global warming: salvaging fact from heaps of BS

[swansont]

Hope this helps!

 

Not so much. We prefer claims to be backed up rather than baldly asserted, and prefer that they be relevant (see iNow's post)

[Chase]

Global Warming is the biggest scam of the 21st century! The exact definition of exiting a ice age is WARMING! If the earth is warming then why not RIGHT AWAY look at the one thing that gives of 99.999999999999% of our heat (the earth generates a small small minute amount of heat)??? IT'S OUR SUN! We can't affect in any way, shape, or form the cycles of the sun so we just need to go on living our insignificant human lives. lol:doh:

 

Wow I love politics we can argue all day and not get anywhere... and yet I'm determined to win an unwinable fight, I truly will perish in this battle.

[iNow]

Global Warming is the biggest scam of the 21st century! The exact definition of exiting a ice age is WARMING! If the earth is warming then why not RIGHT AWAY look at the one thing that gives of 99.999999999999% of our heat (the earth generates a small small minute amount of heat)??? IT'S OUR SUN! We can't affect in any way, shape, or form the cycles of the sun so we just need to go on living our insignificant human lives.

 

You think it's our sun causing the recent changes? Okay. Let's clear up that misconception (again). I've already posted a response in this very thread to that very objection. Please read here and come back if you can challenge any of that data specifically:

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=413983#post413983

 

 

 

 

Wow I love politics we can argue all day and not get anywhere...

It sure is a good thing, then, that this is science, not politics.

 

 

I truly will perish in this battle.

No offense, kid, but that's the first accurate contribution you've made to this thread.

[culvers3]

O.K. look I tend to agree with CHASE on this one in that Global Warming is a scam.

 

After Gore released his movie An Inconvient Truth a well respected scientist came out and said that Global cooling was coming so who do you believe a politicain or a well respected scientist who has spent his whole career studying this?

 

O.K. my final point, look at all of the billions of Dollars that are being shoved into this pathetic claim.

Even Barack Obama said in an interview just before the election that only FOX NEWS reported he said that when he was elected he planned to BANKRUPT the coal industy because it contributed to much to Global Warming!!

Wait What!! This move would probably be one of the biggest presidential blunders in history. Almost the entire West Virginian economy rests in the success of the coal industry. Along with OHIO. so if that is what he wants to make that move he will certainly go down in history not only as the first back president but one that made a huge mistake.

[Chase]

Okay first of all this is politics ( Politics-The SCIENCE or art of political government) were going back and forth continually over and over again and no one will be persuaded (no one pertaining to you and me). In response to you saying its not the sun I say your wrong, no offense. My proof, One volcanoe has released more tosins and C02 into the air than humans have since the existance of the homosapien. And by the way I know you said no offense but ouch!

[iNow]

Oh dear. See the forum in which you're posting. It's not politics, it's science. These are separate issues, and I hope you are mature enough to see the distinction.

 

I sincerely doubt that in the 7 minutes since I made that post that you have read, comprehended, and explored all of the links within prior to making your response.

 

It's hard to counter blindness with facts, but facts are all I have to offer.

 

 

 

Culvers - What good is money if the planet on which we live to spend it will no longer support us? Environment trumps economy because we can survive without money if we need to. The coal industry is one of the leading contributors to the change, and there are far better ways to get our energy, even if that means some people currently killing themselves digging for our coal will need to find other work.

 

 

 

 

In response to you saying its not the sun I say your wrong, no offense.

 

You can say any damned thing you want, but the data agrees with me. There are rules at this site that I advise you read before posting again.

Edited December 10, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[YT2095]

you can say any damned thing you want,

 

Once

[Mr Skeptic]

If the earth is warming then why not RIGHT AWAY look at the one thing that gives of 99.999999999999% of our heat (the earth generates a small small minute amount of heat)???

