the warming, as is has been for the past billions of years or so. Right here:

 

 

Some people don't just know that all of these records on greenhouse gases have only been reliably measured for the past 100 or so years. Also, notice how the sunspot activity has been increasing steadily.

 

And yet, everyone gets all paranoid over this bunch of misinformation. All in an effort to make lots of money off of the ignorant. Global warming on the scale as described is such an exaggeration, and total bunk.

[Geodude]

Like I said. Reminds me of arguing evolution with a creationist.

 

Please do define "scant evidence," as I can show you a metric ass load of data about global climate change and the long-term impact our actions have which is not "derived from the popular culture section." That is, of course, if you would be willing to take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes.

 

 

Dude, YOU should take your fingers out of your ears and open your eyes. Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this. If you want I can show you.

 

All that has been shown in this thread is that you pro-global warming people guys have been misled to believe otherwise.

[insane_alien]

so you are denying that the global average temperature is experience an upwards trend?

 

also, ice cores from greenland and antartica can provide data on the temperature, atmospheric composition and even certain types of solar activity.

 

also, the climate models have been proven to be reasonably accurate both for prediction and retrodiction.

 

just because YOU don't think it's true doesn't mean it is not true.

[Sisyphus]

So it's total bunk to tie climate change to any particular variable, and it's been shown that solar variability is the cause of the warming? Riiight...

[Pangloss]

I'm posting this warning right now: Any personal insults in this thread, regardless of how well couched in seemingly polite rhetoric, will be met with infraction notices and deletions.

[Geodude]

so you are denying that the global average temperature is experience an upwards trend?

 

no, not that it hasn't been experiencing an upward trend, but that this is a completely natural phenomenon.

 

also, ice cores from greenland and antartica can provide data on the temperature, atmospheric composition and even certain types of solar activity.

 

Recent ones yes, but the deeper you go down the less reliable they become.

 

also, the climate models have been proven to be reasonably accurate both for prediction and retrodiction.

 

Not really. The problems with them is because there are many many variables AND there are various ones that either haven't been discovered or aren't taken to account. However tiny those variables may be, they might still have a huge impact on future trends. You can see for yourself right here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001AGUFM.A51G..02W

 

just because YOU don't think it's true doesn't mean it is not true.

 

The same could be said for you.

 

So it's total bunk to tie climate change to any particular variable, and it's been shown that solar variability is the cause of the warming? Riiight...

 

Do you have any RELIABLE data to prove otherwise, I gave you my graph, show me a counter example?

[ecoli]

Do you have any RELIABLE data to prove otherwise, I gave you my graph, show me a counter example?

 

By your own admission, your data is bunk too... the variables you talk about for emmisions -> global warming link certainly apply to sun spots and sun temperatures as well.

[iNow]

Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this. If you want I can show you.

Yes. I would like that very much. Please cite your resources so I may examine the data you reference ... ("plenty of data out there that PROVES [Global Warming is bunk]").

 

 

With open orificia...

[Geodude]

By your own admission, your data is bunk too... the variables you talk about for emmisions -> global warming link certainly apply to sun spots and sun temperatures as well.

 

No not really. the sun is a kind of a really big factor in keeping the planet heated. Greenhouse gases are too, without them the Earth would have an average temperature somewhere below 0 C. The main thing that is bunk are the models used for prediction, the various extrapolations, and a whole host of other so called "data" I care not mention right now. To somehow get incomplete data and tie it all to human activity seems a little rash and hasty.

[Dak]

hmm, i suspect sarcasm.

 

geodude, how do you explain the recent spike in temperature?

[insane_alien]

right, so you accept that CO2 and other green house gases play a role in keeping the earth warm.

 

yet you refuse to believe that the increase in concentration made by humans has any effect whatsoever? even though it is an extremely significant rise?

[Geodude]

hmm, i suspect sarcasm.

 

geodude, how do you explain the recent spike in temperature?

 

 

The temperatures have always been spiking up and down. What makes this recent one any different. Take a look at the time when temperatures suddenly dropped about a few centuries ago. In that case it was caused by the sun.

 

right, so you accept that CO2 and other green house gases play a role in keeping the earth warm.

 

yet you refuse to believe that the increase in concentration made by humans has any effect whatsoever? even though it is an extremely significant rise?

