Global warming BS?

Mars is getting warmer and there are no cows or trucks or coal burning factories or massive areas of deforestation there (at least that we know of). I've mentioned that in threads like this before and the best response I got was that the IPCC and environmentalists are not worried about Mars because there's enough here on Earth to worry about. Not exactly the most convincing answer.

I don't claim to have all the answers and yeah, we are experiencing some crazy shit right now but if Mars is experiencing 'climate change' too, I can't help but wonder why.

I got some data for you guys..

They claim the 90's was the hottest decade on record..Well first of all, that record is very very short. We hadn't really had a means to measure tempurature until more recent times. second, when you shut down hundreds of measuring stations, all in the colder regions, worldwide..in't common sense that the new readings coming in are gonna show a sharp upturn in the heat? LoL...

second, I have a couple of solid sources, not a russian website LoL..that show Gore and the greens are lying. I mean flat out lying, well-knowingly. The first is in regards to their love of touting how the snows of Kilimanjaro are disappearing. Pay attention to them..They never say melting. It is disappearing, and it isn't melting. There were 2 major articles published in 2 seperate international journals (you don't get it published in a scientific journal unless an international panel of scientists in the feild pertaining to the article agree with it...in this case, it's geophysicists) showing how the temp on the volcano has actually been getting colder over the past century. It is disappearing moisture that is causing the snow to dissipate(sp?).

There was also an article published in either early 2006 or late 2005 showing how 2005 was the hottest on record due to the sun having the worst storm season on record.

And the second of the 2 sources is straight from Gore and the greens beloved IPCC. In one single report they disproved the global warming theory, and that carbon dioxide could have anything to do with tempuratural changes. It showed that co2 levels have risen equally in both the northern and southern atmospheres, but that the southern atmosphere has been growing colder for a century. Now unless you don't include the entire southern hemisphere as part of the globe, than there isn't any global warming. And cos it was/is getting colder despite having the same rising quantity of co2, it proves co2 is not effecting the temps in either hemisphere.

Oh and the IPCC also said late last year, in their typical doom and gloom tone, that "this year was the second lowest on record [for sea ice], second only to last year"
Meaning 2007 was the lowest, and last year, there was more. The ice is building up again. We need to stop trying to play God and pretending we know more about the earth than mother nature. she knows what she's doing.

I'll post what journals the two articles on Kilimanjaro are in later..
My hands are too freezing to keep typing..

Besides all the scientific evidence constantly presented and the spike in disasters one thing I read recently was that most commercial airline pilots say turbulence at high altitudes has increased dramatically over the years. This is forcing them to request lower altitude flight plans. Perhaps all you non-believers are waiting for Klaatu to arrive to start believing..

NoK wrote:

Besides all the scientific evidence constantly presented and the spike in disasters one thing I read recently was that most commercial airline pilots say turbulence at high altitudes has increased dramatically over the years. This is forcing them to request lower altitude flight plans. Perhaps all you non-believers are waiting for Klaatu to arrive to start believing..

you do know that warmer weather equals calmer weather? and colder weather equals wilder air patterns, such as those causing the increased turbulence?

Do you believers ever actually bother to research what you are being force fed? Cos I mean, if you did, you would notice all the contradicitions that are constantly put out there by the greens. What is with you two, you bosom buddies or sumthin?

NoK wrote:

show previous quotes

RM291946 wrote:

you do know that warmer weather equals calmer weather? and colder weather equals wilder air patterns, such as those causing the increased turbulence?

Do you believers ever actually bother to research what you are being force fed? Cos I mean, if you did, you would notice all the contradicitions that are constantly put out there by the greens. What is with you two, you bosom buddies or sumthin?

Does have a PhD in Biological Sciences count as something? Or having colleagues who are actually looking at marine life with respect to climate change? After reading many of your so called "facts" in the discussion in the other thread I really can't be bothered to listening to more of these "facts".

"Pilots around the world report increased frequencies of, among other things, furious storms and alarmingly high winds." Many reports have attributed this to global climate change. If you do not believe in global climate change then perhaps its because the birds are farting too much, who knows.

The two articles I mentioned were published in 2004 in the International Journal of Climatology, and the other in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

Biology and marine life don't count. If you don't know the science, you have no authority, plain and simple.
If earning a PhD in biology meant you somehow magically knew about the climate without studying that field, you would have already known that its cold weather that makes the air less stable. LoL..you honestly thought parading around a PhD was going to make you more credible in this subject? lmfao..hilarious. I am chair of a foundation that builds schools..does that make me a teacher?

