Global warming a lie?

[StarChild 83]

Ok, a few friends and I have been arguing about this for months back and forth. Just some info on us, we live in Ocean Beach California one of the few remaining areas with a full fledged bare foot, dread locked, ganga smoking, hemp wearing, anti government, surfing, bum dwelling populations out there (that's why we love it).

So of course the environment gets talked about all over the place here whether it's on the beach or in a bar and lately more and more you hear about the questioning of all the hype even from hardcore hippies, saying it's all a lie construed by the worlds governments to keep the intelligent people occupied with something that they think they can fix instead of what the true concerns are.

Anyway I don't want to give a speech on one side or the other, but have you heard or read about the theories against it?

First posted poll so I may need to fix it at first, bare with me please.

[StarChild 83]

can a moderator help me fix the poll question? I fail at trying to fix it. should give yes, no, and Never heard of the argument against it options. please help.

[Mazatec]

No, I don't think it's a lie. We are definitely impacting our environment and the atmosphere in negative ways. The question is on how large of a scale and much damage have we caused.

Instead of wasting time by arguing yes or no, can't we just learn to be a cleaner species? What do we have to lose except making middle-eastern oil tycoons a little less rich?

Edited March 23, 2011 by Mazatec

[Purplos]

Instead of wasting time by arguing yes or no, can't we just learn to be a cleaner species?

This. One thousand times this.

Global warming yea or nay... whatever.

Anyone who thinks pumping poisons into our water and air is a good idea is insane.

Just my opinion.

[Wickian]

This. One thousand times this.

Global warming yea or nay... whatever.

Anyone who thinks pumping poisons into our water and air is a good idea is insane.

Just my opinion.

Well the entire premise of AGW is carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated and reduced. CO2 is not a pollutant.

[Guest]

Well the entire premise of AGW is carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated and reduced. CO2 is not a pollutant.

Not in the right quantities it isn't. The same is true of oxygen.

Br Cornelius

[Jessicat]

Whether or not its fake, pollution is still terrible for every living thing on Earth.

We are slowly killing ourselves.

[Flashbangwollap]

IMO it cannot be denied we are destroying the only planet that is habitable for the foreseeable future.

Is the planet warming up due to our activities on Earth, is a much harder question to answer with certainty.

Lets assume that the data being gathered is correct in showing the planet is heating up. Then the next question has to be, what are we able to do about it?

The answers are many and varied. Yes there is a lot we could do to stop it happening but do we have the political will of the entire world to carry out the necessary adjustments?

To my mind whether we voluntarily do something or not, we can be assured that Nature will eventually decide the issue for us.

[Mattshark]

Well the entire premise of AGW is carbon dioxide is a pollutant that needs to be regulated and reduced. CO2 is not a pollutant.

No it isn't, that is a utter rubbish.

The premise is that it is a greenhouse gas (which it is) and we are pumping unprecedented volumes of it into the atmosphere while at the same time dramatically reducing the volume of carbon sinks both on land and in the ocean. This lack of sinks means that ocean uptake of CO2 increases cause acidification which in a positive feedback loop results in the decline of phytoplankton (the plants primary CO2 sink) which results in further acidification. A top of this, CO2 in the atmosphere results in the heating of the planets atmosphere resulting in a warming trend across the planet with all the problems involved in that.

Considering you are so quick to dismiss it, it is rather embarrassing that you don't know what you are dismissing.

[Von Bismarck]

Global warming is true. The question is what/who are causing it?

[Flashbangwollap]

Global warming is true. The question is what/who are causing it?

Try looking in a mirror. You'll be surprised what you see.

[Doug1029]

... it's all a lie construed by the worlds governments to keep the intelligent people occupied with something that they think they can fix instead of what the true concerns are.

I am a dendrochronologist/forest biometrist. I work with the effects of climate on a daily basis. I have been working on issues related to global warming, as evidenced in tree rings, for the past nine years.

Before an analysis of a weather-related phenomenon can be run, the effect of climate must be removed from the data. That means finding an equation that describes what the climate has been doing during the life-spans of the trees I am studying. Once that equation exists, it is a simple matter to project it into the future.

My current data set has 468 core series from shortleaf pines on the Ouachita National Forest. The average tree in the set is 61 years old. The oldest tree is 130 years old. The sample size is large enough to produce a reliable chronolgy back to 1904 with a less-reliable chronology back to 1895. The Palmer Drought Severity Index for the area goes back to 1895. The monthly low temperature index is complete back through 1904. The monthly high-temperture and average temperature indices are complete back through 1903.

I don't have to believe what people are saying about global warming. I can look at my tree rings and see it. It's happening.

By the end of this week I will be trying to find an equation that predicts how thick each tree ring is for each tree and ring in the dataset. There are 27,162 ring-width measurements. Once I know what that equation is, I can post it right here on UM. You'll be the first people in the world to see the results.

In a previous study, I found a temperature increase of 1.33 degrees Farenheit for Fort Smith, Arkansas for the 1965-2005 interval. There was a slight increase in storminess, as evidenced by the number of storms producing low-pressure readings below a number of index-levels. There was no change in rainfall. The study did not look at growing season length or yearly extreme temperatures.

