Global Warming with Colder Temperatures

The ice of the North pole doesn't matter at all, it's either ice which is currently on land (Antartics, Greenland, etc.) melting or the seawater expanding due to heating which would cause sea levels to rise. Though the effects will be minimal in the short term (unlike Al Gore's claims), it could get pretty drastic in the long term.

And seriously, read my 2nd post. YES, Global warming has always been caused by nature, we know how this used to happen, this is not happening now. Which means we have to look for other causes, and CO2 is by far the most obvious one, as well as the one with the strongest correlation.

And what? We will probably get an iceless North Pole in just a few summers, and you're claiming the amount of ice has been increasing at the North Pole?

Also, the list of people skeptical towards anthropogenic climate change has been signed mostly by non-climatologists, and more importantly, almost exclusively by people who are not associated with any research concerning global warming. That's like a group of biologists signing a petition to say they are skeptical towards the claims of quantum physicists.
 
How come when I beat spoon to the point, every one STILL sides with him, even if I said the same thing... :/

PheonyxXx said:
Ok, so everyone says lets listen to th scientists, only real scientists studying this are in the US. There have been multiple scientists that used to work for the government that have said that the gov greatly changed their findings to promote what ever it is that they wish. I read that in a magazine that had an interview with one of the said scientists.

2ndly, all global warming reports seem to point to the polar ice caps melting and flooding the world. So lets say their lies are true and the ice caps melt. What happens when you put an ice cube in water? the water level rises. Now lets look at what the "science" says, the ice melts, what happens to the water level? The water level decreases. So how are we all going to be flooded?

Global warming is a natural event, not man made like the science leads us to believe. And there has been studies that have shown that there is more ice in the north pole than there has the past 10 years. And all the propaganda is saying that its all melting away.

And heres another link of interest...

http://www.h2oaccess.com/articles.php/20090206
Click to expand...

And the only "real" scientists against it are mostly made up of those who don't even study climatology.
 
If I can find a scan of the article I was reading about the former government scientist thats speaking out about the government lying about global warming studies I'll post it. But its always been known that the government lies. Every scientific study except for US studies have said that the use of marijuana has minimal damage and that Alcohol and Tobacco are worse. The US has a chokehold on the world to side with it, no matter what scientists find. And I'm pretty sure I got the magazine I speak of upstairs somewhere, but scanning it would be an issue. And some of you couldn't look it up possibly due to it being from a hustler.


In the matter of carbon induced “Global Warming” there is the disturbing problem that for the past 10-15 years the average measured temperature of the near-earth environment has decreased, as it also did in the 40-year period 1940-1980, even though the CO2 atmospheric concentration increased. This contradiction is one reason for “skepticism” of the current promotion of Global Warming.
Click to expand...

taken from http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/no-consensus-among-scientists-that-global-warming-is-a-fact/

and no one can claim to be an expert on "global warming," they haven't called the study of it official until a few years ago. There is no science about it, its basic observations. What tests can you do to prove or disprove it? absolutely nothing. Its a natural phenomena than man kind can't and never has controlled. Even the ancient civilizations knew more about space and the stars than we currently know. So how can we trust these people? The same ones that lie and keep secrets while taking our money to fund all this. Area 51 is another perfect example. What exactly are they hiding if they're ordered to shoot to kill anyone that gets within such a radius of the actual base? Why is there a no fly zone for the base as well? What's being hidden. The government continually lies, why would "global warming" be any different? They know how to scare people to be able to increase income (taxes) without the complaining of people, if they truelly believed it would help.
 
PheonyxXx, you've jumped the shark just now...
How many more conspiracy theories are you going to throw at us?

