Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming or Not?


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1    Pareto

Pareto

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:28 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latvia

  • Dance until your feet start to sing

Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:23 PM

So basically I got this crazy idea. We all know Global warming is a result of urbanization but what if it's not because of that? What if in our planets pol's is hidden something which is moving the ice? Not talking about some kinda device that does that intentionally but something which resolves in movement of the ice? Any thoughts?


#2    Mog

Mog

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Joined:17 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:35 PM

Who is "we all" because I don't know that global warming is caused by urbanization. I am still not completely convinced that we truly have long term warming trends. In addition, atmospheric science is too young to really know anything for sure. How do you know that any observed changes in global temperatures are not just part of a natural cycle? I don't think you could have an answer to that just based on the limited atmospheric data that we have.


#3    Pareto

Pareto

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:28 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latvia

  • Dance until your feet start to sing

Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

View PostMog, on 28 March 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

Who is "we all" because I don't know that global warming is caused by urbanization. I am still not completely convinced that we truly have long term warming trends. In addition, atmospheric science is too young to really know anything for sure. How do you know that any observed changes in global temperatures are not just part of a natural cycle? I don't think you could have an answer to that just based on the limited atmospheric data that we have.
Partly i agree with you but being as a natural cycle seems wrong. Just when our technology, knowledge, etc. starts to develop into something where many years ago was not even imaginable the one of the biggest threats to the humanity ( glob. warm.) kicks in and becomes a real threat. Maybe you are right that is just like prophecy where natural cycle is part of it, who knows.


#4    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,733 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:51 PM

View PostPareto, on 28 March 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

So basically I got this crazy idea. We all know Global warming is a result of urbanization but what if it's not because of that? What if in our planets pol's is hidden something which is moving the ice? Not talking about some kinda device that does that intentionally but something which resolves in movement of the ice? Any thoughts?

Moving any mass requires energy.
To move incalculable mass of ice and earth requires unimaginable amount of energy.
Such energy can only be produced on a gigantic scale  on level of nuclear power.
Any nuclear reaction produces a signature.
Such signatures can be detected by modern science.
So far nothing has been detected.
So, such a device that uses such a power does not exist.

Simple physics.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#5    DieChecker

DieChecker

    I'm a Rogue Scholar

  • Member
  • 18,334 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portland, Oregon, USA

  • Hey, I'm not wrong. I'm just not completely right.

Posted 28 March 2012 - 06:53 PM

A more correct term is Climate Change, as some areas of the world are actually cooling down, but the overall average is indeed warming up.

It is not a problem with the polar ice moving. It is that the polar temperatures are up, resulting in the ice melting a little bit earlier each year, and freezing a little later each year.

Also the oceans/seas are warming a couple degrees, which results in glaciers calving off quicker and glaciers moving quicker, which melts more ice also.

It is well known that the world was heading into a warming trend, but the results are just happening at a much greater rate (like a factor of 100) then should be occuring naturally.

Here at Intel we make processors on 12 inch wafers. And, the individual processors on the wafers are called die. And, I am employed to check these die. That is why I am the DieChecker.

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid. - Friedrich Nietzsche

Qualifications? This is cryptozoology, dammit! All that is required is the spirit of adventure. - Night Walker

#6    Pareto

Pareto

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 10 posts
  • Joined:28 Mar 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Latvia

  • Dance until your feet start to sing

Posted 28 March 2012 - 07:02 PM

I don't want to sound like a mad conspiracy theorist but lot's of things happen because someone out there is just playing with humanity ( i mean a real person in government or somewhere there) and letting people know that this is just nature where we made this process go faster while they use this as a advantage to their researches or some kinda planed action in the future.


#7    Sensible Logic

Sensible Logic

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 746 posts
  • Joined:22 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • If I alter the reality to fit the fantasy I can prove anything.

Posted 28 March 2012 - 08:18 PM

Locally we have had climate change.  It was the first winter in the history of this area (I live in NY state)that our rivers did not freeze over or even come close.

The sheer odds of a civilization advancing, developing space travel, deciding to search our little corner of the galaxy, arriving at just the right time and actually helping us is so huge, you would have a greater chance of winning several lotteries in a single year. - SensibleLogic

#8    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:00 PM

View PostPareto, on 28 March 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:

So basically I got this crazy idea. We all know Global warming is a result of urbanization but what if it's not because of that? What if in our planets pol's is hidden something which is moving the ice? Not talking about some kinda device that does that intentionally but something which resolves in movement of the ice? Any thoughts?
The concept of global warming involves urbanization, yes.

