Global Warming is Bunk

[Dak]

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.

 

mm-hmm. and, is there any reason to believe that the sun is responsable for this rise? is, for example, solar activity increasing in such a way that could explain the warming?

[Geodude]

mm-hmm. and, is there any reason to believe that the sun is responsable for this rise? is, for example, solar activity increasing in such a way that could explain the warming?

 

 

I already gave you a reason. And yes it is. What possible reason could there be to justify the paranoia over anthropogenic global warming, of which is obviously trash? Is listening to whatever CNN or Al Gore says your justification?

 

 

Besides, you just spelled "responsible" wrong.

[foodchain]

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".

 

Humanity collectively has basically terraformed the environment in so many ways its hard to consider really in any junction of chat and or individual thought to be honest. I mean how many species have we pushed into extinction to the fact human activity has created radioactive events of global scale to punching holes in the ozone layer. Its not as if the planet is immune to our behavior.

 

Also for action and reaction is the gross amount of CO2 alone we put off into the environment going to carry a null effect, what effect is it going to have, save over a hundred years of growing release of such a greenhouse gas?

 

I just don’t understand the emphasis some have on saying global warming is not human. Its as if they accept something is changing, but it cant be at the hands of humans.

 

Then with just physical evidence alone, what in the world is causing the spike of CO2 and the change brought along by such. If solar sources cant be it, then what is it exactly. I mean its not as if GW is studied by just a few scientists that get to keep all the facts or studies secret is it?

 

So to you, exactly, what is it then causing GW if not human activity and if such evidence you provide is refuted, what will you say?

[Klaynos]

What, do you expect me to do everything for you?

 

Well when it comes to citing evidence. YES!

[Dak]

I already gave you a reason.

 

afaict, your reason was basically: 'it's happened before because of the sun, so this time it's because of the sun'. Which isn't a very good reason.

 

correct me if i'm wrong.

[Geodude]

Well when it comes to citing evidence. YES!

 

But I already did. It's not my fault if you don't want to look at it. I gave SPECIFIC examples.

 

afaict, your reason was basically: 'it's happened before because of the sun, so this time it's because of the sun'. Which isn't a very good reason.

 

correct me if i'm wrong.

 

Well, now your just misrepresenting or misunderstanding, because I did NOT say that! The reasons I gave were not just the sun but also other natural sources such as methane, etc. The amount of greenhouse gases do fluctuate time and again. Remember what I said before, natural sources usually give out a great deal more pollutants than man-made sources. Take a look at some of the volcanoes in Hawaii for example.

[1veedo]

The excess man-made greenhouse gases have slowly pushed the amount of ghgs in the atmosphere up. It is true that humans emit fewer ghgs than nature does but nature does a good job balancing it out with negative feedback systems, or climate sinks. About half of all anthropogenic ghgs have been absorbed by these feedback sinks, most of it in the oceans, but the other half has just accumulated in the atmopshere. Sense it has no place to go it just sort of hangs out and makes the Earth hotter.

[CDarwin]

Well, now your just misrepresenting or misunderstanding, because I did NOT say that! The reasons I gave were not just the sun but also other natural sources such as methane, etc. The amount of greenhouse gases do fluctuate time and again. Remember what I said before, natural sources usually give out a great deal more pollutants than man-made sources. Take a look at some of the volcanoes in Hawaii for example.

 

I think I'll make my contribution to this thread by debunking that rather persistent and irritating myth.

 

Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

 

That's from the USGS. I hope that's a reliable enough source for you.

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

The statement is disingenuous anyway. Isotope studies demonstrate that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the 20th Century is mostly due to human sources.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

[ydoaPs]

CDarwin is clearly ignoring my cow hypothesis. Therefore, I must be correct. Global warming has nothing to do with us; it's all about the gassy cows.

[Geodude]

I think I'll make my contribution to this thread by debunking that rather persistent and irritating myth.

 

 

 

That's from the USGS. I hope that's a reliable enough source for you.

 

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

 

The statement is disingenuous anyway. Isotope studies demonstrate that the measured increase in atmospheric CO2 since the beginning of the 20th Century is mostly due to human sources.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

 

 

The volcano was just an example though. There are a lot of other sources of CO2 you know, and not including human ones. CO2 doesn't even keep heat in that well either. Methane, for example, is 25 times more potent. Plus, it spews out a huge amount of CO2 during eruptions, far more than humans do in a single year in that single instant.

 

CDarwin is clearly ignoring my cow hypothesis. Therefore, I must be correct. Global warming has nothing to do with us; it's all about the gassy cows.

 

Keep your ad hominems to yourself. Really, they don't support your position. By this, its already clear that you cannot back up your arguments.

[ydoaPs]

Keep your ad hominems to yourself. Really, they don't support your position. By this, its already clear that you cannot back up your arguments.

 

Ad Hom? Really? Who did I attack? You're just trying to make me look insane so that others will doubt my TRUTH! You're trying to start a cover-up. Listen here, mister, I won't have any of that!