Your link is not by a climatologist, why should I trust him over, say, Phil Plait, an astronomer?
PheonyxXx said:
If I can find a scan of the article I was reading about the former government scientist thats speaking out about the government lying about global warming studies I'll post it. But its always been known that the government lies. Every scientific study except for US studies have said that the use of marijuana has minimal damage and that Alcohol and Tobacco are worse. The US has a chokehold on the world to side with it, no matter what scientists find. And I'm pretty sure I got the magazine I speak of upstairs somewhere, but scanning it would be an issue. And some of you couldn't look it up possibly due to it being from a hustler.
Click to expand...
Why do conspiracy theories always involved science? Seriously, dude, science is a huge and complicated process and involves millions of people around the globe, all highly educated, and most of them probably not caring about money too much (otherwise they wouldn't have studied so long for jobs which don't pay nearly as well as they should). You can't blame politics when it's science making the claims.
But guess which side is not backed by science? Exactly.
PheonyxXx said:
and no one can claim to be an expert on "global warming," they haven't called the study of it official until a few years ago. There is no science about it, its basic observations. What tests can you do to prove or disprove it? absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...
Climatology has been around since ancient science, the study of global warming is part of that, what are you talking about?
I just quickly did a search for some actually scientific papers:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7276/abs/nature08649.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091216/full/news.2009.1146.html
I'm really not going to write an essay for you on the subject...
climate2010134i1.jpg
PheonyxXx said:
Its a natural phenomena than man kind can't and never has controlled.
Click to expand...
Repeating that exact same line over and over is not going to make it any less true. It's only evidence of your refusal to learn and your cluelessness towards the subject.
PheonyxXx said:
Even the ancient civilizations knew more about space and the stars than we currently know.
Click to expand...
Oh, so the stars are actually gods/dragons/campfires/dead relatives/constellations? And there's no such thing as quasars, galaxies, pulsars, black holes, clusters, exoplanets or even gravity? And planets are just wandering stars? And they're not spread out in a universe, but on a blanket or cape, or are all equally far away hanging in space. Not to mention that the sun isn't one of them and that all of them rotate around the Earth. Wow, and they found all of that out without, say, telescopes? Awesome.
Attack climate change all you want, but you're crossing a serious line when you're attacking astronomy. I can't believe your distrust in science ._.
As a general recommendation to the world, watch Carl Sagan's Cosmos, it's quite lengthy, but should at least spark a little interest in science, instead of the hate and distrust you seem to have towards it now...
 
I never will believe in man made global warming just due to the fact of how much common sense it completely lacks. Ice melts and water levels decrease, not increase as they say. and 90% of the world's ice is already under water as it is, hence my previous ice cube comparison. Ok, and lets say it does start to get considerably warmer, water just evaporates, thats another known fact. If it didn't, where do we get rain/snow/sleet/hail from? The "facts" these scientists throw out there on man made global warming is complete bull. They can't explain the decrease in temperature over the past 10-15 years, same goes go for the 80's as well. Thats one thing they never bring up either, because the money issue as I said.

And if ancient civilizations did know more about the sky then we do, look at all there ancient scripts. They all knew it had importance in the world. Most of the ancient monuments involve the sky. I forgot which constellations it is, but the pyramids of giza line up perfectly with them. The pyramids dimensions, I forgot in which way, involve pi, and it was calculated precisely to the 6th decimal. The 4th decimal wasn't discovered until hundreds and hundreds of years later. All our current science wants to do is discover things, name them, then move on to the next thing. We know more about space than we do our own ocean. I mean, what is wrong with these people? They go and disclaim the "Loch Ness Monster" so quickly, yet the loch used to have straights connecting to the oceans. How many times have we heard of people fishing and they catch something that was thought to be extinct for thousands of years? It happens more often than people may think. Two off the top of my head are the Frilled Shark and the Coelacanth. With discoveries like this, why aren't we trying to study the ocean more? No, we're more worried about global warming something that doesn't even make sense. Until they can prove to me that their "expriments" actually work and the equipment they use work, I will believe it all to be the biggest scam in american history (Mostly only americans believe in Global warming for some reason).

And thirdly, the government lying to people is no conspiracy theory. There have been plenty of times in the past that it has been proven that the american government has lied to its citizens. Back during desert storm, they were test flying and building the stealth bomber at area 51, people reported seeing an odd aircraft in the sky and were told they were crazy. How about more recently that we were told that Iraq had WMD's? It is no conspiracy that they lie, it happens everyday.


Edit: And for anyone that is religious, I am not and do not believe the bible or anything like that. My basic Ice cube theory is backed up by the bible, after Noah's Arc god said he would never flood the earth again. That the next time it would be fire. Even the people that wrote the bible used common sense with the ice caps and saw that the warming is only a natural occurrence.
 
PheonyxXx said:
I never will believe in man made global warming just due to the fact of how much common sense it completely lacks.
Click to expand...

I was gonna read the entire post, but stopped at the first sentence.

Lack of common sense?

For the last century, man kind has used an enourmous quantity of fossil fuels, which pollute the atmosphere with high amounts of CO2 and other toxic gases. Such a thing had never happened before the Industrial Revolutions.

The fact that nowadays' fuels are cleaner and do pollute less in comparison (even though they are far from being really clean) doesnt change the fact that we have been polluting the planet for over 50 years. Its clear that it would take time to occur, and if scientists are warning us now, is because we still got some time to react - it doesnt mean it started in the last 10 years.

Also, global warming is a natural effect, indeed. Its not man made at all - in fact, if the atmosphere didnt keep gases and heat, there would be no life in the Earth (it would freeze, for the heat would escape). Now, what is true is that the huge amount of gases we produced in the last century has increased the heat absorption potential (and caused other bad effects, such as destruction of a part of the Ozone layer), thus raising temperatures.