However, climatological information and models have suggested countless times that we are not the cause of the earth's warming - rather, it is merely a natural cycle that the earth has been going through since its creation.

:tu:


#9    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:09 PM

Global warming is a reality. Even if they didn't know why (which is completely false) the fact is that the global average T° is rising. It is simply a question of radiative balance. The two main factors determining it are: solar irradiance and radiative forcing.

Solar irradiance has an impact, of course, but nearly not as much as ours. I can breifly explain that in a simple paragraph with the actual numbers if anybody please.

Global warming dosen't necessarly mean T° rises everywhere. If you want to know why some places are "not affected" or why some places have suffered from unusually cold periods, I suggest you learn about air/water currents, which are majorly responsible of the heat distribution around the globe.  

They have well enough knowledge and data to confirm that indeed, the major cause of global warming is the result of anthopogenic greehouse gas emissions. I suggest you learn about radiative forcing which is the basis of the greenhouse effect. Also I suggest you learn about the natural GHG sources and sinks imbalance mainly due to human activity (majorly change in land use).

Everything you could ever need to know about the situation can be found in the 4th IPCC report which is available to everyone and contains a lot of simplified matter for everyday people. They also explain the diffrence between our situation and the other climate changes that occured in the past. You will then see how we know we are the main cause.

Last thing, man-induced global warming will inevitably result in a modification of natural phenomenons that will also provide to more warming such as the methane hydrates melting and warming/acidification of the oceans. It has already began.

Here is a link to the report section of the IPCC website. I suggest that anyone who doubt about global warming read through it with great attention. It also includes a new report about the melting of Himalayan glaciers (2010). Have fun!

IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4)

Edited by JayMark, 28 March 2012 - 09:12 PM.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#10    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,421 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:16 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 28 March 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

The concept of global warming involves urbanization, yes.

However, climatological information and models have suggested countless times that we are not the cause of the earth's warming - rather, it is merely a natural cycle that the earth has been going through since its creation.

:tu:

A "natural" cycle fueled by one evident variable, carbon. And now, somehow, without humans doing "anything" to help it, much of the carbon sequestered by nature during the carboniferous period is back in the atmosphere and temperatures are going back to the high levels of the carboniferous period. Naturally we did not so it...

BTW, is that :tu: a recognition sign of disinformation services paid by (****** censored)? Cause all who come with "we don't have anything to do with it" seem to use it...

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#11    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 28 March 2012 - 09:41 PM

View PostJayMark, on 28 March 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Global warming is a reality.
Can you prove that? If that were the case, then why would 400 highly reputable, international scientists challenged the theory of global warming? If it were so undeniable, and irrefutable, there would be for 400 scientists to gather around and argue that global warming is not man made.

Quote

Global warming dosen't necessarly mean T rises everywhere.
Pretty sure global warming suggests that temperatures are increasing in our atmosphere, hence the incorporation of the term "global", and simply not "localized based on urbanization".

Quote

They have well enough knowledge and data to confirm that indeed, the major cause of global warming is the result of anthopogenic greehouse gas emissions. I suggest you learn about radiative forcing which is the basis of the greenhouse effect. Also I suggest you learn about the natural GHG sources and sinks imbalance mainly due to human activity (majorly change in land use).
Again, if this were a globally accepted truth, then 400 reputable scientists would not have felt the need to argue the validity of such models/data.

Quote

Everything you could ever need to know about the situation can be found in the 4th IPCC report which is available to everyone and contains a lot of simplified matter for everyday people. They also explain the diffrence between our situation and the other climate changes that occured in the past. You will then see how we know we are the main cause.
Funnily enough, IPCC stated, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics are chaotic; its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the initial conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by our uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes." - Climate Change 2001

Quote

Last thing, man-induced global warming will inevitably result in a modification of natural phenomenons that will also provide to more warming such as the methane hydrates melting and warming/acidification of the oceans. It has already began.
AS will a natural change in the earth's climate.


#12    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 03:36 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 28 March 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Can you prove that?

I can't do all the experiments and studies myself alone, that is for sure. But no man alone on this planet can so that's why many people are working on it. The best proof is the 4th IPCC report. On the other side, I don't think you can prove it wrong yourself.