This morning I discovered a paper that explains the increase in the range of armadilloes that has been observed for several decades. It seems that when snow covers the ground, armadilloes cannot find enough food. It takes them about three weeks to starve to death. The range is increasing because fewer and fewer areas have a three-week snow cover. The evidence of global warming is everywhere you look and only willful ignorance and industrial propaganda intended to fend off regulation can explain the public's confusion.

The McCurtain County Wilderness Chronology (Published: 1982, David W. Stahle) goes back a little over 300 years. It show an accelerating increase in temperature. A new, as yet unpublished, chronology is currently being produced for Hot Springs National Park. It also goes back a little over 300 years. The Missouri Ozark Ecosystem Chronology also goes back almost 300 years and shows increasing temperatures. Dorian Burnette (2009) Daily-Mean Temperature Reconstructed for Kansas from Early Instrumental Observations, Journal of Climate, October 2009, pp. 1308-1333) goes back to July 1, 1828. The finding was the same: temperatures rising.

Global warming is not a myth. You'll find few, if any, ecologists or climatologists who doubt it. It is an established scientific fact.

Doug

[StarChild 83]

I am a dendrochronologist/forest biometrist. I work with the effects of climate on a daily basis. I have been working on issues related to global warming, as evidenced in tree rings, for the past nine years.

Before an analysis of a weather-related phenomenon can be run, the effect of climate must be removed from the data. That means finding an equation that describes what the climate has been doing during the life-spans of the trees I am studying. Once that equation exists, it is a simple matter to project it into the future.

My current data set has 468 core series from shortleaf pines on the Ouachita National Forest. The average tree in the set is 61 years old. The oldest tree is 130 years old. The sample size is large enough to produce a reliable chronolgy back to 1904 with a less-reliable chronology back to 1895. The Palmer Drought Severity Index for the area goes back to 1895. The monthly low temperature index is complete back through 1904. The monthly high-temperture and average temperature indices are complete back through 1903.

I don't have to believe what people are saying about global warming. I can look at my tree rings and see it. It's happening.

By the end of this week I will be trying to find an equation that predicts how thick each tree ring is for each tree and ring in the dataset. There are 27,162 ring-width measurements. Once I know what that equation is, I can post it right here on UM. You'll be the first people in the world to see the results.

In a previous study, I found a temperature increase of 1.33 degrees Farenheit for Fort Smith, Arkansas for the 1965-2005 interval. There was a slight increase in storminess, as evidenced by the number of storms producing low-pressure readings below a number of index-levels. There was no change in rainfall. The study did not look at growing season length or yearly extreme temperatures.

This morning I discovered a paper that explains the increase in the range of armadilloes that has been observed for several decades. It seems that when snow covers the ground, armadilloes cannot find enough food. It takes them about three weeks to starve to death. The range is increasing because fewer and fewer areas have a three-week snow cover. The evidence of global warming is everywhere you look and only willful ignorance and industrial propaganda intended to fend off regulation can explain the public's confusion.

The McCurtain County Wilderness Chronology (Published: 1982, David W. Stahle) goes back a little over 300 years. It show an accelerating increase in temperature. A new, as yet unpublished, chronology is currently being produced for Hot Springs National Park. It also goes back a little over 300 years. The Missouri Ozark Ecosystem Chronology also goes back almost 300 years and shows increasing temperatures. Dorian Burnette (2009) Daily-Mean Temperature Reconstructed for Kansas from Early Instrumental Observations, Journal of Climate, October 2009, pp. 1308-1333) goes back to July 1, 1828. The finding was the same: temperatures rising.

Global warming is not a myth. You'll find few, if any, ecologists or climatologists who doubt it. It is an established scientific fact.

Doug

That would be awesome Doug, thanks. So just to make it a little clearer what is happening to the tree rings exactly? Growing slower or just damaged in a way?

[Doug1029]

That would be awesome Doug, thanks. So just to make it a little clearer what is happening to the tree rings exactly? Growing slower or just damaged in a way?

Actually, growing faster (wider rings). Tree growth seems to be an interaction between temperature and moisture. If either goes up, the rings get wider; if either goes down, the rings get narrower.

Doug

[Guest]

Actually, growing faster (wider rings). Tree growth seems to be an interaction between temperature and moisture. If either goes up, the rings get wider; if either goes down, the rings get narrower.

Doug

Thanks for your detailed observations from the coal face of science

Br Cornelius

[Von Bismarck]

Try looking in a mirror. You'll be surprised what you see.

I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!?

Niiice

[Flashbangwollap]

I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING!!?

Niiice

You and many others just like you, even me. Look at it like this... At present we are the most successful animal on Earth in terms of numbers. If we weren't here would there be a problem?

[Von Bismarck]

If we weren't here would there be a problem?

We have no idea and never will!!

But i know where you want to go with this. It's not just humans, that has the power to change Earth climate.

[War Eagle]

This topic's been thrashed out on here, but always good to review i guess.

Always thought it a Global profit n' revenue raising scam.