Climate change, you changing your tune from global to climate change? Of course there is climate change. The climate has always been changing. Different parts of the planet are always getting colder or warmer, wetter or drier, etc..The sun has cycles, producing less or more energy(the most on record, the worst sun storm season, was in 2005...which also happens to be the hottest year on record). The earth’s wobble and eccentric orbit mean that different parts of the planet will be exposed to varying amounts of heat over different periods. If more snow or land is exposed to the sun, more heat will be reflected. If more water is exposed, more heat will be absorbed. If the sky gets darkened by dust -caused by a volcano, a meteor, or pollution- it can make the planet colder. Land use changes, manmade or otherwise, greatly impact local climate, especially in cities where a lot of them are now re-paving roads with the black pavement, which absorbs more heat, making for a much hotter local climate..The earth’s climate is, and has always been, constantly changing.

Read the 2 articles published in the journals. Read the 2005 and 2007 and 2008 reports published by the IPCC. Have a look at some NOAA data regarding cold weather = more turbulent weather. sure it's "climate change"..towards the colder, not warmer. Look up the newest reports on the sea ice published in a geophysical journal..any of them, take your pick.

Reports that have not been up for scrutiny by legitimate scientists are worthless crap. Journals are what count. They show real theories and data accepted by real scientists in the field that's in question. All else is total crap. Including the reports you have not listed sources for.

I just listed 7 solidly accepted sources you can check out with your own eyes.
Like I said...how can you argue when the greens own data prove what I'm saying is right, despite what they prefer you to believe.

ah but when faced with solid data, you "can't be bothered". A common trend I find in believers. You have all the arguements to cut down an opposing opinion, but when faced with opposing facts that are backed up, you pretend you're above it and the person presenting it is crazy/stupid/[enter other slanderous term here].

First off, I believe global warming is very real. The polar icecaps are melting, and glaciers are receding all over the globe.

But the main reason I wanted to respond was to ask a simple question: Why in the world do you want to deny global warming? Are companies making millions off of global warming? Sure. Are they capitalizing on fear? Maybe a bit. But for the love of god: we are polluting this planet to the point of an almost inevitable collapse. There is no question about that. So whether or not you believe global warming is real, surely you must believe we have to save the planet. And if so, so gives a crap how it gets done? Stop denying that we are pathetically ignoring the harm we are doing to this planet just so we can continue life as normal. Ignoring it, or in your case denying it, won't save us from ourselves.

It just rubs me the wrong eay to see posts like this. It's like the guy on the other board who tried to claim that stories of 6 millions jews being killed in the holocaust was an exaggeration and that some estimates have it as "low" as a million. First off, it was 6 million. Fact. And 2nd, even if it was over-stated...WHO CARES? I don't care if they somehow found out that 500K died. It wouldn't lessen my hatred for Hitler and the Nazis. There's no "agenda" in reporting 6 million Jews died.

NoK wrote:

First of all, I did not back away. In the same post I said GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE if you actually read it carefully. Second, I can not be bothered because either you believe the data that supports or you don't so arguing the point will not change anything. Personally, I believe the data put forward by many top class science institutes among them NASA Earth Science. Third, you said "Do you believers ever actually bother to research what you are being force fed?" which is why I mentioned the PhD.

Biology and marine life do not count? Good argument. Look into the research into cyanobacterial blooms and water temperature changes over the recent years and tell me they "dont count".

In the other thread you said the UN was useless now you want to believe what the IPCC says. Nevertheless, these organisations are likely to be influenced by political powers (especially the NOAA). They are not Science institutes.

This is from one IPCC report you mention:

The Earth’s climate system has demonstrably changed on both global and regional scales since the pre-industrial era, with some of these changes attributable to human activities. Human activities have increased the atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and aerosols since the pre-industrial era. The atmospheric concentrations of key anthropogenic greenhouse gases (i.e., carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and tropospheric ozone (O3)) reached their highest recorded levels in the 1990s, primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels, agriculture, and land-use changes (see Table SPM-1). The radiative forcing from anthropogenic greenhouse gases is positive with a small uncertainty range; that from the direct aerosol effects is negative and smaller; whereas the negative forcing from the indirect effects of aerosols on clouds might be large but is not well quantified.

