Global Warming

[SQLserver]

Hello-

I'm always been confused by Global Warming skeptics.

I know many of you think it is a huge Liberal Conspiracy to defy God or something, but you know, Scientists aren't just pulling this stuff out of their backends.

So, I'd like to clear up some Questions, but more importantly, ask some more.

Sources are at the bottom.

Here's a Proof of Global Warming.

1, It is getting hotter.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier.

The above is from:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...al_warming.html

The Below is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid...%27s_atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid....27s_atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

If you want the sources, goto wikipedia and to the bottom of the article.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Carbon Dioxide is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. It is a FACT that Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared, and transmits visible light.

3. As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 ppmv. This is 100 ppm (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppm.

4. present CO2 levels are 380 ppmv, approximately 100 ppmv higher than they were in pre-industrial times.

5.

So. In all, the FACTS are:

1. It is getting hotter

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

3. Greenhouse gases make it warmer.

4. Humans are spitting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

FACT:

Now, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it absorbs infrared, and greenhouse gases create a stronger Greenhouse effect, then, CO2 makes it hotter.

FACT:

Humans are putting a ton of CO2 in the atmosphere.(actually, in 1999 alone, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were put into the atmosphere by the US.

So therefore, it can be concluded that Humans are Causing Global Warming.

Humans are Causing Global Warming, QED.

Just some more facts(from national geographic):

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface.

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

Now, obviously, skeptics find something wrong with the above.

My Question is, what is it?

Now to answer some FAQ's:

Q: BUT NOT EVERYONE AGREESS~!!!!!

A:Worldwide, every major scientific agency or institution that studies climate, oceans or the atmosphere agrees that the global climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

It’s not only the majority of scientists and politicians who accept the reality of human-caused global warming. Leading businesses across all industries also acknowledge the problem of global warming.

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report on The Physical Basis of Climate Change in February 2007, 113 nations immediately endorsed its conclusion that human activity is responsible for the acceleration of global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Q: ISN'T IT NORMAL!!!

from:

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/ClimateFAQ.html

A: We are rapidly learning more about past changes from examination of geologic evidence, which is probably the most exciting field in climate science today. Some changes have been huge: 55 million years ago the north pole was as warm as Florida today, while 20 thousand years ago, much of North America was under miles of ice. The really warm climates all occurred long before the advent of upright primates, but prehistoric humans made it through some pretty cold times. Since the dawn of agriculture, climate has been relativey boring.

Science is a process of testing hypotheses against evidence. Many scientists, using different methods, have tested the hypothesis that the recent warming is also a natural shift. Every analysis has yielded the same answer— "no"—the warming since 1970 has been too widespread and too rapid. A few scientists still reserve judgment on this, but no model has been able to explain the warming naturally. Mountain ice and polar ice shelves that are thousands of years old are melting, which would be an amazing coincidence if humans weren't involved.

Q: ISN"T IT ALL A CONSPIRACY!@

from:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11653

A:

Conspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored – far from it.

Q: Didn't they used to BABLE about Global COOLING?

A: http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11643

Q: DON'T SOME SCIENTISTS DISAGREE@!!

A: http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11654

Q: All other FAQs:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

OK.

So, skeptics, tell me. What is so 'evil' and 'wrong' and 'immoral' about Global Warming?

[rant]

You don't want to believe, so you don't. You don't want to change, due something that takes effort, or feel scared. You'd rather live in your happy world.

That is probably one of the 2 reasons Fundamentalist Christians hate Global Warming. The 1st is, of course, a hate of science. The second is they are the weakest, the ones who scamper and hide their minds from fear.(which is why they are Fundies in the first place!)

[/rant]

Anyway,

Cheers,

SqlServer

[ships-cat]

Hello-

I'm always been confused by Global Warming skeptics.

I know many of you think it is a huge Liberal Conspiracy to defy God or something, but you know, Scientists aren't just pulling this stuff out of their backends.

.....<long post>

So, skeptics, tell me. What is so 'evil' and 'wrong' and 'immoral' about Global Warming?

[rant]

You don't want to believe, so you don't. You don't want to change, due something that takes effort, or feel scared. You'd rather live in your happy world.

That is probably one of the 2 reasons Fundamentalist Christians hate Global Warming. The 1st is, of course, a hate of science. The second is they are the weakest, the ones who scamper and hide their minds from fear.(which is why they are Fundies in the first place!)

[/rant]

Anyway,

Cheers,

SqlServer

Oh great. JUST what this forum needs. ANOTHER re-hash of the same old Global Warming threads that we already have in abundance. Well done SQL.

Actually.. YES... this issue is going to shape our lives for the next <insert figure here>. We should be discussing this every day. Well done SQL.