[Geodude]

The excess man-made greenhouse gases have slowly pushed the amount of ghgs in the atmosphere up. It is true that humans emit fewer ghgs than nature does but nature does a good job balancing it out with negative feedback systems, or climate sinks. About half of all anthropogenic ghgs have been absorbed by these feedback sinks, most of it in the oceans, but the other half has just accumulated in the atmopshere. Sense it has no place to go it just sort of hangs out and makes the Earth hotter.

 

 

Not really, extrapolated over millions, or even thousands of years, CO2 concentrations were either much smaller or much larger. Humans weren't around then. What makes this situation any different?

[iNow]

Not really, extrapolated over millions, or even thousands of years, CO2 concentrations were either much smaller or much larger. Humans weren't around then. What makes this situation any different?

 

I'm going to go ahead and call a troll alert. Pangloss, please don't infract me again or delete this post. I don't mean this as attack, but a statement of valid observation.

 

 

 

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.

No, not everything. Only what you stated you would do. Thanks.

[Geodude]

Ad Hom? Really? Who did I attack? You're just trying to make me look insane so that others will doubt my TRUTH! You're trying to start a cover-up. Listen here, mister, I won't have any of that!

 

But you haven't presented anything that could adequately counter my points though. Your just trying to save your ridiculous position with more logical fallacies.

[Mr Skeptic]

I think I'll make my contribution to this thread by debunking that rather persistent and irritating myth.

 

And a good contribution it is. Somehow I got that into my head, that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. I bet the study was originally about the contributions over the last few million years and got twisted to seem like it meant current emissions by some unscrupulous individuals, or something like that. Thanks for setting that straight for me. Seems we now outdo volcanoes by about 130 times.

[ydoaPs]

But you haven't presented anything that could adequately counter my points though. Your just trying to save your ridiculous position with more logical fallacies.

 

THAT'S JUST PROOF OF THE CONSPIRACY AGAINST ME!!!!!

[Geodude]

I'm going to go ahead and call a troll alert. Pangloss, please don't infract me. I don't mean this as attack, but a statement of fact.

 

 

 

 

No, not everything. Only what you stated you would do. Thanks.

 

 

WHAT!? Just because you can't counter my arguments your just going to call me a troll?

 

That's real original. I thought this was a science site, where people are free to express their ideas and theories. All I did was made the argument that our current global warming theories are bunk, and gave some reasons. You have yet to counter them. But your not interested in critical thinking, are you? When they present information that contradicts the dogma, simply dismiss as troll. Wonderful.

 

 

Do you, iNow, have any DATA or effective arguments that supports YOUR position. As far as I know, you haven't presented anything, you just threw ad hominems at me and rolled your eyes.

[iNow]

WHAT!? Just because you can't counter my arguments your just going to call me a troll?

 

That's real original. I thought this was a science site, where people are free to express their ideas and theories. All I did was made the argument that our current global warming theories are bunk, and gave some reasons. You have yet to counter them. But your not interested in critical thinking, are you? When they present information that contradicts the dogma, simply dismiss as troll. Wonderful.

 

Please then remind me. What are your arguments? You've stated that global warming is bunk and provided no sources to support your claim.

[ydoaPs]

That's real original. I thought this was a science site, where people are free to express their ideas and theories.

 

EXACTLY!

[Geodude]

Please then remind me. What are your arguments? You've stated that global warming is bunk and provided no sources to support your claim.

 

Neither did you. And yes I did. Don't project your failures on me.

[Mr Skeptic]

Geodude, all you have demonstrated was that you appear incapable of discriminating between good science and bad science, or for that matter, whether someone is refuting your points or mocking you. Very nicely done, yourdadonapogos.

 

Though you have provided several assertions, you have provided no data that supports your claims (the graph of solar irradiance you provided says nothing about temperature as you claim, btw). So, got any evidence?

[ydoaPs]

The UN agrees with me!

[Geodude]

Geodude, all you have demonstrated was that you appear incapable of discriminating between good science and bad science, or for that matter, whether someone is refuting your points or mocking you. Very nicely done, yourdadonapogos.

 

Though you have provided several assertions, you have provided no data that supports your claims (the graph of solar irradiance you provided says nothing about temperature as you claim, btw). So, got any evidence?

 

Do you really want a more precise graph? Here:

 

 

Why don't you contemplate that, instead of making a bunch of baseless assumptions. As you can see, I presented plenty of data here, and now I'm presenting more. I will do so if need to be, since you guys are clearly incapable of seeing the obvious. All I've seen so far is ad hominems from most of you guys, only one or two people here have even bothered to present any data for their position.

[ydoaPs]

you guys are clearly incapable of seeing the obvious.

 

Amen, brother! Anyone with a brain can see the cause of global warming says "moo"!

[ghstofmaxwll]

OK its parodies is it? Ill play.

 

Geo, we all know for fact that we are causing global warming because we have a graph of co2 increases in the last 30 years that match so well with the earth getting hotter in the same period, the only conclusion is global warming is our fault! Also you are nothing but a creationist for not believing something so scientific as this, which is for fact more certain than evolution, nurnurnurnurnur