• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

global warming denial

rockoon said:
Man is doing this man is doing that.. blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda


They can't even show that global warming is 'bad' let alone that man is causing it.

Blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda

"They" can. There are scientific disciplines that seek to understand how biological environments work. It doesn't take too much to upset them, and cause massive and disruptive changes.
 
bignickel said:
I just read the 2 presentations.

Waste of 10 minutes of my life, and I want those minutes back AUP!!!

Aw forget it, I'd just waste em again.


Both of those powerpoint presentations can be summed up in one sentense "POST HOC ERGO PROPTER HOC"

Once again, I've ASKED you for evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming.

And you've given us 2 links that show things are getting warmer. NO SH#T! Really?

I'm not ASKING for info that things are getting hotter. I'm ASKING for info that MANKIND is changing the weather. Give me all the damn CO2 emissions charts you want - IT DOESN'T MATTER.

If you see me pouring a canister of salt in the sea, and then taste the saltwater, and yell at me for causing the sea to become saltier... what am I to think?

What annoys me to no end is that you may be right, and we may be screwing up the environment. BUT you're not bringing me any PROOF! Grrrr...

You are putting your fingers in your ears. The ppt presentations are, obviously, a high level overview of the whole concept.

The modelling shows that the changes man is making are impacting on the world weather systems, and hence the environment.

When they run their models, they often use a pretty obvious strategy. Use the data up to, say, 1950 to start it, then see if it tracks known temperatures. They are getting better and better fits all the time. And these fits are built on known physical interactions in the world and it's atmosphere.

They are not idiots. If it was a simple matter of debunking the concept using your argument, it would have been done long ago. I can assure you, every point that has been raised here, I have raised with my friend who now runs the CSIRO climate research division. He is always amazed that people could they are so stupid as to not have considered all the points that have been made here, by laymen.

If you really want to know exactly how it all works, then you had better get off you fat @ss and do some real research yourself. No on here, AFAIK, is a scientist qualified to comment on this area of knowledge. Therefore, get out there and find one/or the output of their research.

I am prepared to admit I am not qualified to comment on this topic to any great depth, and have to rely on the scientific process to present us with what it has discovered and trust that, as a species, that is the best answer we can come up with for now.

As to your adding a spoonful of salt to the sea, the analogy is flawed, AFAIK, we are adding a signicant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Modelling shows that the amount we are adding is altering the global climate.
 
a_unique_person said:

You are putting your fingers in your ears.

Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle, come in please...


The ppt presentations are, obviously, a high level overview of the whole concept.

Of the globe getting hotter, yes. Of man causing it, as opposed to all the other times the globe got hotter when mankind wasn't even around, no.


The modelling shows that the changes man is making are impacting on the world weather systems, and hence the environment.

Page please.


If you really want to know exactly how it all works, then you had better get off you fat @ss and do some real research yourself.

Err, no, that's OK. You're the one making the claim, YOU do the research and present it.


I am prepared to admit I am not qualified to comment on this topic to any great depth

How about ANY depth?


As to your adding a spoonful of salt to the sea, the analogy is flawed, AFAIK, we are adding a signicant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Modelling shows that the amount we are adding is altering the global climate.

PROVE IT. You say it's significant; PROVE IT.

Just like talking to a wall. You either don't or won't see what I'm asking for. I say, fine, there is warming. All you do is then say MAN MUST BE CAUSING IT. I say, not necessarily. And then we just repeat the same things over and over. Pointless.

As such, I've asked for something; I'm not going to get it. I'm gonna stop asking, and move on.
 
bignickel said:


Pot calling kettle, pot calling kettle, come in please...



Of the globe getting hotter, yes. Of man causing it, as opposed to all the other times the globe got hotter when mankind wasn't even around, no.



Page please.



Err, no, that's OK. You're the one making the claim, YOU do the research and present it.



How about ANY depth?



PROVE IT. You say it's significant; PROVE IT.