Sqlserver, you appear to have 'boxed in' AGW (anthromoporphic global warming) 'skeptics' and pre-defined what they are, and then proceed to shoot down that target group based on YOUR pre-conceptions of their beliefs.

I've been accused of being just such a 'skeptic' in this forum.. (unfairly, in my opinion)... I'm not a fundamentalist christian, I'm not in the pay of the oil lobby (I wish..), but I AM aware of the concept of the "scientific method", and I am disturbed by what I percieve as a politicaly-led stampede away from rationality.

You obviously took time and care constructing that post... I'm too tired to reciprocate with a "line-by-line" counterpoint. (and in some cases, agreement) But I look forwards to doing so over the next few days and weeks.

I'll leave you with one tantalising hook. You set great store in the works of the IPCC. Tell me, do you have any background in the "scientific method" ? Even if not, consider the following two statements....

"recant Gallileo; the planets and the sun revolve around the Earth - all authorities agree - to say otherwise is heresy" - the Catholic Inquisition

"it's completely immoral, even, to question now, on the basis of what we know, the reports that are out, to question the issue and to question whether we need to move forward at a much stronger pace as humankind to address the issues." - Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, UN Special Envoy on Climate Change.

See the similarity in language ? How can it be "immoral" to question something in science ? And that's just scratching the surface.

the "case was closed" with Gravity back in the 1600's with Isaac Newton.

Ooops - 1905... special theory of relativity.

Should we have burnt Einstein ? If not, WHY not ? Surely the case was closed.

Meow Purr.

[William B Stoecker]

1. Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and volcanoes emit vast quantities of CO2.

2. It is not clear that the Earth is getting warmer. Given the vast size of the Earth and its atmospheres and oceans, it is not a simple matter of sticking a thermometer up Bakersfield, CA. Many weather service temperature stations are located, contrary to established policies, in hot urban areas, over asphalt parking lots, etc. When the Soviet Union fell apart, hundreds of weather stations in cold Siberia were shut down, so we no longer get their inputs.

Satellite measurements seem to show a slight cooling in the last decade, following a warming trend.

3. Ice cores show natural fluctuations in the past much greater than the ones currently warned of by the Chicken Littles. Following the last full-fledged ice age, temperatures between 6,000 and 10,000 BP were warmer than anything in historical times.

4. These global temperatures did not result in measurable sea level rises, but in a longer growing season and overall heavier rainfall globally due to increased evaporation of sea water.

5. I could go on and raise even more points, but my time and patience are limited.

William B Stoecker

[SQLserver]

See the similarity in language ? How can it be "immoral" to question something in science ? And that's just scratching the surface.

Yes.

However, the guy misspoke. Shoot him. You know what he meant. He meant something like:

"Yeah, Global Warming is a fact. Guys, we must work together to meet a goal that will benefit us all, and quite frankly, we really don't have time to listen to religious 'scientist' nutjobs running around."

I can understand how it is 'immoral' in science to challenge fact for profit. AKA Oil.

the "case was closed" with Gravity back in the 1600's with Isaac Newton.

Gravity=Speculative Theory.

Global Warming=Fact.

Edited March 22, 2008 by sqlserver

[SQLserver]

1. Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and volcanoes emit vast quantities of CO2.

A. It is miniscule compared to the tons put out by humans every second.

B. They can be contributing, but it still doesn't take in the fact THAT WE ARE TOO.

C. You are wrong, anyways. see:

1. Mauna Loa is an active volcano, and volcanoes emit vast quantities of CO2.

2. It is not clear that the Earth is getting warmer. Given the vast size of the Earth and its atmospheres and oceans, it is not a simple matter of sticking a thermometer up Bakersfield, CA. Many weather service temperature stations are located, contrary to established policies, in hot urban areas, over asphalt parking lots, etc. When the Soviet Union fell apart, hundreds of weather stations in cold Siberia were shut down, so we no longer get their inputs.

We don't need to have a thermometer every mile to detect the fact that Earth is warming.

That's ridiculous.

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

nice chart:

3. Ice cores show natural fluctuations in the past much greater than the ones currently warned of by the Chicken Littles. Following the last full-fledged ice age, temperatures between 6,000 and 10,000 BP were warmer than anything in historical times.

Except the temperature has risen very quickly in a very short amount of time.

How does it just so happen that AS SOON AS we start widely using major fossil fuels in history, the climate change picks up exponentially?

A stroke of luck?

4. These global temperatures did not result in measurable sea level rises, but in a longer growing season and overall heavier rainfall globally due to increased evaporation of sea water.

We aren't arguing against about the outcomes. We are arguing about Global Warming, NOT its effects.

5. I could go on and raise even more points, but my time and patience are limited.

Please do so. I can guarantee they will be rubbish just like the last ones.

