Global warming. Lets end the debate right here, right now!

I suggest everyone use the internet to go off and find and read actual scientific papers on the subject - as many as possible from all sources - and stop believing/relying on whatever they read in the media or on blogs. Think for yourself, instead of accepting what people want you to believe.

And maybe meet back here in a years time and we might get a decent, rational discussion?

(Edit: IMO it's clear that the majority posting on the subject on ATS don't actually know a great deal about the subject but are reliant on the lies and dis/misinformation they get from the media and blogs. )

Originally posted by UniverSoul

Originally posted by Carseller4
The debate was ended when scientists distorted, manipulated, and deleted data trying to prove Global Warming.

Global warming is nothing more than a punchline to many funny jokes. Especially if you throw Algore in the mix.

What im trying to say is its pointless to say things like this (or even the over side of the argument)
lets just focus on the fact we are using fossil fuels when we could be using energy that has no negative effects

stop the arguing people, thats just what they want.

they have a monopoly and we dont need to take part in it by not focusing on the issues.

But, that retort does not reply just on facts.
You have already taken a stance in your statement.


Nothing stays static, ever.
The Earth has been changing ever since its creation.
The weather is not predictable, and to suggest otherwise is a farce.
Man is a blip in time, over the course of Earths existence.
It is not proven that Man can change the climate.
We are at the tail end of the last mini ice age, it, by definition will get warmer.


Thems are the facts.

Originally posted by macman
It is not proven that Man can change the climate.

So the temperature in every city and the rainfall patterns over former forests would be exactly the same were humans never to have existed and to have never altered the landscape? The drying up of the Aral Sea had no effect at all?

Humans certainly change the climate. The question is by how much and to what consequence.

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by macman
It is not proven that Man can change the climate.

So the temperature in every city and the rainfall patterns over former forests would be exactly the same were humans never to have existed and to have never altered the landscape? The drying up of the Aral Sea had no effect at all?

Humans certainly change the climate. The question is by how much and to what consequence.

What ifs are for children.
You wish to use the scientific process, but lack the other part of the equation.

Kind of like stating that 1+* =2, because you want the result of 2, when * has yet to be determined.

reply to post by Kingbreaker


China is runner up in economy, it hasn't surpassed the US.

China is the largest polluter by total volume, but by person, the US is still the largest polluters, on top of using twice as much water per person then any other nation.

China relies mostly on coal, hence the high emissions.

reply to post by Carseller4


That was a right wing media LIE! They did no such thing but Fox news wasn't gonna own up when they were caught LYING! I guess you fell for it hook line and sinker. The reason they tell you there is no GW issue is because they back the corporations which don't give a darn about the enviornment only in increasing profits and their wallets. Get real.

Originally posted by macman

Nothing stays static, ever.
The Earth has been changing ever since its creation.

and?

he weather is not predictable, and to suggest otherwise is a farce.

If you don't know the difference between global climate and local weather, you shouldn't be in this conversation.

Man is a blip in time, over the course of Earths existence.

So is a meteor, still does damage. Whats your point?

It is not proven that Man can change the climate.

It has proven that he can. Why do you think it rains on the weekend more? Because of all the pollution from all the cars in traffic provides particulates for clouds.

I can list a dozen changes man has made to the Earth that are irreperable.

We are at the tail end of the last mini ice age, it, by definition will get warmer.

Really understand your climate before making these statments, the last ice age ended awhile ago. We should be in a stable period.


Thems are the facts.


No, not really.

reply to post by nixie_nox


We are at the end, which usually means moving away from, the last known mini ice age. en.wikipedia.org...

I never realized that man has the ability to accurately predict local weather or global weather, outside the 24 hour period.

The Earths climate is not static, this shows that our weather and climate will change, with or without Man.

Yes, a meteor can do damage. And you point is? Man is not a meteor.

And Man can affect the weather? Ok, I guess. It rains more on the weekend due to more travel? But, people travel more during the work week, and then it should rain more during rush hour.

reply to post by macman


Not sure what you're getting at?

Do you deny the Urban Heat Island Effect or that mass deforestation affects rainfall? Or do you just don't want to believe it?

Humans affect climate. In the same way that if you have 2 apples and I eat 1 then you now have only 1 apple left. All else being equal.

Originally posted by UniverSoul

what do people who dont believe in human caused global warming have to loose by saying 'lets stop using fossil fuels'?

I don't know of a single anthropogenic global warming skeptic on any forum/blog/website that doesn't advocate sustainable energy and the ending of fossil fuel dependency... So where do you get this assumption that they aren't already saying it ?!

They are saying it, thus you're point is completely moot and boils down to nothing but antagonistic speculation and the spreading of myth.