Just like talking to a wall. You either don't or won't see what I'm asking for. I say, fine, there is warming. All you do is then say MAN MUST BE CAUSING IT. I say, not necessarily. And then we just repeat the same things over and over. Pointless.

As such, I've asked for something; I'm not going to get it. I'm gonna stop asking, and move on.

I am not qualified to provide the level or proof you require. These guys are. Look at the website for more indepth proof.

GIven that none of us is a qualified research scientist for this area, I would say that we all just assume that because none of us are, we then act on the basis that nothing can be proven, therefore, nothing can go wrong.

However, when you go to hospital for treatment for cancer, for example, I assume that you won't get the doctors treating you to prove the medication actually works.
 
bignickel said:

As such, I've asked for something; I'm not going to get it. I'm gonna stop asking, and move on.

<html><HEAD><title>Our Changing Planet FY 1996 - Highlights Of Recent Research: New Evidence On Human Activities And Climate</title></head>
<body>
<hr>

<h1><p align=center>What New Evidence Is There That The Climate Is Changing In Response To Societal Activities?</h1><hr width=60%>
<h2><p align=center><a name="obs">Observed</a> Changes In The Timing Of The Seasons May Signal Greenhouse Effect</h2>

A 340-year record (1651-1991) of monthly average temperatures from central England has provided the first evidence that the timing of the annual temperature cycle had been advancing by a little more than a day each century up until 1940; this result was confirmed in other records and is expected as a result of the very slow shifts in the variations of the Earth's orbit about the Sun. However, since 1940 the timing of the seasons as measured in the central England and many other Northern Hemisphere records has shifted much more rapidly, suggesting some other effect is now becoming dominant. The timing of the seasonal cycle of temperature at any given location results from the interplay between changes in the solar and infrared heating of the Earth and transport of heat from elsewhere on the globe. The greatly accelerated rate of change in the timing of the seasonal cycle seems to be occurring because local climates are becoming more dominated by the radiative mode, as might be expected from the enhanced concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere reinforcing winter-time solar heating. The timing of the seasons in the Southern Hemisphere has been less affected, as expected, because the radiative influence of the greenhouse gases and solar radiation and the transport modes are currently more nearly in phase.
<blockquote><cite>Reference: The Seasons, Global Temperature, and Precession, Thomson, D. J., Science, 268, 59-68, 1995.</cite></blockquote>
<h2><p align=center><a name="loca">Local</a> Warming Leads To Ice Shelf Disintegration</h2>

On February 27th, 1995, the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) announced that an ice shelf that formerly blocked the Prince Gustav channel between James Ross Island and the Antarctic Peninsula had disintegrated, and an enormous iceberg had broken off the Larsen Ice Shelf further south. BAS scientists have ascribed the cause of the events to a 2.5&#176 C warming of the regional climate since the 1940's. Climate models have predicted enhanced warming at the poles, associated with the buildup of greenhouse gases.


The ice shelf in the Prince Gustav channel spanned approximately 270 square miles prior to its disintegration. The iceberg broken from the Larsen ice shelf is roughly 1,150 square miles in size (the size of Rhode Island), and approximately 656 feet thick. BAS scientists also stated that the Wordie ice shelf on the west coast of the Antarctic peninsula also recently disintegrated. BAS scientists also maintain that there is little doubt that the retreat of these ice shelves is, in the short term, irreversible.
<blockquote><cite>References: (1) British Antarctic Survey Press Release, February 27, 1995; (2) Rapid Disintegration of Wordie Ice Shelf in Response to Atmospheric Warming, Doake, C.S.M., and D. G. Vaughan, Nature, Vol. 350, pp. 328-330, 1991.</cite></blockquote>
<h2><p align=center><a name="redu">Reduction</a> In Northern Hemispheric Snow Cover Over The Last 20 Years And Enhanced Surface Warming In Northern Latitudes</h2>