Oh great. JUST what this forum needs. ANOTHER re-hash of the same old Global Warming threads that we already have in abundance. Well done SQL.

Actually.. YES... this issue is going to shape our lives for the next <insert figure here>. We should be discussing this every day. Well done SQL.

You are welcome.

[Ignus Fatuus]

For real people. Antartic ice is above normal. Those things that orbit the earth and use thermo readouts report no change in earths temperature in the past few decades. There were 5000 polar bears in the late 1950's, there are over 25,000 now. I would also guess that if this was the 1970's that I would be a skeptic of global cooling because history seems to repeat itself, and people seem to fall for it over and over and over and ........

[dmurdock36]

CO2 levels are increasing and the climate is getting cooler. Link at bottom will take you to the full article.

Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.

Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"

Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."

The Australian

[ships-cat]

Gravity=Speculative Theory.

Global Warming=Fact.

I...... honestly don't think I need to add anything here...... your grasp of science and perspective is.... awesome...

<tiptoes away>

Meow Purr.

[questionmark]

I...... honestly don't think I need to add anything here...... your grasp of science and perspective is.... awesome...

<tiptoes away>

Meow Purr.

(You mean there are some who can't learn anything?)

[ships-cat]

(You mean there are some who can't learn anything?)

I don't think you understand the full Gravity of the situation QM

Meow Purr.

[Startraveler]

I would also guess that if this was the 1970's that I would be a skeptic of global cooling because history seems to repeat itself, and people seem to fall for it over and over and over and ........

The notion that some consensus existed in the 1970s that global cooling would occur is simply wrong. Far more papers predicted a coming warming than a cooling, even then.

[dmurdock36]

It has actually happened several times

here is a link to an article discussing this. BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

[SQLserver]

For real people. Antartic ice is above normal. Those things that orbit the earth and use thermo readouts report no change in earths temperature in the past few decades. There were 5000 polar bears in the late 1950's, there are over 25,000 now. I would also guess that if this was the 1970's that I would be a skeptic of global cooling because history seems to repeat itself, and people seem to fall for it over and over and over and ........

Sources? Don't just spit stuff out.

She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."

So? The temperature might be a little cooler then what, 9 years ago?

Over the past couple hundred years the temperature has gone up.

See

Notice how the one above completely takes off at the begginning of the industrial revolution. Of course, you must believe this is a complete coincidence.

Or of course, it is 1 huge conspiracy and we can't trust any data!

I...... honestly don't think I need to add anything here...... your grasp of science and perspective is.... awesome...

Well, Global Warming is a fact.

The Fact of Gravity= Matter attracts matter.

The Fact of Global Warming=In the last couple hundred or so years, the global temperature has gone up.

The Theory of Gravity= Einstein's Relativity stuff.

The Theory of Global Warming= There are several, but the FAR agreed upon one is that Human's releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is causing it.

It has actually happened several times

It is pretty obvious you global cooling people didn't read my post.

From the link posted under the Cooling Question:

Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future, leading to some pretty sensational media coverage (see Histories: The ice age that never was).

One of the sources of this idea may have been a 1971 paper by Stephen Schneider, then a climate researcher at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, US. Schneider's paper suggested that the cooling effect of dirty air could outweigh the warming effect of carbon dioxide, potentially leading to an ice age if aerosol pollution quadrupled.

This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists, as at the time the planet had been cooling (see Global temperatures fell between 1940 and 1980). Furthermore, it had also become clear that the interglacial period we are in was lasting an unusually long time (see Record ice core gives fair forecast).

However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book called The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age, Schneider stated: "We just don't know...at this stage whether we are in for warming or cooling – or when." A 1975 report (pdf format) by the US National Academy of Sciences merely called for more research.

The calls for action to prevent further human-induced global warming, by contrast, are based on an enormous body of research by thousands of scientists over more than a century that has been subjected to intense – and sometimes ferocious – scrutiny. According to the latest IPCC report, it is more than 90% certain that the world is already warming as a result of human activity (see Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind).

Well, looks like we've de-bunked the following myths:

A. A small 'plateau' or 'decrease' in Global temperature does not end the overall trend of upward since the industrial revolution.

B. Global Cooling wasn't well accepted, especially by millions of scientists as Global Warming is today.

Well, so far, doesn't look like much skeptic 'evidence' has been given.

Cheers,

SQLserver

[dmurdock36]

Sources? Don't just spit stuff out.

So? The temperature might be a little cooler then what, 9 years ago?

Over the past couple hundred years the temperature has gone up.

See

Notice how the one above completely takes off at the begginning of the industrial revolution. Of course, you must believe this is a complete coincidence.

Or of course, it is 1 huge conspiracy and we can't trust any data!

Well, Global Warming is a fact.

The Fact of Gravity= Matter attracts matter.