 

 

You guys seem to act as if this never happens in Earth's long history. To give an example, about 55 million years ago there was believed to be a runaway greenhouse event caused by methane, from what we can tell from the fossil record. Ironically, that event was what set forth the evolution of mammals into overdrive and eventually gave rise to mankind.

 

Besides, humans release a lot more than just CO2 the atmosphere. They also release a bunch of aerosols.

[Geodude]

Yes. I would like that very much. Please cite your resources so I may examine the data you reference ... ("plenty of data out there that PROVES [Global Warming is bunk]").

 

 

With open orificia...

 

 

Here's a list of them right here on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+Warming+is+Bunk&btnG=Google+Search

 

Pick and choose my friend.

[insane_alien]

i know it happens. but you didn't answer my question.

 

you accept that various gases cause a warming effect but you do not believe that anthropogenic sources have any effect despite the vast quantity released in some cases doubling the natural levels. why?

[ecoli]

Besides, humans release a lot more than just CO2 the atmosphere. They also release a bunch of aerosols.

 

 

we do indeed. Because humans release aerosols, CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions couldn't possibly cause global warming? You need to work on that logic.

[John Cuthber]

OK I took a look at the data in the graph. Since about WWII the solar irradience, as mesured has been constant apart from some cyclic trend.

 

Has the earth's measured temperature been constant over that time?

Well, I don't know but I do know that we seem to be setting more weather records than statistics would predict so I doubt it.

 

BTW, who in the 17th century, was measuring solar irradiance and what with?

[Dak]

afaik, it was done by counting sun-spots with telescopes. the chinese did it, not sure if others did.

 

The temperatures have always been spiking up and down. What makes this recent one any different. Take a look at the time when temperatures suddenly dropped about a few centuries ago. In that case it was caused by the sun.

 

do you mean the little ice-age? afaict, it's currently debated that the sun was a cause of that, tho it co-insided with a decrease in observed solar activity (lending weight to the idea that 'the sun did it')... is there any such current increase in observed solar activity to lend weight to the idea that the sun is currently reponsable for the rapid increase in temperature.

 

Which, btw, is more sudden than the drop in temperature going into the little ice-age.

[lucaspa]

Global warming is total bunk, seriously I don't know why people and many scientists buy into it. First of all, the Earth has been much warmer millions of years into the past, in fact it has been a little warmer in the recent past. And it has been shown that it is solar irradiance is the cause of the warming, as is has been for the past billions of years or so. Right here:

 

 

This is misrepresentation. If you go to the page and read it, you find:

"Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,

reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the

seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral

irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to

spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope

of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range

of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675

are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared

and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%."

 

This means that it is increase since the Maunder Minimum, which is in the middle of the Little Ice Age. There are NO claims that this increase will account for current global warming. Instead, it just gets us back to what solar irradiation was before the Minimum. But ice cores show that average temps then were a lot lower than now.

 

Solar forcing has been considered as cause of global warming. As have the other causes listed at http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/

 

They are insufficient to account for the increase in mean global temps.

 

Some people don't just know that all of these records on greenhouse gases have only been reliably measured for the past 100 or so years. Also, notice how the sunspot activity has been increasing steadily.

 

Only from the Maunder Minimum. It has long been known that sunspot activity declined to the Minimum and then increases since then. This has all been taken into account by climatologists.

 

And yet, everyone gets all paranoid over this bunch of misinformation.

 

People guilty of blatant misinformation should not project their failures on others.

[iNow]

Here's a list of them right here on google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Global+Warming+is+Bunk&btnG=Google+Search

 

Pick and choose my friend.

 

No. This is not an acceptable response. You said "Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this. If you want I can show you." Which of the 421,000 results supports your position?

 

Show us. EXACTLY which ones support your contention. My preference is for links to specific sources, however, if you cite them using standard citation format, that would suffice.

 

A link to 421,000 google search results does not prove your point "Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this." So, if you'd be so kind as to make good on your offer "If you want I can show you." ... That would be super.

 

 

As a general observation on what you did present, I did not notice ANY .edu or .gov sites in the first 100 hits.

[Mr Skeptic]

no, not that it hasn't been experiencing an upward trend, but that this is a completely natural phenomenon.

 

Meteors, supervolcanos (like at Yellowstone), extinction, sickness, death, and the sun expanding into a red giant and toasting the earth are also perfectly natural phenomena. Why do people think that natural = good? Sometimes the right thing to do is to fight nature.