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system (see Table SPM-1). Globally it is very likely that the 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, in the instrumental record (1861–2000) (see Box SPM-1). The increase in surface temperature over the 20th century for the Northern Hemisphere is likely to have been greater than that for any other century in the last thousand years (see Table SPM-1). Insufficient data are available prior to the year 1860 in the Southern Hemisphere to compare the recent warming with changes over the last 1,000 years. Temperature changes have not been uniform globally but have varied over regions and different parts of the lower atmosphere.

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Detection and attribution studies consistently find evidence for an anthropogenic signal in the climate record of the last 35 to 50 years. These studies include uncertainties in forcing due to anthropogenic sulfate aerosols and natural factors (volcanoes and solar irradiance), but do not account for the effects of other types of anthropogenic aerosols and land-use changes. The sulfate and natural forcings are negative over this period and cannot explain the warming; whereas most of these studies find that, over the last 50 years, the estimated rate and magnitude of warming due to increasing greenhouse gases alone are comparable with, or larger than, the observed warming.

Observed changes in regional climate have affected many physical and biological systems, and there are preliminary indications that social and economic systems have been affected. Recent regional changes in climate, particularly increases in temperature, have already affected hydrological systems and terrestrial and marine ecosystems in many parts of the world (see Table SPM-1). The observed changes in these systems are coherent across diverse localities and/or regions and are consistent in direction with the expected effects of regional changes in temperature. The probability that the observed changes in the expected direction (with no reference to magnitude) could occur by chance alone is negligible.

---

Enjoy.

You said you can't be bothered..that to me says you aren't getting into it. Normally this is what that means. sorry I don't read opposite messages into a simple statement.

You are right, my apologies, it was commy who specified global warming.

Hmm, maybe you should ask deeply politically involved NAsA what they think of the satallite data that shows there is virtually no warming in the upper ozone tempurature in the southern hemisphere- 0.05 degrees celsius, which outside of greenieland is not a discernable, while the measuring station at the south pole shows a distinctive cooling trend in ground temps?



There are several potential causes for water tempurature to change. Volcanic activity, el nino, what position the earth is aimed towards the sun....

Nah, the UN is wonderful! Look how they saved hundreds of thousands of lives by immediately declaring genocide in Rwanda..Or how they rescued those foreigners in Congo..Or how their 17,000 troops in sierra Leone kept it free from violence after they 'fired' the less than 100 EO mercinaries who had kept peace there since their arrival..Oh..they are also preventing Italy from ethnic cleansing of Roma with their quick actions! Have declared Genocide in North Korea and have been occupying the region for a long time now saving countless lives..so useful, so brilliant.

They are influenced by political powers..deeply. But see, Government wants you to believe in Global Warming, a fantastic way to gain more control over you. With your consent no less! Yet they are still reporting the opposite of what the politicians and greens want you to believe. It's a curious thing, really. I'd even go far as to say that in this instance, the UN actually is worth something for a change.

Let's break down the report-
Yes, the climate has changed..Of course. Did you read what I wrote about how the climate has always been changing? And yes some of these changes are indeed attributed to man. Not saying anything I haven't said already...

We were responsable for raising GHG's..Now, you tell me...how much?
Cos you know, GHG's were already rising even before we went industrial.

Rising co2 due to agriculture and land use changes means we planted more plants and trees. Europe has cut down on pollutants massively, planted millions of trees, and cut energy use. The result? Higher co2 levels.

President Bush passed the clear skies initiative. It's goal was to reduce sulfer dioxide emissions by a projected 73%, mercury by 69%, and nitrogen oxides by 67%..As a result, 2003, 2004, and 2005 had the lowest ozone on record tho biofuels have ended that streak by bringing some of the smog-creating acetaldehyde back. You can thank the green's for that one. New technology has severely reduced acid rain. We find the acid rain in areas such as those excused from reducing their pollution in the Kyoto Agreement (China..).

so your doom and gloom input about human induced GHG's is excessive. Mind you, I said excessive..meaning, as "I've said before," we do contribute to some of the GHG's..But like I said...........

How much?

And I already clearly stated we have an impact on local climate..Read: black tar...