The Fact of Global Warming=In the last couple hundred or so years, the global temperature has gone up.

The Theory of Gravity= Einstein's Relativity stuff.

The Theory of Global Warming= There are several, but the FAR agreed upon one is that Human's releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is causing it.

It is pretty obvious you global cooling people didn't read my post.

From the link posted under the Cooling Question:

Well, looks like we've de-bunked the following myths:

A. A small 'plateau' or 'decrease' in Global temperature does not end the overall trend of upward since the industrial revolution.

B. Global Cooling wasn't well accepted, especially by millions of scientists as Global Warming is today.

Well, so far, doesn't look like much skeptic 'evidence' has been given.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Funny how it coincides almost exactly with sun spot activity but not the increasing of CO2 curious huh. If I didnt know any better I would think the increase in CO2 has little if anything to do with global warming. I mean if it was CO2 it wouldnt dip since the CO2 level has actually increased it hasnt gone down, so why this sudden decline in temperature, hmm could it be that we are at the end of another solar cycle, hmm that would mean that the sun is what controls the temperature on earth and not us evil humans poluting the atmospher with such a awful compound, wait isnt that what we exhale isnt that what plants give off, that cant be right it is polution and destroying the environment. Since you can practically trace the increase and decrease in temperature with sunspot activity I think we should disregard that explanation, and not really do anything to help what we claim is causing global warming lets use it to tax people and make them feel better about having a huge carbon footprint dont actualy do anything just tax people to make them feel better about destroying the environment, sounds like a good idea to me.

[SQLserver]

Funny how it coincides almost exactly with sun spot activity but not the increasing of CO2 curious huh.

Ever think that it may have a little to do with both?

If I didnt know any better I would think the increase in CO2 has little if anything to do with global warming.

Good thing you know better then.

You have yet to show something called a source about any of your claims.

I mean if it was CO2 it wouldnt dip since the CO2 level has actually increased it hasnt gone down

Hmmm... Overall the temperature has gone up like mad since the industrial revolution. This is called a freakin outlyer. Global Warming doesn't mean that it is suddently going to stop snowing. It means that the Global Temp. is gradually going up. Have you ever studied statistics? Heard of a line called the line of best fit? Not all points will go on this line(some will go below), but as we can see, the trend is UP.

wait isnt that what we exhale isnt that what plants give off, that cant be right it is polution and destroying the environment.

You've shown yourself to fail at following links. I checked this out in the FAQ's. We are cutting down most of the rainforests, and forests. The plants are dimishing. They aren't meant to suck in billions of extra TONS of CO2 Per year.

Since you can practically trace the increase and decrease in temperature with sunspot activity I think we should disregard that explanation, and not really do anything to help what we claim is causing global warming lets use it to tax people

Again, Warming at a smaller time frame is probably controlled by sun spots. However, CO2 and the greenhouse effect ALSO contribute to the bloody greenhouse effect. They are the important factor here. Since we started spitting CO2 out in the Industrial Revolution, the Temp. has gone up like mad.

lets use it to tax people

Of course not! Instead, we should Tax AND still go trillions of dollars into debt for a bloody Holy War in Iraq that has killed 4,000 Americans, and made Iraq a perfect chaotic environment for terrorists. Plus Osama Bin Laden, the whole point of the war, is still out there.

make them feel better about having a huge carbon footprint dont actualy do anything just tax people to make them feel better about destroying the environment, sounds like a good idea to me.

Global Warming, regardless of whether you 'believe' in it or not, at least motivates the public to change. Without Global Warming, it would probably take 3-4 times as long to finally get off of Fossil Fuels.

[Wickian]

Hello-

I'm always been confused by Global Warming skeptics.

I know many of you think it is a huge Liberal Conspiracy to defy God or something, but you know, Scientists aren't just pulling this stuff out of their backends.

So, I'd like to clear up some Questions, but more importantly, ask some more.

Sources are at the bottom.

Here's a Proof of Global Warming.

1, It is getting hotter.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier.

The above is from:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...al_warming.html

The Below is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid...%27s_atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxid....27s_atmosphere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas

If you want the sources, goto wikipedia and to the bottom of the article.

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Carbon Dioxide is a KNOWN greenhouse gas. It is a FACT that Carbon Dioxide absorbs infrared, and transmits visible light.

3. As of November 2007, the CO2 concentration in Earth's atmosphere was about 0.0384% by volume, or 384 ppmv. This is 100 ppm (35%) above the 1832 ice core levels of 284 ppm.

4. present CO2 levels are 380 ppmv, approximately 100 ppmv higher than they were in pre-industrial times.

5.

So. In all, the FACTS are:

1. It is getting hotter

2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

3. Greenhouse gases make it warmer.

4. Humans are spitting huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

FACT:

Now, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it absorbs infrared, and greenhouse gases create a stronger Greenhouse effect, then, CO2 makes it hotter.