The likes of fat flatulent frauds such as Gore & Co convincing me beyond any doubt it was nothing more than a massive pile of ozone depleting BS.

Correct me if i'm wrong here; But wasn't Global Warming officially debunked and before the GW smog even had a chance to clear, enter The Climate Change Scam Debate(?)...Therefore we basically being taxed on the so called planet's natural cycle...?

[Flashbangwollap]

This topic's been thrashed out on here, but always good to review i guess.

Always thought it a Global profit n' revenue raising scam.

The likes of fat flatulent frauds such as Gore & Co convincing me beyond any doubt it was nothing more than a massive pile of ozone depleting BS.

Correct me if i'm wrong here; But wasn't Global Warming officially debunked and before the GW smog even had a chance to clear, enter The Climate Change Scam Debate(?)...Therefore we basically being taxed on the so called planet's natural cycle...?

To me it doesn't matter much either way.

That said you would think by now that people would wise up to all the hardship and unnecessary hunger that goes on in the world.

With modern birth control comes the ability to regulate the population of the world painlessly but due to vested interests of those making money and obtaining power sufferance stays right where it is.

It's the poor that pay the price which every way the wind blows.

[Flashbangwollap]

[We have no idea and never will!!

But i know where you want to go with this. It's not just humans, that has the power to change Earth climate./]

I was saying use your imagination. Picture the world without us. Nature would still be the ultimate judge and deliberator on what happens here on this planet.

[War Eagle]

[We have no idea and never will!!

But i know where you want to go with this. It's not just humans, that has the power to change Earth climate./]

I was saying use your imagination. Picture the world without us. Nature would still be the ultimate judge and deliberator on what happens here on this planet.

I hear ya flash...

Birth control has always been a good option. But i kinda believed it was the planet's major cities that were cram jammed & massively over populated, not the planet...

Good points anyway, on your earlier post also...

Later.

[sepulchrave]

Correct me if i'm wrong here; But wasn't Global Warming officially debunked and before the GW smog even had a chance to clear, enter The Climate Change Scam Debate(?)...Therefore we basically being taxed on the so called planet's natural cycle...?

No it wasn't.

Are politicians and industrialists attempting to misuse the science of anthropogenic climate change to their own profit? Of course. And naturally other politicians and industrialists are trying to portray anthropogenic climate change as a ``scam'', again to their own profit.

That doesn't mean there isn't good, solid evidence in favour of anthropogenic climate change (as Doug did an excellent job explaining).

The fact is, most scientists - climate scientists included - are people who only care about collecting data, making models, and trying to figure things out. The vast majority are not on the payroll of ``big green'' or ``big oil''. The vast majority is under no pressure at all to distort their findings to match the ``official'' story.

(In fact quite the contrary: I'm sure most people in the scientific community will agree with me that ``controversy sells'', at least in publishing papers - as long as that controversy is backed by some empirical evidence.)

The people trying to make a fast buck off of this issue (either for or against anthropogenic climate change) are banking on the very solid belief that most of the lay public will never even attempt to read a scientific report on the matter.

Lots and lots of people (again on either side of the issue) will make one claim or another about the UN IPCC's report without having ever bothered to read it.

[cerberusxp]

Read the real science and not the phony science and make up your own mind. IE. Scientists on the Government doll are pushing man made climate change you wont here it from independent scientists. Global warming due our activities is a superstitious religion. Go here: THE CLIMATE DEPOT

Maybe if we all dance around a fire dressed in feathers will help. OH better yet sacrifice a virgin to a volcano will quiet the gods of the volcano.

Empirical evidence is a hockey stick model that omits the Roman warm period? Omits contrary data? Omits all data that doesn't conform to the way they want it to?

Matt do you get your pay from a Government source? Do you have a grant proposal in the works?

here: FACT or HOAX?

Or are we going into denial that in the first five minutes of the Iceland volcano eruption that more C02 was released into the atmosphere than ALL the internal combustion engines EVER MADE?

Edited March 25, 2011 by cerberusxp

[Mattshark]

Read the real science and not the phony science and make up your own mind. IE. Scientists on the Government doll are pushing man made climate change you wont here it from independent scientists. Global warming due our activities is a superstitious religion. Go here: THE CLIMATE DEPOT

Maybe if we all dance around a fire dressed in feathers will help. OH better yet sacrifice a virgin to a volcano will quiet the gods of the volcano.

Empirical evidence is a hockey stick model that omits the Roman warm period? Omits contrary data? Omits all data that doesn't conform to the way they want it to?

Matt do you get your pay from a Government source?

Climate Depot isn't independent in the slightest, it was founded by the advisor to a man who lied in senate about NOAA climate data and it is sponsored by a political lobby group that wants to promote right wing and libertarian agenda and has received funding from both Chevron and Exxonmobile. Get you facts right, a don't go about independent studies when you put up a political website as that is hypocrisy.

Real science is in journals, not on websites. The real science, from independent studies across the whole world and in agreed upon by every major scientific institution in the world says we are likely to be, beyond reasonable doubt, the cause for current climate change.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Mattshark