 

We already did, and found that the changes in the sun don't account for global warming. Look it up if you don't believe me. Look at it this way, when you are in bed sweating and have a pile of blankets on you, you don't take fever medication -- you take off the blankets. Likewise, when greenhouse gases are trapping the heat from the sun, you get rid of the greenhouse gases, not the sun.

[Chase]

But Mr Skeptic your saying get rid of the greenhouse gasses are you acknowldging we put those gasses their or are you saying it's a natural cycle, Just curious to know which side your supporting. Plus I like that example, but can you direct me to a sight that I can find Cold hard facts supporting that it isn't the sun thats causing this?

 

iNow im not trying to make you angry, plus I think your confusing blindness with determination. I have distinguished the difference between politics and science, some topics are obviously both! If anything global warming is politics since the crap is all made up!!! Therefore its just one big politicall scam all created to make money!!! I ask you what ever happened to global cooling and us all dying from an ice age??

[iNow]

Plus I like that example, but can you direct me to a sight that I can find Cold hard facts supporting that it isn't the sun thats causing this?

 

You were supplied with this link for a reason. I suggest that you actually go read it now.

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=413983#post413983

 

 

Angry is not the word you were looking for. Try exasperated.

[Chase]

sorry i didnt get the chance but I will later at 4 o'clock because my lunch break started and now I have to go to my next class

[swansont]

Okay first of all this is politics ( Politics-The SCIENCE or art of political government) were going back and forth continually over and over again and no one will be persuaded (no one pertaining to you and me). In response to you saying its not the sun I say your wrong, no offense. My proof, One volcanoe has released more tosins and C02 into the air than humans have since the existance of the homosapien. And by the way I know you said no offense but ouch!

 

You need to start citing references to back up your assertions. Sooner rather than later (lest you be unmasked as a non-elf mythical creature).

[Chase]

lol hey don't question my elfhood! No I just love the game Oblivion. Yes I apologize I did forget to cite my facts.

Politics-The SCIENCE or art of political government (Dictionary.com)

One volcanoe has released more toxins and C02 into the air than humans have since the existance of the homosapien. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html & http://lvo.wr.usgs.gov/CO2.html

[iNow]

Your links do not support your claim, Chase. Even if they did, the fact that there are other sources of CO₂ to our atmosphere does not negate the "blanketing" effect of the CO₂ being added by humans. So, really, what's your point?

 

Also, you've had time to find links and post them here, so you've had time to read the link I shared with you about the impact of the sun on the current temperature trends.

 

Are you ready to acknowledge your mistake? If not, please cite which specific reference you think is wrong, where you think it's wrong, and why.

[Chase]

The link that you gave me took me to some pretty pictures and ill let JohnB tell you the rest. (Hopefully it quotes him correctly because HTML code isn't my forte and the quote message in reply? box won't check)

Swansont, I have no idea if the graph is accurate. My point is that it is an artists rendition that is claimed to be based on data. It is up to those making the claim to prove their case. If someone wishes to provide graphs from Meehl et al and Jones and Moberg et al I will happily concede the point. Until then it can only be described as "a pretty picture" rather than "evidence".

[iNow]

In which case, you didn't read. Here. I'll make it simple. Focus on these:

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7149/full/448008a.html

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/

 

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180

 

 

 

You need to show yourself enough respect to try harder, to understand these issues before commenting on them, or to ask legitimate questions. Coming in here with your mind made up, no evidence in support of your position, and arguing with those who know more than you is childish. If you don't want to be thought of as a child, then start acting more maturely.

[Chase]

I know what I'm talking about and I'm not acting childesh. I'm listening and considering what you have to say and my mind is open, for if it wasn't there would be NO point whatsoever for me to be here! Because I wouldn't learn a thing! But in the area of acting mature stick with the subject and stop insulting my personality and stick the area were debating on. You getting frustrated! Don't! Were having a small debate to which were both trying to convince the other to beleive what the other is saying. See just like politics.