FACT:

Humans are putting a ton of CO2 in the atmosphere.(actually, in 1999 alone, 2,244,804,000 metric tons of CO2 were put into the atmosphere by the US.

So therefore, it can be concluded that Humans are Causing Global Warming.

Humans are Causing Global Warming, QED.

Just some more facts(from national geographic):

The report, based on the work of some 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries, concluded that humans have caused all or most of the current planetary warming. Human-caused global warming is often called anthropogenic climate change.

• Industrialization, deforestation, and pollution have greatly increased atmospheric concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, all greenhouse gases that help trap heat near Earth's surface.

• Humans are pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere much faster than plants and oceans can absorb it.

Now, obviously, skeptics find something wrong with the above.

My Question is, what is it?

Now to answer some FAQ's:

Q: BUT NOT EVERYONE AGREESS~!!!!!

A:Worldwide, every major scientific agency or institution that studies climate, oceans or the atmosphere agrees that the global climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is greenhouse gas emissions related to human activity.

It’s not only the majority of scientists and politicians who accept the reality of human-caused global warming. Leading businesses across all industries also acknowledge the problem of global warming.

When the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its report on The Physical Basis of Climate Change in February 2007, 113 nations immediately endorsed its conclusion that human activity is responsible for the acceleration of global warming since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

Q: ISN'T IT NORMAL!!!

from:

http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~sherwood/ClimateFAQ.html

A: We are rapidly learning more about past changes from examination of geologic evidence, which is probably the most exciting field in climate science today. Some changes have been huge: 55 million years ago the north pole was as warm as Florida today, while 20 thousand years ago, much of North America was under miles of ice. The really warm climates all occurred long before the advent of upright primates, but prehistoric humans made it through some pretty cold times. Since the dawn of agriculture, climate has been relativey boring.

Science is a process of testing hypotheses against evidence. Many scientists, using different methods, have tested the hypothesis that the recent warming is also a natural shift. Every analysis has yielded the same answer— "no"—the warming since 1970 has been too widespread and too rapid. A few scientists still reserve judgment on this, but no model has been able to explain the warming naturally. Mountain ice and polar ice shelves that are thousands of years old are melting, which would be an amazing coincidence if humans weren't involved.

Q: ISN"T IT ALL A CONSPIRACY!@

from:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11653

A:

Conspiracy (noun): a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

If you believe that tens of thousands of scientists are colluding in a massive conspiracy, nothing anyone can say is likely to dissuade you. But there are less extreme versions of this argument.

One is that climate scientists foster alarmism about global warming to boost their funding. Another is that climate scientists' dependence on government funding ensures they toe the official line (pdf).

It has taken more than a century to reach the current scientific consensus on climate change (see Many leading scientists question the idea of human-induced climate change). It has come about through a steadily growing body of evidence from many different sources, and the process has hardly been secret.

Now that there is a consensus, those whose findings challenge the orthodoxy are always going have a tougher time convincing their peers, as in any field of science. For this reason, there will inevitably be pressure on scientists who challenge the consensus. But findings or ideas that clash with the idea of human-induced global warming have not been suppressed or ignored – far from it.

Q: Didn't they used to BABLE about Global COOLING?

A: http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11643

Q: DON'T SOME SCIENTISTS DISAGREE@!!

A: http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...-change/dn11654

Q: All other FAQs:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

OK.

So, skeptics, tell me. What is so 'evil' and 'wrong' and 'immoral' about Global Warming?

[rant]

You don't want to believe, so you don't. You don't want to change, due something that takes effort, or feel scared. You'd rather live in your happy world.

That is probably one of the 2 reasons Fundamentalist Christians hate Global Warming. The 1st is, of course, a hate of science. The second is they are the weakest, the ones who scamper and hide their minds from fear.(which is why they are Fundies in the first place!)

[/rant]

Anyway,

Cheers,

SqlServer

I've done some research into the whole AWG thing, and have decided that Man-Made Global Warming is the biggest hoax of our generation. In the '20's they were worried about global warming, then a few decades later they were worried about global cooling, and now they're worried about global warming again. If carbon dioxide really was to blame, then that proves that humans aren't at fault. Volcanoes and other natural things spew out WAY more carbon dioxide than what we do. That and the fact that the world should never have had any cooling trends since the 1900's(well after the industrial revolution).

Here's a link to measured temperatures (as well as the measurements of other things like carbon dioxide, sun spots, water vapor, etc.) over recent and distant years.

LINK

[dmurdock36]

quote name='sqlserver' date='Mar 24 2008, 07:34 PM' post='2212141']

Ever think that it may have a little to do with both?

Good thing you know better then.

You have yet to show something called a source about any of your claims.