Quote

If that were the case, then why would 400 highly reputable, international scientists challenged the theory of global warming? If it were so undeniable, and irrefutable, there would be for 400 scientists to gather around and argue that global warming is not man made.

They do it because they are paid to do it by indistries that are concerned (mainly oil and gas industries). I've recently followed such a "debate" that happened between the IPCC Work Group and very reputable scientists in Europe. So far, all their attempts to prove the IPCC wrong have miserably failed.

Also, 400 scientists is nothing compared to how many people have been implicated in the IPCC report. 195 countries are members of the IPCC and and over 130 countries worked on the 4th report. That would represent thousands of scientists.

From the IPCC report:

"People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.
Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments."



Quote

Pretty sure global warming suggests that temperatures are increasing in our atmosphere, hence the incorporation of the term "global", and simply not "localized based on urbanization".

Global warming refers to the overall rising temperature of the atmosphere, oceans and land due to a change in radiative balance. It is the average of all three around the globe. The IPCC report also covers them in detail.  

Quote

Again, if this were a globally accepted truth, then 400 reputable scientists would not have felt the need to argue the validity of such models/data.

People will do anything for money. Also here is another quote from the IPCC.

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."


Quote

Funnily enough, IPCC stated, "The Earth's atmosphere-ocean dynamics are chaotic; its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the initial conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by our uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes." - Climate Change 2001

The uncertainty majorly concerns predictions. It does not take away the fact that there is a warming and that this warming is majorly caused by us. Also it dosen't take aways the fact that it will keep rising for a long time and inevitably lead to more problems. Many species will be eventually facing extinction is the T ever crosses a point of non-return which is a point at which it will become an irreversible process. It is estimated to be lying around 3.5C over pre-industrial T. Also, you should read the 4th report (2007) as it would prehaps be a better representation of newly acquired knowledge and understanding.

Quote

AS will a natural change in the earth's climate.

Global warming is a natural change to begin with. Only, we are the major cause. As simple as that.

A change in the earth's climate such as global temperature (main drive) is purely the result of a change in radiative balance. With all the knowledge, technology and experimentation, we can clearly state that our GHG emissions have affected the radiative balance beyond natural phenomenons over the same period of time. This anthropogenic cause will induce and/or accelerate other natural phenomenons, most of wich will lead to even more warming. The other natural phenomenons that would go the way around (GHG sinks for instance) will clearly not be able to compensate.

Finally, I understand your concern. I have been through it in the past. But facts are facts. I would also rather prefer that there was no global warming but there is.

So I might be repeating myself but I think you should go through the 4th report. It covers the physical science basis, the impacts/adaptation/vulnerability and finally the mitigation of climate change. All that with a nice synthesis on top of it. It could help you making your own conclusion.

Peace.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#13    JayMark

JayMark

    Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 941 posts
  • Joined:08 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Non-Local

  • Our universe was created out of a desire. A desire to experiment, interact and evolve within a multitude of planes of consciousness.

Posted 29 March 2012 - 05:08 PM

Here are some informations in regards to human vs natural causes in radiative balance.

Source: IPCC, WG1 Report, Chapter 2

"Radiative Forcing from Natural Changes

Natural forcings arise due to solar changes and explosive volcanic eruptions. Solar output has increased gradually in the industrial era, causing a small positive radiative forcing (see Figure 2). This is in addition to the cyclic changes in solar radiation that follow an 11-year cycle. Solar energy directly heats the climate system and can also affect the atmospheric abundance of some greenhouse gases, such as stratospheric ozone. Explosive volcanic eruptions can create a short-lived (2 to 3 years) negative forcing through the temporary increases that occur in sulphate aerosol in the stratosphere. The stratosphere is currently free of volcanic aerosol, since the last major eruption was in 1991 (Mt. Pinatubo).

The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes."


Here is the figure 2. As you can see, it includes the uncertainty. As stated in the report, the major uncertainty concerning the current situation comes from cloud formation. Either way, the net forcing due to human activity is positive and beyond natural causes.

Posted Image

Edited by JayMark, 29 March 2012 - 05:15 PM.

Bartender says: "Sorry, we don't serve faster-than-light neutrinos here."

So you have these two faster-than-light neutrinos walking into a bar...

#14    Alienated Being

Alienated Being

    Government Agent

  • Banned
  • 4,163 posts
  • Joined:03 Sep 2006

  • "The best way to predict the future is by inventing it."