The only idiots grasping at the continuation of fossil fuel dependency are the oil corporations.

reply to post by nixie_nox


China is actualky leading the world in wind and other renewable energy sources (despite its massive use of coal). But it seems the expansion of their economy and huge building projects are a big cause of Chinese carbon emissions. It's not all about burning oil and coal.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by macman

 

Not sure what you're getting at?

Do you deny the Urban Heat Island Effect or that mass deforestation affects rainfall? Or do you just don't want to believe it?

Humans affect climate. In the same way that if you have 2 apples and I eat 1 then you now have only 1 apple left. All else being equal.

In reading up on this to fully understand, instead of relying on talking points, yes I do understand it.
Wasn't the test equipment placed near high temp, large equipment to begin with?

And sure, that fact that a large mass emits more heat, then a dissipated mass means what? Humans should not be in mass?

As for deforestation? Now, that is man, removing nature, affecting some portion of a climate.
What is the point?

According to NASA, Arctic Sea Ice is decreasing 11.5% per decade, CO2 has increased 391 parts per million, Sea Level is increasing 3.27 mm every year, Global Temperature has increased 1.5 degrees F since 1880, and Land Ice in Greenland is decreasing by 100 billions tons per year. Is this climate change the result of burning fossil fuels? I can't say for sure. Is it global warming? I don't know that either, but I do think global climate change is a very real thing. I don't subscribe to the conspiracy theories of global warming either. I believe in math, science, objective data and hard evidence, however, we are all aware how statistics can reflect the opinions of the observer, and not always accurate. Not everything is statistically significant. In medicine, the double-blind placebo-controlled study is the only method to generate objective facts or conclusions. I am not familar with the methodology involved in studying global climate change.

Now, I don't believe everything I read, especially on the internet, but the references appear credible and many. Here's the link...its an interesting website with a lot of good information.

NASA link

reply to post by UniverSoul


Yes we should take care of our earth alot more than we do. We should be looking into different sources of energy. Although i could do without the fear the complexity of this problem cannot be mapped out on a piece of paper. We try to regulate everything and when it doesn't go the way we planned it, we don't take responsiblilty because we can't admit we were wrong. The first step is realizing we are wrong and trying something different.

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
I would also like to add one thing.

When the other natural state of the planet is ice age, perhaps we shouldn't be trying to manual tinker with things that might accidently send the planet into a cooling spiral. I've got no problem with natural efforts to address possible issues (like dealing with deforestation, planting trees for natural carbon sinking and air cleaning...I can't see how these would be bad one way or the other), but some of the proposals I've seen scare the jeebers out of me - aerial deployment of reflectors, outright alterations of the sky/atmospheric composition and such, introduction of various other gases and what have you...if any warming that IS occurring is merely part of a natural cycle, and we induce counter-balancing efforts - what happens when the cycle goes for a big swing the other way?

From what bit of reading I've done on this, it looks like the CO2 contribution to warming is vastly overstated (as well as having an inverse relation to temperature, historically), so I think we've either got to look for another factor as relates to us being at fault, IF we can even get clear on what's going on since I tend to hear about so many issues with temperature station locations (articial heat islands, etc.), data manipulation (even if ostensibly for good reasons), and so forth - is there even a solid confirmation of if we're actually experiencing warming or not? I remember seeing a lot some time back about warming actually stopping in 1998.

Seems like something's always coming out to muddy the water with ever claim always having a counterclaim, ad nauseum.

In order to set a baseline on global warming, we need to measure, how much "the globe" has actually warmed. For this, we need to rely on some measurement data, and on a global scale, which translates to need for satellite data.

Now, what does satellite data tell us? How much has this water covered rocky ball then warmed up?

Answer to that is: “Global mean surface temperatures have risen by 0.74°C ± 0.18°C when estimated by a linear trend over the last 100 years (1906–2005).”

Even that needs to be taken with a nip of salt, since satellite based measurements have been conducted only since 1979. That data shows something in the order of 0.14 °C rise per decade, although at the same time Sun has undergone a long active period (which is about to end now).

So, conclusion: its a big ball to warm up, and Sun is barely capable of doing it, even at its peak hours.

However, local variations do exist, due to air mass and sea current movements. These cause much of the anomalies (which are not as such anomalies) folks has been suffering past centuries.

So, as such I am surely concerned of environmental issues, and keeping pollution down, but I am not a tad worried about Global Warming. It is purely politically motivated. Scientists for money, and their group hysteria and seek for prestige, and politicians for introducing global control and currency/trading rights, and an excuse to squeeze more money out of tax payers.


Links:
www.appinsys.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
(further references at the linked content)

Originally posted by macman

As for deforestation? Now, that is man, removing nature, affecting some portion of a climate.
What is the point?

You admit that humans cause climate change then

You may be interested in this study:

www.nasa.gov...