Hmmm... Overall the temperature has gone up like mad since the industrial revolution. This is called a freakin outlyer. Global Warming doesn't mean that it is suddently going to stop snowing. It means that the Global Temp. is gradually going up. Have you ever studied statistics? Heard of a line called the line of best fit? Not all points will go on this line(some will go below), but as we can see, the trend is UP.

You've shown yourself to fail at following links. I checked this out in the FAQ's. We are cutting down most of the rainforests, and forests. The plants are dimishing. They aren't meant to suck in billions of extra TONS of CO2 Per year.

Again, Warming at a smaller time frame is probably controlled by sun spots. However, CO2 and the greenhouse effect ALSO contribute to the bloody greenhouse effect. They are the important factor here. Since we started spitting CO2 out in the Industrial Revolution, the Temp. has gone up like mad.

Of course not! Instead, we should Tax AND still go trillions of dollars into debt for a bloody Holy War in Iraq that has killed 4,000 Americans, and made Iraq a perfect chaotic environment for terrorists. Plus Osama Bin Laden, the whole point of the war, is still out there.

Global Warming, regardless of whether you 'believe' in it or not, at least motivates the public to change. Without Global Warming, it would probably take 3-4 times as long to finally get off of Fossil Fuels.

I think you will notice sun spot activity during the warming was spiking pretty high as it has in history but it pretty much correlates with the increase in temperature we are seeing now.

As far as the war thing, I dont like that idea either but has nothing to do with global warming.

It motivates them to change what? I havent seen them change a thing all I have heard is this carbon credits garbage which will do no good. Ethanol is a bust Hydrogen is to volatile show me one thing good that has come from this histeria.

Dont get me wrong I think we need to get of fossil fuels too, but for reasons that are true not because of a bunch of lies, I would love to see them put money into R & D on alternative fuels I just dont see it happening I seem throwing good money after bad into programs we already know wont work.

Here is a link with a decent graph showing the correlation between sunspot activity and global temperature Science Magazine

[Roj47]

Hello-

I'm always been confused by Global Warming skeptics.

I thought the general consensus on here was not that global warming is happening, but if it is purely man made?

1, It is getting hotter.

• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies.

• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most.

• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier.

Arctic Ice Returns, Thin and Tentative

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080...ar-sea-ice.html

China's already struggling to cope with the worst snow storms its seen in 50 years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7...900/7224927.stm

Snow has fallen in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, for the first time in living memory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7183881.stm

Record snow storms in America

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7...200/7286251.stm

Earlier in the week, the Indian capital of Delhi recorded a midday low of 2.3C (36F), making it the coldest January 28th in five years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/01022008news.shtml

After suffering its worst winter in 50 years, Tajikistan has finally appealed to the United Nations for aid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/7243704.stm

There have been a number of deaths and considerable damage to crops in the Middle East as temperatures in the region have fallen to exceptional lows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7193784.stm

[Mattshark]

I thought the general consensus on here was not that global warming is happening, but if it is purely man made?

Arctic Ice Returns, Thin and Tentative

http://www.livescience.com/environment/080...ar-sea-ice.html

China's already struggling to cope with the worst snow storms its seen in 50 years

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7...900/7224927.stm

Snow has fallen in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, for the first time in living memory

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7183881.stm

Record snow storms in America

http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/newsid_7...200/7286251.stm

Earlier in the week, the Indian capital of Delhi recorded a midday low of 2.3C (36F), making it the coldest January 28th in five years

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/01022008news.shtml

After suffering its worst winter in 50 years, Tajikistan has finally appealed to the United Nations for aid

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/from...ent/7243704.stm

There have been a number of deaths and considerable damage to crops in the Middle East as temperatures in the region have fallen to exceptional lows.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7193784.stm

Such things are part of global warming theory you know.

Here in FL we have been far, far hotter than normal.

[aureola]

Global Warming, regardless of whether you 'believe' in it or not, at least motivates the public to change. Without Global Warming, it would probably take 3-4 times as long to finally get off of Fossil Fuels.

you ve got a point there, without problems there wont be any solutions, but motivation like global warming is a little too much of a motivation.

what we forget is without problems there is no need of solutions.

[ships-cat]

It occurs to me that part of SQLServers OP was asking “why are some people sceptical” ? I wonder wether it would be useful for us to say WHY we became ‘skeptical’ (for those that are), as opposed to us all just flinging graphs around. Did you have any particular ‘tipping point’ ? Perhaps this would help address SQL’s OP question ?

For what it’s worth, here is the Cats Tail … sorry that it’s so long.

It all centred for me around the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was set up in the 1990’s to try and get some sort of coherent picture of what was/is happening with our Biosphere, with a particular emphasis on the belief that we where/are heating up.