 

Plus dont use .com sites please theres no way whatsoever to back up anything thats said because anyone could go create a site called nature.com and say that they know everything about the climate. Thanks

 

In a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output. They used some crude estimates of 'climate sensitivity' and estimates of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) to calculate temperature signal (in form of anomalies). They also argue that their estimate, which is based on statistical models only, has a major advantage over physically based considerations (theoretical models), because the latter would require a perfect knowledge about the underlying physical and chemical mechanisms. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/solar-variability-statistics-vs-physics-2nd-round/

[iNow]

Plus dont use .com sites please theres no way whatsoever to back up anything thats said because anyone could go create a site called nature.com and say that they know everything about the climate. Thanks

Nature is probably THE most respected scientific journal out there. Sorry, kid. You're not winning any brownie points. I feel like you're wasting my time. Take it easy.

[Chase]

noun- Global Warming- an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature that causes corresponding changes in climate and that may result from the greenhouse effect.

Thats from Dictionary.com

Global warming -- a gradual increase in planet-wide temperatures

Thats from http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

 

But who is the site respected by? There's NO possible way to prove anything this sight posts! Just because say half the human population thinks it's true doesn't make it right! If half the human population jumped off a bridge would you do it?

 

Likewise, when greenhouse gases are trapping the heat from the sun, you get rid of the greenhouse gases, not the sun.

Mr Skeptic if we rid the earth of CO2 all our plants would die and in result of the plants the food chain and in result of the food chain we would die. Edited December 11, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged swansont: fix quote tag

[Mr Skeptic]

But Mr Skeptic your saying get rid of the greenhouse gasses are you acknowldging we put those gasses their or are you saying it's a natural cycle, Just curious to know which side your supporting. Plus I like that example, but can you direct me to a sight that I can find Cold hard facts supporting that it isn't the sun thats causing this?

 

We put some of the gases there, and some were there as a result of nature. Nature also removes some greenhouse gases, but not as fast as humans and nature are adding them. What "side" do I support? I support truth.

 

In a recent paper in Geophysical Research Letters, Scafetta & West (S&W) estimate that as much as 25-35% of the global warming in the 1980-2000 period can be attributed changes in the solar output.

 

See? You didn't have any trouble finding the papers I was telling you about that show that the sun is not the major cause. The above says that at least 65-75% or more is not caused by the sun, so what do you think that leaves as the main cause.

[Chase]

Well considering that the earths been warming since before the existance of man I beleive the warming is from greenhouse gasses, BUT not the gasses we put there. The definition of coming out of an ice age is warming and thats exactly what well do for oh who knows how many years until we start to sink back into another ice age to which humans will perish before, during, or idk sometime in the future.

 

wait wait wait wait, I read your entry again, you said that humans and nature are adding. Which gasses do you think humans are adding and seperate from that which do you think nature is adding?

[Mr Skeptic]

Even if that were true, Chase, I would still support most of the measures designed to prevent global warming. Why? They match up very nicely with things we will need to and want to do -- to lose our dependence on fossil fuels. They are limited, so we can't use them forever anyways, and our dependence on foreign oil is not only dangerous to us but also a drain on our economy.

[Chase]

Wow... you read my mind!! I feel exactly the same way, BUT if people would stop wearing the mask of global warming and just use global conservation as their title I would gladly agree and help out. What were doing needs to be done. BUT what the title "Global Warming" is preventing us from doing is what frustrates me.

[iNow]

Oh well. The truth hurts. Average global yearly temperatures are rising, hence we are warming, no matter how frustrated you get by what we call global climate change.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, there is absolutely no question that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect resulting in warming, nor that we are emitting CO2 by the billions of tons. Whether nature can absorb all that in addition to the natural output, despite us physically destroying much of nature and chemically damaging part as well, is not certain. Obviously, if nature cannot absorb all the additional CO2 it will accumulate, causing warming. And the scientists tell us that nature cannot absorb all of it. Plus, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, so it again suggests that nature cannot absorb it all.