Global Warming is not only NOT a hoax, but it is about 10,000 times worst than your worst nightmare.

reply to post by C0bzz
The answer to your question is apparently contained in your signature.

reply to post by greenfruit

Simple question to be answered if CO2 goes up before temp rises.

1: During the Ordovician Period average temps were 12 degrees Celsius or less (today's avg is about 12C) but CO2 levels were about 4000 ppm but yet today we are about 380 ppm and avg temp of 12 degrees Celsius?

Hold on WTF how can an Ice Age have cooling temps but rising CO2....
According to basic 101 greenhouse theory the earth should have been hot as hell not a freezing cold ice age.

When you and your pro Global Warming mates can answer this one tiny little fly in the ointment. Then yes I will believe that we as human have absolute control over this planet.

You promise?

The answer is quite simple: The Ordovician Period happened 500 million years ago, when solar output was 4.5% lower than it is today. Furthermore CO2 levels were actually even higher than 4000ppm, more like 5600ppm.

The difference in solar radiation for this can be calculated as such: 4.5% of the current value is 0.045 x 342 W/m^2 = 15.4 W/m^2

The radiative forcing difference for CO2 at 5600ppm compared to today would have been roughly as follows: 5.35 x ln(5600/380) = 14.4 W/m^2

As you can see very much in the same ball park.

Now, what recent studies have found is that during the late Ordovician period, CO2 concentrations dropped to around 3000pm. That's still very high compared to today - but considering how much lower solar output was back then, this was a huge deal, and enough to apparently cause a massive ice age.

Now also consider this - a lot of the more mathematically challenged skeptical pundits will try to tell you that because CO2's effect is based on a logarithmic scale, increasing it's concentration will have little effect.

But what this actually means is that CO2's contribution to climate change is much more relevant in terms of it's relative concentration rather than it's absolute. So this is why you hear so much scientific talk centered around a "CO2 doubling" (which our current emissions paths are well on their way to surpassing, let alone achieving).

So look at the numbers again: during the late Ordovician less than a CO2 "halving" (5600 to 3000) was enough to drop the planet into a full blown ice age - complete with one of the largest mass extinctions of all time. We are now headed in the opposite direction to a CO2 doubling. This might be good news if we were currently in an ice age, but we're not.

So do you see why virtually all the world's climate scientists who aren't funded by Exxon are grossly concerned about this? Furthermore, do you see why all the people going around claiming it's not a big deal because "climate's changed before" have no clue what they're mindlessly rambling on about?

Anyway - I'm holding you to what you said above

Yeah your preaching we are all going to die from some carbon dioxide and IM CRAZY.

You my friend need to check yourself... Come up with some real proof.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Talk about lemmings.

I too have researched global warming much much further than most people, and I've given EVERY SINGLE AGW DENIAL ARGUMENT A CHANCE. I really did... and ya know what? Essentially ALL of them proved to be wrong and/or plain ignorant. After going deeper down the rabbit hole than probably most of you... the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming has only been strengthened in my mind.

Exactly.

This is what I keep pointing out to everyone of these uber-denier monkeys that tell us how unquestioning and blindly faithful we are to the AGW "religion". Every single day we are here talking to them and debating them we are in fact questioning our faith.

And we don't respond like they do every time their faith is challenged by changing the subject or repeating the same debunked mantras over and over again hoping that will make them suddenly true. We answer and address everyone of these challenges resoundingly with facts and real science and the whole story that they constantly cherry pick and conveniently leave out.

The evidence absolutely speaks for itself on this - and getting truly skeptical about climate science leads to only stronger convictions on it, something the fake "skeptics" can't see because they are so blinded by their egos and their ignorance.

Originally posted by Nathan-D
reply to post by C0bzz

 

The answer to your question is apparently contained in your signature.

That might be the first correct thing you've ever said on this topic - congrats!

I’ve read through the whole post on here and I can summarise it easily by saying that many of the responses to the original poster’s statement are from people like me who believe that climate change is an ongoing process. We are not AGW we are in acknowledgement of climate change but not having lived for eternity and the fact that there are very few records to go and look at we can only surmise that the climate is changing like it always has. BTW, humans would be extinct if it wasn’t for a miraculous abrupt change of climate that turned the dustbowl of Eastern / central Africa in to savannah. Historians and anthropologists theorise that this change happened in only a decade, how’s that for ‘just in the nick of time’. I’ve said this in other topics, TPTB can TAX us on the basis of something they can measure, namely carbon dioxide so that’s why they are doing it. Next it will be methane. Politicians and policy makers need only to bend the science to inform us of the ‘theory’ and make us pay. It’s that simple. So, you wanna pay taxes based on pseudo science then go ahead I’m not gonna stop you, I just think that you’re wrong and until swayed I’ll stick with that opinion. Of course, I am able to see both sides of the argument, I just think these so called facts come from organisations that I don’t trust as they’re either dictated to or heavily funded by people with an agenda or both.