And dont forget that an event of global scale affects the whole planet; its only natural that if some areas get un-naturally hotter, others get colder.

See how much it lacks sense?
 
Ok, Man Made Global warming is bull, everytime a volcano has erupted it has spewed out more CO2 than man has ever put into the atmosphere. And according to science, we have done more damage than 1 volcano. Where's the common sense or logic there? There is none. So according to them, we must stop all natural occurrences including volcano eruptions because we're just so much better than the planet for some reason, we just can't let the planet do its own thing. Mankind is just another species or animals, so what makes us so much more important? The planet has a fate and we're trying to stop it, yet the planet itself has done more damage than we ever will. hmmm, i see an issue with this so called "science".
 
First of all, I'd like to point out that the idea that the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, causing drastic changes in weather and temperature, was first suggested in...1696? By a Swedish scientist.

Second of all, Global Warming is slightly misleading. Global Climate Change is what we think is happening. Unfortunately I don't know that much on the subject, but what I do know is that apparently according to ice samples from Antarctica, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are about 3 times greater than they ever were naturally over the past 600,000 years.

And I would like to point out that Climate Change basically means that the weather is going to change so drastically that basically the Sahara is going to turn into a forest and the Great Plains into a desert. That kind of thing.

Well look at the bright side, we can finally see what's under all that ice down south.
 
PheonyxXx, ice floats in water, when it melts, it decreases in size, but gets mixed up in the water, there's pretty much no change.
However, 90% of it is in water? Where in the world did you read that? Are you assuming all of the Earth's ice floats in water? Ever heard of, oh, I donno, antarctica? The largest ice storage in the world... and it happens to be located ON LAND. Now, when ice located on land melts, it flows to the sea, and guess what effect that has?
And yes, water vaporizes when it heats up, BUT IT ALSO EXPANDS, the effect of which is actually greater at the temperatures we're dealing with here.
How close-minded are you? ._.

And the fact that we KNOW what these civilizations knew makes up smarter than they were by default, right? 6 decimals of Pi? Try trillions.

It's almost like I'm debating with a brick wall here...
 
Ok, you want to talk about close minded, you are saying that man kind makes more damage to the atmosphere than a single volcanic eruption. It has been proven that a single volcano has done more damage than man kind has since we've been on this planet. Volcanoes erupt every year, most underwater, but the gases still make it the surface. So you're saying mankind is the cause for volcanic eruptions due to it being us thats making global warming. I'm sorry, but I call that B/S.
 
PheonyxXx said:
Ok, you want to talk about close minded, you are saying that man kind makes more damage to the atmosphere than a single volcanic eruption. It has been proven that a single volcano has done more damage than man kind has since we've been on this planet. Volcanoes erupt every year, most underwater, but the gases still make it the surface. So you're saying mankind is the cause for volcanic eruptions due to it being us thats making global warming. I'm sorry, but I call that B/S.
Click to expand...

Lol, did you not see what I said? In the past 600,000 the CO2 levels in the atmosphere did not reach above a certain level. Meanwhile currently we have 3x that level. How do you explain that?
 
PheonyxXx said:
Ok, you want to talk about close minded, you are saying that man kind makes more damage to the atmosphere than a single volcanic eruption. It has been proven that a single volcano has done more damage than man kind has since we've been on this planet. Volcanoes erupt every year, most underwater, but the gases still make it the surface.
Click to expand...
Of course the gases will, it doesn't matter if the volcano is under water or at the surface. Besides we were talking about a single volcano, so I don't see your point in saying volcanoes also erupt under water. Also before humans used the fossil fuels there was more a balance between the CO2 erupting of a volcano and the CO2 absorbsion of the earth. Also, you can't deny that since we use fossil fuels, more CO2 is taken out of the earth than before (when measuring over a certain amount of time).

PheonyxXx said:
So you're saying mankind is the cause for volcanic eruptions due to it being us thats making global warming. I'm sorry, but I call that B/S.
Click to expand...
Give me one quote where Spoon ever said we are the cause of volcanic eruptions.

Anyway, I don't know that much of meteorology and climatology so I won't even try to debate on this. Although the claims you make seem rather silly than logic.
 
I hope global warming is fact. I'd love a home on Antarctic Peninsula.

peninsularly hating of the disc,
hatedisc
 
Here's how I see it... Let it be known that I am involved in meteorology and an active storm chaser actually. I am aware of the use of climitology models as well as I have a friend who has a masters in climatology and geology.

Let's start off by how models work, a model is a mathematic algorithm which has fields for data which span over a period of time, when run the model creates links between the previous data values and the result which occured. In weather for example, for a forecast model such as the GFS, ECMWF or NAM model there will be about 150 years of daily records entered into the data fields and it will then provide a 16 day model assemble of what it predicts the weather pattern may do. Now these models have an accuracy of 90% day 1, 85% day 2, 80% day 3, 70% day 4, 60% day 5... if you look further than that it's a craps shoot.