 

And I doubt you will convince anyone here that humans are not at least partially responsible for global warming. Especially since you admit that CO2 can cause warming and it is obvious we are responsible for emitting a lot of that lately.

 

The amount of warming and the effects thereof are frequently exaggerated in some places, but I don't think that is the case here.

[Pangloss]

Mod Note: I moved some posts over here from the other thread, but something about it doesn't look right to me, though I'm not sure what it is -- I think the posts got merged into the thread in date order, which throws off the accuracy of some of the replies. This is my first individual posting move so I apologize if I screwed it up, but if you see anything missing just reply and I'll straighten it out if I can (or get some help).

[swansont]

You guys seem to act as if this never happens in Earth's long history. To give an example, about 55 million years ago there was believed to be a runaway greenhouse event caused by methane, from what we can tell from the fossil record. Ironically, that event was what set forth the evolution of mammals into overdrive and eventually gave rise to mankind.

 

No, "we" are acting as if that were irrelevant.

[Geodude]

No. This is not an acceptable response. You said "Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this. If you want I can show you." Which of the 421,000 results supports your position?

 

Show us. EXACTLY which ones support your contention. My preference is for links to specific sources, however, if you cite them using standard citation format, that would suffice.

 

A link to 421,000 google search results does not prove your point "Global Warming is bunk! There is plenty of data out there that PROVES this." So, if you'd be so kind as to make good on your offer "If you want I can show you." ... That would be super.

 

 

As a general observation on what you did present, I did not notice ANY .edu or .gov sites in the first 100 hits.

 

 

What, do you expect me to do everything for you? I gave you a list, just stay on the first couple of pages and look through them. and .gov or .edu sites doesn't necessarily mean that they are good, there are plenty of .edu and .gov sites that support all sorts of crackpottery and quackery, just take a look at the alternative medicine department on the nih.gov site.

 

afaik, it was done by counting sun-spots with telescopes. the chinese did it, not sure if others did.

 

 

 

do you mean the little ice-age? afaict, it's currently debated that the sun was a cause of that, tho it co-insided with a decrease in observed solar activity (lending weight to the idea that 'the sun did it')... is there any such current increase in observed solar activity to lend weight to the idea that the sun is currently reponsable for the rapid increase in temperature.

 

Which, btw, is more sudden than the drop in temperature going into the little ice-age.

 

so what? it was sudden enough. It happened on much the same time scale, give or take a couple of decades. The point is it does happen.

 

This is misrepresentation. If you go to the page and read it, you find:

"Because of the dependence of the Sun's irradiance on solar activity,

reductions from contemporary levels are expected during the

seventeenth century Maunder Minimum. New reconstructions of spectral

irradiance are developed since 1600 with absolute scales traceable to

spacebased observations. The long-term variations track the envelope

of group sunspot numbers and have amplitudes consistent with the range

of Ca II brightness in Sun-like stars. Estimated increases since 1675

are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared

and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%."

 

This means that it is increase since the Maunder Minimum, which is in the middle of the Little Ice Age. There are NO claims that this increase will account for current global warming. Instead, it just gets us back to what solar irradiation was before the Minimum. But ice cores show that average temps then were a lot lower than now.

 

Solar forcing has been considered as cause of global warming. As have the other causes listed at http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/

 

They are insufficient to account for the increase in mean global temps.

 

 

 

Only from the Maunder Minimum. It has long been known that sunspot activity declined to the Minimum and then increases since then. This has all been taken into account by climatologists.

 

 

 

People guilty of blatant misinformation should not project their failures on others.

 

 

 

Why not though? Why would they be insufficient? Certainly greenhouse gases can't have done the job. You know how much more pollution a volcano or natural seepage of crude oil does than any man made sources? A lot more than we have been putting in!

[ydoaPs]

Why not though? Why would they be insufficient? Certainly greenhouse gases can't have done the job. You know how much more pollution a volcano or natural seepage of crude oil does than any man made sources? A lot more than we have been putting in!

 

You can't forget about all the methane from cow farts!

[Geodude]

No, "we" are acting as if that were irrelevant.

 

 

Oh, I see how it is now. Your only willing to cherry pick data that agrees with your premise, rather than considering other factors. Hardly scientific you know, especially since that you should know to avoid that given your title as a physics "expert".