If CO2 is the driving engine to Global Warming, then the UN IPCC is the driving engine of debate in the media about GW/CC. When you hear/read “climate scientists say that… “, it usually means that “The IPCC say that… “. Not exclusively, but mostly.

The IPCC publish two documents every four years, with odds and ends in-between. The two documents are the “WG-1” (working group one) report, and the “Summary for Policymakers” report. The media only ever report on the latter; you will NEVER hear a TV, Radio or Newspaper report quoting the WG-1 report, for reasons that will become clear.

The WG-1 report is a gargantuan effort by hundreds of accredited ‘expert’ scientists (confusingly called “authors” by the IPCC) . They have the laughably simple job of trying to synthesise THOUSANDS of scientific research reports from the last four years into some sort of coherent jigsaw puzzle that tells us about the state of our planet.

This is an epic report, and also somewhat impenetrable to the average Joe. So the IPCC also publishes the “Summary for Policymakers” document. This is produced by a MUCH smaller group of people, and is.. well… a summary of the WG-1 report in non-jargon terms, designed to be read by non-scientists (politicians, the media etc).

Seems a sensible arrangement no ? Whats the problem ?

Well.. first… the group producing the “Summary” document (called “lead authors) are very small, and certainly don’t form a “concensus”. The are also – in essence – government appointed beurocrats. Obviously, they have scientists amongst them, but those scientists are NOT independent; they are either paid – or sponsored by – national governments. As a consequence, many have criticised this report for being TOO conservative, and pandering to Big Oil etc. (for example, the Saudi’s have representatives on this authoring panel, as do all of the OPEC nations).

Sooo… the “Summary” document is potentially politically baised. But hey… no problem.. even a pro-Oil anti-environment “lead author” panel couldn’t bias the document TOO badly, because journalists (and scientists) would howl with outrage if the “Summary” clashed with the actual SCIENCE document (the WG-1 document”). The same is true of any attempt to subvert the document by national governments who WANT an environmental scare in order to .. well.. whatever.

So no problem ?

In 2001 I was made aware of something that made me look at things again, and started my scepticism.

The WG-1 “science” report is written first, the “summary” (political) document afterwards. Obviously… how else could it be done ?

However, the “WG-1” (science) report is held back, and only published several months AFTER the “summary” (political) document, even though it was written first.

Why ?

Because the Code of Practice of the IPCC states that the WG-1 (science) report can NOT be changed, once the scientists have ‘signed it off’… UNLESS it needs to be changed in order to “conform” with the “summary” (political) document.

Yup… the founding code of the IPCC.. FROM DAY ONE.. states that the document written by scientists can be retrospectively modified in order to conform with the document written by politicians.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Why would the IPCC write this condition into its founding principles ? What POSSIBLE scientific purpose could be served by this ? NONE. Therefore… it’s not there for a scientific purpose.

And thus my disquiet started. And the more I heard, the more suspicious I got.

I was going to write more, but this post is already too long.

So what started it for you ?

Meow Purr.

[Mattshark]

It occurs to me that part of SQLServers OP was asking “why are some people sceptical” ? I wonder wether it would be useful for us to say WHY we became ‘skeptical’ (for those that are), as opposed to us all just flinging graphs around. Did you have any particular ‘tipping point’ ? Perhaps this would help address SQL’s OP question ?

For what it’s worth, here is the Cats Tail … sorry that it’s so long.

It all centred for me around the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This was set up in the 1990’s to try and get some sort of coherent picture of what was/is happening with our Biosphere, with a particular emphasis on the belief that we where/are heating up.

If CO2 is the driving engine to Global Warming, then the UN IPCC is the driving engine of debate in the media about GW/CC. When you hear/read “climate scientists say that… “, it usually means that “The IPCC say that… “. Not exclusively, but mostly.

The IPCC publish two documents every four years, with odds and ends in-between. The two documents are the “WG-1” (working group one) report, and the “Summary for Policymakers” report. The media only ever report on the latter; you will NEVER hear a TV, Radio or Newspaper report quoting the WG-1 report, for reasons that will become clear.

The WG-1 report is a gargantuan effort by hundreds of accredited ‘expert’ scientists (confusingly called “authors” by the IPCC) . They have the laughably simple job of trying to synthesise THOUSANDS of scientific research reports from the last four years into some sort of coherent jigsaw puzzle that tells us about the state of our planet.

This is an epic report, and also somewhat impenetrable to the average Joe. So the IPCC also publishes the “Summary for Policymakers” document. This is produced by a MUCH smaller group of people, and is.. well… a summary of the WG-1 report in non-jargon terms, designed to be read by non-scientists (politicians, the media etc).

Seems a sensible arrangement no ? Whats the problem ?