The funny thing is, all the anti-gw lobbyists will have a real hard time spending all the wealth they accumulated when there's no one left around. People's egos always get in the way. We have full "dominion" over this planet, and it's inhabitants! We're in full control! We're the best thing to happen to this ball of dirt and rock! I think people have a huge surprise coming in the future, when they finally realize, we're not as "godly" as we like to tell ourselves, and just how insignificant we actually are. Chances are, this planet will be around long after we die out (or kill ourselves off), and life will go on, with or without the human race. Life does not depend on US, but rather, we are dependant upon life.

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Methane is 20-70 percent more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, depending on the time frame (because it degrades to become CO2 after a few years, depending on its concentration). According to the researchers, so much methane is stored in the East Siberian Arctic shelf, that if only 1% were to be released, it would cause CATASTROPHIC climate change practically overnight….ONE PERCENT PEOPLE….and it is melting NOW.

Still think global warming is a hoax?

In short, yes I still think catastrophic man made climate disruption is a hoax. It is true that if you get a sudden release of 1% of the methane in the arctic region is it would give a short term problem until the methane breaks down to CO2 and H2O. However, how is that going to occur? You have to provide a mechanism that allow for a rapid change in temperature over a vast region that is many times larger in magnitude than any natural variation including the seasonal variation that currently dwafs any detectable change in temperature over the last century. If you do not provide that mechanism the only thing you will have is a slow trickle of escaping methane over a long time period, which is really not a problem due to the short life of methane in the atmosphere.

Oh, by the way, did I mention that NINETY SEVEN percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is real and caused by human emissions? You will notice as well that the 3% that don’t agree are also the least qualified:

This is a common logical fallacy often promoted by the pro AGW side. Scientifical discovery is not done by a show of hands. Nature could care less how many people has a specific view on how natural processes work. It only takes one scientific experiment to change our understanding.

Also, 2010 is the hottest year on record so far, and remember the historic floods of Pakistan or the fires and record heat in Russia last summer?

This is another logical fallacy often used by the "warmers". Using anecdotal evidence as proof without providing a mechanism of how an isolated incident fit within a larger framework. The truth is that there is no way to emprically connect an isolated incident like a flood, heat wave, drought, forest fire or other phenomena to the theory of antropogenic global warming. It does looks good in the news headlines though and it sure can be used to scare people to accept the implementation of ill adviced legislation.

Global warming is about to make us extinct and there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it. So enjoy life and live for today.

I got a bit wary when the guy in the video was introduced as partner of Al Gore and with heavy investments in "clean energy" companies.

That you have spent all this time only to arrive at this ill conceived conclusion puzzles me. Maybe you started your investigatioin with a pre concived view. All the propaganda probably hasn't helped either. Let me finish with a comforting message though. There is little chance that climate change will make us go extinct in any forseeable future. Let us talk again in ten years time and see if you feel better then.

In the light of all that's been said on here, and all we've been made aware of in other posts, does anyone else, like me, find themselves thinking, that the Illuminati already know this planet is over, and that's why they have done nothing serious about correcting our polluting lifestyle. All they've concentrated on is making vast amounts of money, which presumably they can buy their way out of here with, and leave the rest of us to the collapsing world....

Seems to me that it's too late to correct climate change, or grow back our forests etc. Man is not going to change his ways until it's too late. Have any of us on here? I doubt it. I haven't. I still drive my car and enjoy the same lifestyle as everyone else. And lets not forget, the third world wants a piece of the consumable,commercial capitalist world action, and who can blame them. So when they start polluting at the rate we do... goodnight!

I don't want to sound defeated, but unless mankind sees the error of his ways, as a collective whole, we aren't going to solve this, and it's plane as the melting ice-caps, that the governments and powers that be on this world, are doing jack-sh*t to solve it, probably for fear of being unpopular, or as in line with my post, don't care coz they've already booked their ticket out!

Originally posted by The_Liberator

Well first of all we aren't supposed to believe "them" because most of them are probably dead or retired.(although many are still alive, like James Hansen...)

Where can you see the models? Here you go:

globalchange.mit.edu...

Very well written paper. To be expected from MIT.
However the model is done with alot of assumptions.
Remember what happens when you assume.

Your result is only as good as your data.
I'm still skeptical.

Originally posted by loner007
reply to post by The_Liberator

 

I told you to forget about educating the masses.

Some keep saying the same old drivel that has been debunked or proven wrong. People will try to twist what you say saying earth goes through cold and warm periods (I think they must think we are thick that we dont know that....). They fail to understand Earth has a dynamic system to help stop runaway warming and mans activities have stopped that from happening etc. AS i said before just sit back and enjoy the ride.

Please provide us with proof to back up your statement.

thank you.