Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inego_de_Loyola
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mars is warming, too. It’s because of the Sun. The mass coronal ejection from the Sun predicted for November 2012 thru February 2013 is predicted to cause an Electro-Magnetic Pulse/EMP that will wipe out virtually all electronics. It may be the Warning predicted by many Catholic mystics. Every person on Earth will see the state of their souls, possibly because the EMP causes a readout akin to the near-death reporters where one’s life flashes before one’s eyes. The state of the souls of some will cause their immediate death from shock, or so it is predicted. May God be merciful on my soul and yours and keep us pleasing to Him alone.
 
nordskoven said:
Mars is warming, too. It’s because of the Sun. The mass coronal ejection from the Sun predicted for November 2012 thru February 2013 is predicted to cause an Electro-Magnetic Pulse/EMP that will wipe out virtually all electronics. It may be the Warning predicted by many Catholic mystics. Every person on Earth will see the state of their souls, possibly because the EMP causes a readout akin to the near-death reporters where one’s life flashes before one’s eyes. The state of the souls of some will cause their immediate death from shock, or so it is predicted. May God be merciful on my soul and yours and keep us pleasing to Him alone.
Click to expand...
Joke? Or srs?
 
Regardless of if global warming will happen the oceans are sponging up lots of CO[sub]2[/sub] which is very bad for marine life especially ones with an exoskeleton. Thus regardless of if it will/is happening the CO[sub]2[/sub] output should be curbed
 
I’m not saying that we should continue polluting but there is NO evidence that AGW is taking place. The majority of climatologist (nearly 67%) refute AGW. Of course too many peoples pockets are lined by the money that is going into research.

If AGW were taking place the earth should have warmed considerably more in the last hundred years since the industrial revolution. Please read The Satanic Gases by two PhD’s with extensive background on the subject.
 
Rick09 said:
Has anybody on this thread dealt with the issue of temperature rise on Mars? Wouldn’t that suggest that the temperature rises may be due at least in part to solar activity or other phenomena?
Click to expand...
I thought it was because of all the SUVs on Mars.

I’m referring, of course, to the “gas-guzzling, fossil-fuel-burning (NOT)” rovers Spirit and Opportunity 🙂
 
David said:
When experts disagree, us non experts have no way to know.

My brother is a meteorologist for NOAA in Boulder Colorado. He does not think it is possible for global warming to be man caused.

What makes me skeptical is how people are exploiting global warming for financial gain.

Peace
David
Click to expand...
I began reading a lot about this subject back in 2007. I have concluded that climate change is real but it is far more complicated than the vast majority of people seem to think. For instance Dr. James Hansen has stated regarding the Global Dimming effect that if we combatted climate change in a manner that significantly decreased the global dimming effect at the same time that we did little to combat global warming we could initiate a period of rapid global warming which could be very dangerous regarding the possible rapid collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet or the land based Greenland Ice Pack.

Dust and soot either from volcanoes or from smokestacks are major causes of global dimming. An interesting study was done in the Maldive Islands that caused scientists to conclude that global dimming was ten times more powerful an effect on temperatures than they had thought at first.

In other words it may have been wise for our governments to not jump into the Kyoto type of measures until climate change was studied further. I believe that it is far wiser to invest in turning deserts green than to worry about a carbon tax or cap and trade system.

spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,660902,00.html
CO2 and Carbon Sinks
How Nature Helps Cancel Out Humanity’s Sins

By Christoph Seidler
 
Good point!

I live in Nova Scotia, Canada and this winter has been the warmest and nicest one that I can remember!
 
kama3 said:
*Non-sequitur. * You assume that the warming 5000 years ago and today were caused by the same factor. So, can you identify what caused the warming 5000 years ago and what is also at work today?
Click to expand...
No…AND neither can you. 🙂 Please quit pretending you can.😃
 
Hey folks,

Just stumbled on this thread and will weigh in case any are still interested.

Not having the benefit of the prior discussion here is my wisdom on the subject.

These are the only things we can assert with any certainty:
  1. The climate has warmed since the little Ice Age.
  2. Since the global cooling and ice age scare since the 70’s, there was a warming trend until about 1998. Since then flat or declining slightly.
  3. CO2 is a green house gas. It should cause some warming. A dangerous amount? Highly debatable.
  4. Global warming alarmism is becoming less tenable by the day.
I am not a scientist but became interested in the issue in 2008. I started out mildly skeptical but mostly indifferent to the outcome of the debate. But after I got into it my opinions changed. Here is the biggest reason: The climate science establishment, which is primarily the UN’s IPCC, is demonstrably corrupt and unreliable. It is as if the prosecution’s star expert witness, around whom it has built its entire case, has been thoroughly and utterly impeached and discredited on the witness stand. The charges against the IPCC and the rest of the establishment? Bias, dishonesty, exaggeration of its key claims, fudging the data, failure to observe basic practices of science, attacks on skeptics…and just not being nice and honest people!