The extent of annual snow cover over all three continental-scale regions of the Northern Hemisphere has declined by about 10% over the past 20 years. This reduction in snow cover, primarily in the spring months, has altered the amount of outgoing long-wave radiation and the surface albedo, creating a positive feedback effect that is further warming surface air temperatures.
<blockquote><cite>Reference: Observed Impact of Snow Cover on the Heat Balance and the Rise of Continental Spring Temperatures, Groisman, P., T. R. Karl, and R. W. Knight, Science, Vol. 263, pp. 198-200, 1994.</cite></blockquote>
<h2><p align=center><a name="increa">Increase</a> In Water Vapor May Be Linked To Climate Warming</h2>

Water vapor in the lower stratosphere above Boulder, Colorado has increased significantly, a tendency consistent with model predictions. The measurements taken at Boulder should be representative of the stratosphere over the highly populated northern mid-latitudes. An increase of 0.34 to 0.84% per year from 1981 to 1994 has been observed for altitudes from 9 to 27 kilometers. The water vapor increase was greatest in the region from 20-25 kilometers, with an average annual increase of 1%. The increase in water vapor below 20 kilometers is larger than might be expected from the stratospheric oxidation of increasing concentrations of atmospheric methane (methane is broken down chemically to produce water vapor). This suggests that the increase in water vapor may be the result of the rise in the global temperature that has been observed over the past few decades. Recent work also indicates that the water vapor concentration determines the effectiveness of the chemical reactions that destroy ozone in the lower stratosphere. Thus, an increase in water vapor could be contributing to ozone losses. This fifteen-year study also demonstrates that there is now excellent agreement between satellite-derived data (UARS and SAGE II satellites) and balloon-borne data regarding water vapor.
<blockquote><cite>Reference: Increase in Lower-Stratospheric Water Vapor at a Mid-Latitude Northern Hemisphere Site from 1981 to 1994, Oltmans, S. J., and D. J. Hofmann, Nature, Vol. 374, p. 146-149, 1995.</cite></blockquote>
<h2><p align=center><a name="atl">Changes</a> In Atlantic Ocean Temperatures</h2>

In measurements made along a transect across the central North Atlantic, oceanographers funded by the USGCRP found a distinct warming in the upper 2500 meters, compared to the original measurements made in 1957 and 1981. This transect is also the approximate route of Columbus' first voyage to the New World. This warming could represent some of the first evidence of a large-scale change in the ocean, but could also be indicative of a shifting of masses of warmer water in the Atlantic. It should be noted that another set of repeat ocean sections in the northeast Atlantic showed marked cooling between 1962 and 1991. An extensive series of cruises in the Atlantic is being planned for 1996-97 as part of the World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) to examine these possibilities.
<blockquote><cite>References: (1) Rising Temperatures in the Subtropical North Atlantic over the Past 35 Years, Parrillo, G., A. Lavin, H. Bryden, M. Garcia and R. Millard, Nature, Vol. 369, pp. 48-51, 1994; (2) Cooling and Freshening of the Subpolar North Atlantic Ocean Since the 1960's, Read, J. and J. Gould, Nature Vol. 360, pp. 55-57, 1992.</cite></blockquote>
</body></html>
 
a_unique_person said:


"They" can. There are scientific disciplines that seek to understand how biological environments work. It doesn't take too much to upset them, and cause massive and disruptive changes.


I'm taking it that "you" can't.
 
rockoon said:



I'm taking it that "you" can't.

Have I ever claimed to be an expert in the field? I am prepared to admit I am just an interested pundit, giving his own opionions, at least. However, ignorance won't save you.

Given that science is what has been our most powerful tool against ignorance and superstition, I am prepared to trust the science in this case, and the overwhelming scientific evidence and agreement is that we are contributing to GW and in a significant way. This contribution is going to cause destabilising effects to the environment that are larger than the ongoing climate change that is an inherent part of the earths geological history.
 
rockoon said:
Man is doing this man is doing that.. blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda


They can't even show that global warming is 'bad' let alone that man is causing it.