The portion with which they state about increasing body of observations, and 1998 being warmest..is irrelavent and should be ommitted.

1-if 1998 really was the warmest, then this means we've been cooling for the past decade..see how that works?

2-we have no idea if 1998 was the warmest. In fact, we have no idea what the collective global tempurature really is.
To claim "global warming" with any degree of accuracy, one must be referring to an increase in measured global mean surface tempurature- a quantity that has never actually been measured..surface temp is not measured globally, but rather haphazardly, wherever measuring stations have been placed.
In the 90's, hundreds of measuring stations were shut down, almost all in the colder regions. The rising "global" temps track nicely with these closures. so what little data we did have coming in was compromised and naturally, when abruptly ceasing to include temps in colder regions, data returning will show a sharp upturn in the heat.
Furthermore, stations in poorer countries are maintained differently than those in wealthier countries.

The data is biased, compromised, incomplete, and innacurate. To say there is a consensus that Global Warming is real is a farse. About the only things you find a consensus on in science are things like- the earth is round. The earth revolves around the sun. Heavy things drop. There is more ocean, than land on earth.

"likely to have been"...I love how they word that..Leaves it completely open. Could have been, could not have been..Do you have any clue? No, and neither do they. Hence why they worded it that way

I've made my point.

Like I said, you gotta pay attention, or you'll miss little details like that. Once you do you'll understand their reports better..what data it's really showing. And what parts of the report that aren't saying anything, really.

BTW, that is not nearly the entire report. There is much else that shows that backs the many climate scientists that say there is no global warming.

RM291946 wrote:

Glaciers are not receding all over the world. They are receding in the southern hemisphere, and data shows colder drier air is the culprit.

http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adven ... ery-1.html

Really? Southern hemisphere only?

Jeanwah wrote:

First off, the entire idea that there is a "debate" about global warming was created by the Bush administration. This issue has more to do with politics than it does science because a LOT of the scientists debunking global warming are being paid by the gov't and/or the fossil fuel industry. And why? Well, consider the fact that Big Oil and Big Coal are in the back pockets of George Bush. They have many lobbyists gunning to keep the wraps on any kind of emission regulations so they can keep spewing their pollution into the air and keep the world enslaved to fossil fuels (not to mention that McCain and Obama received money from these lobbyists while campaigning). Just look at the EV1 electric vehicle that GM created and then compounded every single last one of them from their owners (and destroyed) in order to keep the oil companies w/out competition. See Who Killed the Electric Car documentary.

But this is really what bugs me. WHY DISPUTE THIS? Whether we go into another Ice Age or the planet gets too hot, who in their right mind thinks that the human civilization will outlive it? We will not. Why bother arguing when what we should be doing is considering our children's generation trying to deal with the symptoms when they'll be too fargone to solve. The time is now to take care of our environment and each other before things get to the point that we can't do anything. Continuing to deplete our natural resources isn't helping no one or no thing.

I'm sure someone's heard of the couple of Tennessee coal ash spills within the last few weeks contaminating and destroying 6 miles of communities. What - no one's heard about these? It's because the mainstream media doesn't report them, again, because planet destruction via fossil fuels is to kept under wraps by our gov't. After all, they don't want us to know so they can stay in business, keeping the idea of renewable energy out of the limelight. And why would we want healthier energy?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... d=99192012

You got it backwards..Big business is making big money off Global Warming fears, and the government finally has an excuse to scare you into wanting laws that limit your freedoms. The idea that there is no debate, and the massive campaign to slander the scientists who are debunking the theory, and silence them, is scary.

I've already gone into why we should dispute it and how what they are doing is harmful to the earth, not helpful. I'm not going to repeat it every single time someone poses the same question cos they can't be bothered to read the older posts from everyone else here.

I heard about the coal ash spills and 3 consecutive oil spills in another location within a week I believe..Heard that one just yesterday.

You heard about how it snowed for the first time since biblical times in Israel January last year..And how Canada had the first white Christmas coast-to-coast since 1971..And how it snowed in New Orleans, Georgia, and Vegas..And how Alaska was just in such a deep freeze that in some areas temps were as 60 below, and that was not due to the wind chill factor. There was no wind. That was dead still cold air..And how we just recently had a blizzard from seattle to NYC..And how there were 2 deep freezes before the official winter season even began..And how right now across the nation there are temps as low as 40 below..I could go on..really..