If it were up to me, I would vote to acquit CO2 and the human activities which generate atmospheric CO2. Not Guilty! I say.

Kilbourne
 
One of these must be false. Because if burning oil releases CO2, and CO2 heats the earth, then burning Co2 heats the earth. And if you think the greenhouse effect is flawed, I ask you to look at the numerous scientific proofs of it from over 100 years ago and ask what they did wrong. You would win a Nobel prize if you proved the Greenhouse effect is wrong.
Click to expand...
It’s not wrong, as far as I’m aware. But is the effect significant? It’s arguable that it isn’t.

Science isn’t about being closed minded. The case is never closed. Just as Newton’s Physics was replaced with something more accurate, so too can our understanding on other matters be replaced with something more accurate.

As regards global warming, there is also the question of degree of anthropogenesis. I’ve heard there’s some evidence to show that the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is rather weak and is insufficient to explain the mild warming we’ve experienced since the end of the Little Ice Age.

If global warming were real, the vast majority of the increase in temperatures is projected to occur in the arctic and subarctic regions. Vast swathes of tundra would become arable land, increasing the world’s food supply. Of course, some areas nearer the tropics would become drier, some wetter, and the world would become wetter in general (a direct result of increased evaporation into the atmosphere). Some places would be flooded or would otherwise become uninhabitable. Even under the worst possible projections, significant warming in the arctic and slight warming in the tropics would probably not be that catastrophic and in the long run could prove beneficial.

Global warming, if real, will have both winners and losers. Instead of spending vast amounts of money trying to prevent it, we could spend vast amounts of money preparing for it. Or we could simply wait and see, and cross that bridge when we come to it. It’s not going to happen overnight, so there will be time to react. And that’s if the scientists are right and we end up coming to that bridge anyway.
 
kch,

I agree. No one seems to doubt the green house effect. The big questions is sensitivity. What temperature for a given increase of CO2? is the question.

Kil
 
David said:
When experts disagree, us non experts have no way to know.

…
Click to expand...
Not true. I encourage you to read Aaron Wildavsky’s book, But Is It True, A Citizen’s Guide to Environmental, Health and Safety Issues.

For me, the Hockey Stick controversy was very revealing. Mann et al attempted an unprecedented 1,000 year temperature reconstruction which purported to show the non-existence of the Medieval Warming period. While I remember some things about regression analysis from my college statistics class, I know nothing about principal components analysis, the primary tool of the study. But nevertheless there are some revelations about Mann’s study, accessible to the layman, which justify rejecting his conclusions. Mann violated one the tenets of science. He didn’t make his data and methods readily available to others trying to replicate his findings. Second, two panels of experts, one being entirely friendly to him, agreed his statistical method and data selection created the hockey stick. It was not inherent in the data. That, by itself, should be enough to consign the Hockey Stick to the dustbin. And there are so many other aspects of the controversy which not only give warrant to rejection of Mann’s work, but also discredit the IPCC and other members of the climate science establishment.

Kil
 
Kilbourne said:
And there are so many other aspects of the controversy which not only give warrant to rejection of Mann’s work, but also discredit the IPCC and other members of the climate science establishment.
Click to expand...
Even if the conclusions of the IPCC were proved to be true, it still does not take away from the fact that much of the whole issue is being driven politically and is being addressed in such a way as to serve the interests of those seeking to further other political ideologies or of the climate scientists themselves.

And agreement by a purported majority of scientists on the veracity of some scientific theory does not prove that a scientific theory is true. Truth is not decided upon by majority vote, as I like to say. I’m sure that at some point Newtonian Physics was considered to be true by the majority of scientists.
 
kch,

There is no doubt that various ideological biases are evident within the global warming movement as a whole: population control, environmentalism, socialism, world governance, etc. But what was distressing from the beginning was how the scientists themselves got ideological and spouted the very unscientific talk of consensus science. James Hansen is one the more egregious perps in this regard. He has lost all objectivity.

From the get go the global warming proponents touted consensus and the “thousands of scientists” who believe manmade global warming is real. What was also instructive of the Hockey Stick controversy was also how the movement people closed ranks around Mann. The citizen investigator, Stephen McIntyre, who exposed the whole mess, not only had to contend with Mann’s recalicitrance, he also had to fight journal editors, members of the climate science establishment and IPCC itself. The late Stephen Schneider, as editor of Climatic Change, the National Science Foundation, Susan Solomon from the IPCC and many more all tried to stifle McIntyre’s investigation. This got very political in a hurry, all because a private citizen tried to check Mann’s work and see if it added up. You don’t be doin’ dat!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top