Models rely on a very specific set of data entries for their calculations, for example: I may have 100 years of data and be missing 2 years of data, those 2 missing years can throw the whole model prediction out, based on the variations in conditions during those recordings.

Now we're sitting with a 7 day model say, with under 60% accuracy at day 7. This is with 150 years of accurate input.

The models for global warming are even MORE volatile as they are running with huge gaps in condition recording, and even the current data entries are based off subjects which are far less accurate than weather station recordings as are used in meteorology. They can basically say "between year 20000BC and 18000BC temperatures were about this". Now even the slightest variation could throw havoc into the long term model forecasts.

Just look at the way they've been going on about global warming doomsday theories... Some started out about 10 years ago or so saying "2020!!! END OF THE WORLD GLOBAL WARMING"... then it changed to 2050.. now they bank on 2100? Because the models are so indesicive with the data entries it's been given. Fact is there is no way to provide an accurate model assemble based on the historic data we have.

NOW to throw into the mix we have the fact that human interaction with the effects of the climate have only been around 100 odd years. (you couldn't even plot an accurate 6 day forecast with that data).

As was stated earlier in this thread by someone, the earth goes through heating and cooling cycles, let's not forget the ice age and mini-ice age. Both of which had no human to interfere by pollution. I do feel that the earth is heating and I think it's primarily due to a natural cycle.

BUT BUT BUT BUT BUT

Do I think humans living styles can cause an increase in global temperatures, yes. Just nothing like what is being shown with these doomsday shock tactics "World to end in 50 years!".

And I do think we should begin taking care of our planet, not out of fear of extinction, but by logic. The world is beautiful and it is clearly being ruined by the disgusting species that is humans. We've made animals extinct and we've thrown our crap about like it's not going to have an effect.

It all boils down to: Not enough data and who cares, save the planet anyway!
 
Global warming is such a bunch of bull$@!# is this really all you guys have to hold on to? Its just another way to take our money, save the earth, go green, yeah i go green, for $$$$, u silly people.
 
As someone who has taken lectures from a world expert on Atmospheric Chemistry (we're talking about someone who has dedicated their life to studying atmospherics, and has done many research papers on the topic), this sounds like something I should be involved in. But looking at the average quality of the posts here, it isn't worth me wasting my time going into super details of everything here. I COULD go back to my notes and give a full-blown essay on this, but let's face it:

1) The average intelligence of the people reading this thread is far too low to hope to understand anything about the atmosphere, and their naivety leads to ridiculous accusations like "we haven't done anything, it's 100% natural!"
2) My "essay" would involve scientific references, which neither you or I (without going to uni to get free access) would be able to look up because you can't just view articles over the internet, you have to pay for them. It sounds silly, but it's really to prevent plagiarism - if you have to buy an article you are likely to properly reference it as a result.
3) Even if I did give you the evidence presented to me (which I am not following blindly; based on the knowledge of chemistry I have gained over the last 6 or 7 years it's really compelling arguments), the average poster in here wouldn't believe it anyhow, since their closed mind is already made up. About the only ones who would listen are those who are already on "my" side anyhow.
4) The lack of subscripts and superscripts in the forum post options, whilst not life-threatening, really detract from my will to post anything significant, as I can't CORRECTLY cite anything, nor can I post molecular formulae (or equations) properly.


With a couple of exceptions (notably those with actual intelligence), nobody is providing physical evidence of anything to back their side up anyhow, which again makes it moot to come in with my *gasp* first-hand experience and knowledge on the topic. This is a natural problem of scientific debates I suppose; it is difficult to provide absolute evidence if you cannot cite literature on the topic, and unless you are actually a scientist with access it is difficult to get articles to cite in the first place. So, @weavile more than anyone, whilst this topic is INTERESTING, it isn't PRACTICAL to discuss - everyone either comes up with opinionated bs that contributes nothing to intelligent conversation (you know who you are), or they come up against a brick wall trying to defend their points because it is very, very difficult to provide conclusive proof outside of a research setting.

[/flamethrower]


To provide one point however:

Yes, it's true that there are natural sources of greenhouse gases (funnily enough CO2 isn't even the real killer here, as we've dumped so much of it up there as it is that putting more up isn't as significant). Yes, humans are not the ONLY cause of gas emissions - there's a whole host of natural sources that contribute as well. But do you honestly think that all that addition *insert choice word here* doesn't affect anything?

Anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are significant, several times greater in quantity than their natural counterparts. The point is that we add a significant amount of these dangerous gases into the atmosphere - how are we NOT influencing climate change when we pump more *insert choice word here* out than the environment by itself?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top