Blah blah blah yadda yadda yadda


Don't you keep up with the "Scientific Research" on GW.

GW is bad by definition.;)


It is a laugh really. "X thousands deaths in European heatwave due to global warming".

When will we read: "Y thousand lives saved by warmer winters"?

Not until AGW causes the entire earth to freeze over :rolleyes: and hell with it.
 
bignickel said:
Just like talking to a wall. You either don't or won't see what I'm asking for. I say, fine, there is warming. All you do is then say MAN MUST BE CAUSING IT. I say, not necessarily. And then we just repeat the same things over and over. Pointless.

As such, I've asked for something; I'm not going to get it. I'm gonna stop asking, and move on.

I posted this link before, back on page 4, though I guess it's probably got buried by all the stuff posted since then. It might help answer your question:

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/causes.htm#solarcause

The temperature changes in this century have been studied using sophisticated statistical methods. Such an analysis is presented by Thomas et al (1997), who show that changes CO2 over the last century have had around three times the impact on temperature as have changes in solar irradiance, and that there is no evidence in the statistics of any major unidentified source of natural variation. Another, more recent, analysis (Kaufmann & Stern, 2002) found that temperature changes could only be explained by taking into account changes in solar activity, sulphate aerosols and greenhouse gases.

However, the only way to fully understand this complex relationship is by using climate models (see also Are climate models accurate?). The detailed causes of the recent warming trend have been investigated by the UK Meteorological Office, and are presented here (see also Stott et al, 2000). They found that about half of the warming is caused by solar variability but that, in the second half of the century, these effects have been countered by sulphate emissions from dirty fuel and from volcanoes (which contributed to a global cooling observed in the 1960s and 1970s). The overall effect of all the natural causes (sun and volcanoes combined) has been quite small. They conclude that there is "very large late 20th century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing.” Similarly, two recent studies of ocean temperatures have found that the observed increase is best explained by the effect of greenhouse gases.

Also this paper might be interesting:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2002/2002_HansenSatoN.pdf
 
Drooper said:



Don't you keep up with the "Scientific Research" on GW.

GW is bad by definition.;)


It is a laugh really. "X thousands deaths in European heatwave due to global warming".

When will we read: "Y thousand lives saved by warmer winters"?

Not until AGW causes the entire earth to freeze over :rolleyes: and hell with it.

You are referring to headlines. The scientists are not being so simplistic.
 
a_unique_person said:


You are referring to headlines. The scientists are not being so simplistic.

Really?

Find me some research on the potential benefits of global warming then.
 
Drooper said:


Really?

Find me some research on the potential benefits of global warming then.

From here:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/008.htm

Projected beneficial impacts based on models and other studies include:

* Increased potential crop yields in some regions at mid-latitudes for increases in temperature of less than a few °C [4.2]
* A potential increase in global timber supply from appropriately managed forests [4.3]
* Increased water availability for populations in some water-scarce regions—for example, in parts of southeast Asia [4.1]
* Reduced winter mortality in mid- and high-latitudes
* Reduced energy demand for space heating due to higher winter temperatures. [4.5]
 
Brian the Snail said:

I posted this link before, back on page 4, though I guess it's probably got buried by all the stuff posted since then. It might help answer your question:

"that there is no evidence in the statistics of any major unidentified source of natural variation."

I really do not trust the wording used in that sentence. Why do I have the feeling that the original thought behind it is "we couldn't find any other cause for the global warming"?

Which of course ends up becoming an 'argument from ignorance'. Unless you carefully change the wording, that is.

The problem of course is: we have had global warmings before in Earth's history: was man responsible for those too? Without all those fossil fuels, how'd they occur? There lies the tricky question: what effect do fossil fuel emissions have when comparied to other factors.

I will say, however, thanks for the post Brian: you do understand what the issue is about, and are posting material relevant to it. I am reading some of the url's you've posting.
 