    "Record

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:29 PM

View PostJayMark, on 29 March 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

I can't do all the experiments and studies myself alone, that is for sure. But no man alone on this planet can so that's why many people are working on it. The best proof is the 4th IPCC report. On the other side, I don't think you can prove it wrong yourself.
No, you're right - I can't prove it myself, however... there exists a lot of physical evidence to suggest the contrary of supporting postulation of man-made global warming.

Quote

They do it because they are paid to do it by indistries that are concerned (mainly oil and gas industries). I've recently followed such a "debate" that happened between the IPCC Work Group and very reputable scientists in Europe. So far, all their attempts to prove the IPCC wrong have miserably failed.
Okay, and the scientists involved with carrying out the research in support of man-made global warming are not? Do you know how much money is made in the man-made global warming campaign? $5 Billion in grants is being accumulated annually for global warming research. Al Gore alone is worth $100 million, resulting from his "Inconvenient Truth" campaign.

Also, IPCC's entire purpose is to support their purported theories, even if they are wrong...

Quote

Also, 400 scientists is nothing compared to how many people have been implicated in the IPCC report. 195 countries are members of the IPCC and and over 130 countries worked on the 4th report. That would represent thousands of scientists.

From the IPCC report:

"People from over 130 countries contributed to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report over the previous 6 years. These people included more than 2500 scientific expert reviewers, more than 800 contributing authors, and more than 450 lead authors.
Of these, the Working Group 1 report (including the summary for policy makers) included contributions by 600 authors from 40 countries, over 620 expert reviewers, a large number of government reviewers, and representatives from 113 governments."
The fact of the matter is that, if man-made global warming DID undeniably, irrefutably exist, then there would simply exist no room to challenge the claims - it would simply... be. Clearly there are holes in global warming, hence why those scientists had gotten together to go and argue the validity of such claims.


Quote

Global warming refers to the overall rising temperature of the atmosphere, oceans and land due to a change in radiative balance. It is the average of all three around the globe. The IPCC report also covers them in detail.
If global warming truly existed, then there simply would not be some areas of the earth that are not rising in temperature. Everywhere would be rising in temperature, regardless. The science behind man-made global warming states that CO2 traps heat energy as it is being reflected off of the earth. I

Quote

People will do anything for money. Also here is another quote from the IPCC.

"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes."
Yes, and Al Gore's campaign is evidence of that.


Quote

The uncertainty majorly concerns predictions. It does not take away the fact that there is a warming and that this warming is majorly caused by us. Also it dosen't take aways the fact that it will keep rising for a long time and inevitably lead to more problems. Many species will be eventually facing extinction is the T° ever crosses a point of non-return which is a point at which it will become an irreversible process. It is estimated to be lying around 3.5°C over pre-industrial T°. Also, you should read the 4th report (2007) as it would prehaps be a better representation of newly acquired knowledge and understanding.
I, again, disagree with this. The earth has been warming for a very, very long time. The natural cycles of earth have converted the Sahara desert from being a thriving, beautiful grassland to the largest desert in the world.

Quote

Global warming is a natural change to begin with. Only, we are the major cause. As simple as that.
If it's a natural change, then how can we be the cause? Like I said, the earth has been warming, and cooling, for a much longer time prior to our existence.

Quote

A change in the earth's climate such as global temperature (main drive) is purely the result of a change in radiative balance. With all the knowledge, technology and experimentation, we can clearly state that our GHG emissions have affected the radiative balance beyond natural phenomenons over the same period of time. This anthropogenic cause will induce and/or accelerate other natural phenomenons, most of wich will lead to even more warming. The other natural phenomenons that would go the way around (GHG sinks for instance) will clearly not be able to compensate.

Finally, I understand your concern. I have been through it in the past. But facts are facts. I would also rather prefer that there was no global warming but there is.

So I might be repeating myself but I think you should go through the 4th report. It covers the physical science basis, the impacts/adaptation/vulnerability and finally the mitigation of climate change. All that with a nice synthesis on top of it. It could help you making your own conclusion.

Peace.
I have gone through the fourth report, and I am still not convinced.

Edited by Alienated Being, 30 March 2012 - 04:31 PM.


#15    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,421 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 30 March 2012 - 04:36 PM

View PostAlienated Being, on 30 March 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

I have gone through the fourth report, and I am still not convinced.

Could that be because there is no worse blind than he who does not want to see?

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users