Well.. first… the group producing the “Summary” document (called “lead authors) are very small, and certainly don’t form a “concensus”. The are also – in essence – government appointed beurocrats. Obviously, they have scientists amongst them, but those scientists are NOT independent; they are either paid – or sponsored by – national governments. As a consequence, many have criticised this report for being TOO conservative, and pandering to Big Oil etc. (for example, the Saudi’s have representatives on this authoring panel, as do all of the OPEC nations).

Sooo… the “Summary” document is potentially politically baised. But hey… no problem.. even a pro-Oil anti-environment “lead author” panel couldn’t bias the document TOO badly, because journalists (and scientists) would howl with outrage if the “Summary” clashed with the actual SCIENCE document (the WG-1 document”). The same is true of any attempt to subvert the document by national governments who WANT an environmental scare in order to .. well.. whatever.

So no problem ?

In 2001 I was made aware of something that made me look at things again, and started my scepticism.

The WG-1 “science” report is written first, the “summary” (political) document afterwards. Obviously… how else could it be done ?

However, the “WG-1” (science) report is held back, and only published several months AFTER the “summary” (political) document, even though it was written first.

Why ?

Because the Code of Practice of the IPCC states that the WG-1 (science) report can NOT be changed, once the scientists have ‘signed it off’… UNLESS it needs to be changed in order to “conform” with the “summary” (political) document.

Yup… the founding code of the IPCC.. FROM DAY ONE.. states that the document written by scientists can be retrospectively modified in order to conform with the document written by politicians.

THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.

Why would the IPCC write this condition into its founding principles ? What POSSIBLE scientific purpose could be served by this ? NONE. Therefore… it’s not there for a scientific purpose.

And thus my disquiet started. And the more I heard, the more suspicious I got.

I was going to write more, but this post is already too long.

So what started it for you ?

Meow Purr.

There is plenty of independent scientific work that backs up man made global warming however and in wildlife biology the effects are being seen.

[ships-cat]

Very true MattShark.. however my point was to illustrate what first made me "look again". I'm not citing the above as any sort of evidence of anything, just a personal reaction.

Before I dive further in, I wonder if other members had 'tipping points' that made them question the Thundering Herd ?

Meow Purr

[Startraveler]

Yup… the founding code of the IPCC.. FROM DAY ONE.. states that the document written by scientists can be retrospectively modified in order to conform with the document written by politicians.

Sort of, though I think you're misreading why this happens. Here's a group of climatologists on that very question:

The process of finalising the SPM (which is well described here and here) is something that can seem a little odd. Government representatives from all participating nations take the draft summary (as written by the lead authors of the individual chapters) and discuss whether the text truly reflects the underlying science in the main report. The key here is to note that what the lead authors originally came up with is not necessarily the clearest or least ambiguous language, and so the governments (for whom the report is being written) are perfectly entitled to insist that the language be modified so that the conclusions are correctly understood by them and the scientists. It is also key to note that the scientists have to be happy that the final language that is agreed conforms with the underlying science in the technical chapters. The advantage of this process is that everyone involved is absolutely clear what is meant by each sentence. Recall after the National Academies report on surface temperature reconstructions there was much discussion about the definition of 'plausible'. That kind of thing shouldn't happen with AR4.

The SPM process also serves a very useful political purpose. Specifically, it allows the governments involved to feel as though they 'own' part of the report. This makes it very difficult to later turn around and dismiss it on the basis that it was all written by someone else. This gives the governments a vested interest in making this report as good as it can be (given the uncertainties). There are in fact plenty of safeguards (not least the scientists present) to ensure that the report is not slanted in any one preferred direction. However, the downside is that it can mistakenly appear as if the whole summary is simply up for negotiation. That would be a false conclusion - the negotiations, such as they are, are in fact heavily constrained by the underlying science.

Finally, a few people have asked why the SPM is being released now while the main report is not due to be published for a couple of months. There are a number of reasons - firstly, the Paris meeting has been such a public affair that holding back the SPM until the main report is ready is probably pointless. For the main report itself, it had not yet been proof-read, and there has not yet been enough time to include observational data up until the end of 2006. One final point is that improvements in the clarity of the language from the SPM should be propagated back to the individual chapters in order to remove any superficial ambiguity. The science content will not change.

Had it been up to us, we'd have tried to get everything together so that they could be released at the same time, but maybe that would have been impossible. We note that Arctic Climate Impact Assessment in 2004 also had a similar procedure - which lead to some confusion initially since statements in the summary were not referenced.

Edited March 25, 2008 by Startraveler

[questionmark]

Before I dive further in, I wonder if other members had 'tipping points' that made them question the Thundering Herd ?

Meow Purr

As you know, I don't believe anything "a priori", what made me start wondering was the Vostok Ice analysis and the calculations of the German Meteorologic Institute. After studying them it made sense.....