Brian the Snail: I posted this link before, back on page 4, though I guess it's probably got buried by all the stuff posted since then. It might help answer your question:

"that there is no evidence in the statistics of any major unidentified source of natural variation."

bignickel: I really do not trust the wording used in that sentence. Why do I have the feeling that the original thought behind it is "we couldn't find any other cause for the global warming"?

Which of course ends up becoming an 'argument from ignorance'. Unless you carefully change the wording, that is.

I wouldn't agree that it's an argument from ignorance. To me it's simply stating that there's no evidence for any unknown causes of the current warming. Which is not to say that they don't exist, just that there's no reason to believe that they exist. This is usually good enough in science, since to say the former you have to prove a negative, which is usually very difficult, if not impossible.

Just think of it this way- I could say "there's no evidence for the Loch Ness monster." I can't say definitively that Nessie doesn't exist, just that there's no reason to think that she exists. So it's pointless to rewrite the zoology textbooks to include a pleistosaur living in modern times, unless the evidence comes forward.

bignickel: The problem of course is: we have had global warmings before in Earth's history: was man responsible for those too? Without all those fossil fuels, how'd they occur? There lies the tricky question: what effect do fossil fuel emissions have when comparied to other factors.

That's a big question to answer, since there's a lot of natural processes that can change the climate, and you have different processes working over different timescales. Over very long timescales (millions of years) things like continental drift and orbital oscillations of the Earth play a very important role, but which vary too slowly to affect the climate significantly during the timescale we are interested in (the last century).

From what I've read, the most important factors that are usually included in climate models for the last century are (i) greenhouse gases (mainly due to fossil fuel burning), (ii) changes in solar constant, (iii) aerosols due to volcanism, (iv) aerosols emitted by Man. I think the links I posted should help answer your last question.

bignickel: I will say, however, thanks for the post Brian: you do understand what the issue is about, and are posting material relevant to it. I am reading some of the url's you've posting.

You're welcome.
 
From the CSIRO.

http://www.dar.csiro.au/publications/gh_faq.htm#4

It answers just about every question and point that has been raised here.

Is greenhouse just a theory?
Yes and no! The way in which greenhouse gases affect climate is based on observations and scientific interpretations, as is the evidence that human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The way in which these increases will affect our future climate is, and can only be, the result of theoretical calculations.

However, there is unequivocal evidence that greenhouse gases are increasing in the atmosphere. Since the industrial revolution the level of carbon dioxide alone has risen from approximately 280 ppm (parts per million) to approximately 360 ppm. This will have an effect on the world's climate. What is not clear is the exact magnitude of that effect.

Isn’t greenhouse warming just part of a natural cycle?
The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon, but the extra gases produced by human activity are making it stronger.

We are now adding to these gases faster than oceans and plants can absorb them — the greenhouse effect is being ‘enhanced’ by humans. There is strong evidence that recent changes are unprecedented and not due to natural causes.

When considering how climate will be affected, we need to be mindful that global warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect will be in addition to the natural fluctuations of climate.

Are humans responsible for changes to our climate?
It is difficult to distinguish natural variability in climate from human-induced climate change.

Global warming in the early part of the 20th century can be explained by a combination of natural and human-induced changes, while most of the warming in the last 50 years was due to human activities, namely increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. Considering the 20th century as a whole, it is extremely unlikely that global warming can be explained by natural variability. Hence, while a variety of factors (increased air-borne particles, stratospheric ozone depletion, volcanic eruptions and internal climate variability) influence climate, the most dominant driver of change in the past few decades has been the increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Given the projected increases in concentrations, greenhouse warming is expected to be even more dominant in the 21st century.
 
bignickel said:


I really do not trust the wording used in that sentence. Why do I have the feeling that the original thought behind it is "we couldn't find any other cause for the global warming"?


I don't have any idea. Perhaps you could tell us why. It appears to be a very common feeling around here.
 

Back
Top Bottom