Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What happened to global warming?

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 10:49:48 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Its still there, but scientists are just realizing now that its natural cycles, instead of too much human tinkering.

But that being said, we need to cut down on our pollution and stop this human wrecking ball from draining all our resources until we have none left. That is the very serious and very real threat - not "global warming."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 10:53:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Our resources? I didn't know we were in a corporation, Volkov. When did I sign up? :P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 11:00:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 10:53:38 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Our resources? I didn't know we were in a corporation, Volkov. When did I sign up? :P

To put it more succinctly, I meant the resources on this planet to which if too many individuals abuse, there will not be enough for other individuals to use.

And yes, I'm aware that there is no responsibility for an individual to care about another individual unless that is their goal, and that those that cannot receive charity have the right to take up arms, etc.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 11:28:56 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
We need to cut down on resources which are finite. Although oil will always be there, it is finite and shouldn't be relied on. Besides, I'm not comfortable with huge black clouds emptying into our skies.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 4:04:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
The years highest global temperatures is, of course, 2008...No? 2007? Nope. 2006? Try again. Actually, 1998 was the warmest year on record. Hmmm, how about that - wasn't Miami supposed to be underwater by now? Global temperatures are not rising, but there is one thing that is rapidly increasing: Al Gore's net worth. In 2000, the goofy VP was worth about $2 million. Now he's worth over $100 million and stands to make much more off new 'green' technologies. Just another case of Jack and his magic beans, apparently.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2009 5:34:46 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 10:49:48 AM, Volkov wrote:

But that being said, we need to cut down on our pollution and stop this human wrecking ball from draining all our resources until we have none left. That is the very serious and very real threat - not "global warming."

My sentiments, exactly.
President of DDO
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 7:51:37 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
It is sad when non-scientists try to define a word by guessing.

Global warming does not imply a year-by-year increase in average temperatures in America.

I do not know why the hell the BBC allowed such a terrible piece to be run on their website, but I assure you that there is very, very little science behind it.

If you look at this graph;
http://upload.wikimedia.org...

You'll notice that year-over-year change in global temperatures maybe fluctuate, but the 5-year average shows a strikingly obvious fact; the world is heating up. That being said, a rise in overall temperatures may very well imply that North America becomes much colder. To sit in your backyard and say "It's getting chilly therefore global warming is a hoax." is flagrantly unscientific, fallacious and plain stupid.

Furthermore, consider our CO2 output in relation to global temperatures;

http://www.docbrown.info...

And the proven correlation between the two;

http://www.celsias.com...

It is disingenuous to just come in, post a link, then stop posting. A very common and effective tactic used by anti-climate change people is to very casually sow the seeds of doubt, even when there is no science behind it. For example, the idea that 'sun spots' are to blame for climate change has been floating around the internet for a long time, despite being disproven years ago. One person posts a graph showing sun spots correlating with temperatures, and it is instantly as reputable as the mountain of evidence to support man-made global warming. How is that scientifically justifiable? Men caused global warming. It sucks; deal with it.

The fact that 1998 is the hottest year on record does not disprove global warming, and I've yet to see a shred of real evidence that says so.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 1:00:05 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Your whole argument was cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your report: "attempts to correlate global warming to carbon emissions. ... If Matthews and his team are correct in their calculations" Your report is presented in a biased manner with inconclusive evidence. Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%.

and I've yet to see a shred of real evidence that says so.

The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, not the ones rebutting.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 2:55:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/15/2009 1:00:05 PM, Nags wrote:
Your whole argument was cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your report: "attempts to correlate global warming to carbon emissions. ... If Matthews and his team are correct in their calculations" Your report is presented in a biased manner with inconclusive evidence. Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%.

and I've yet to see a shred of real evidence that says so.

The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, not the ones rebutting.

It is only cum hoc ergo propter hoc assuming there is no other evidence. I didn't provide it, and I do not intend to.

You came in here, indirectly made a fallacious claim and did not back it up. I called hyou out on it, corrected your intended conclusion with fact, then you chide me for not proving global warming. Your originally assertion (through means of the story) was that there is no rise in global temperatures, and subtly that global warming is a hoax. I pointed out that your initial supposition was wrong.

The onus of proof is on you, not I. I never claimed that I would establish a case for global warming, nor do I intend to, because there aren't enough hours in the day for me to waste them arguing you.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 3:02:58 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Mistahkurtz...

Lolcorrelation.

That's the proper term. Not "mountain of evidence," but "lolcorrelation."

P
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 6:46:31 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Correlation does not equal causation in the singularity, but as a complete system, then yes it does. What is our concept of gravity other than a series of conclusions based on observations? Gravity is very much and observed principal, but it does not make it any less true.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2009 6:58:45 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/15/2009 2:55:38 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
At 10/15/2009 1:00:05 PM, Nags wrote:
Your whole argument was cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your report: "attempts to correlate global warming to carbon emissions. ... If Matthews and his team are correct in their calculations" Your report is presented in a biased manner with inconclusive evidence. Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%.

and I've yet to see a shred of real evidence that says so.

The burden of proof is on the ones making the claim, not the ones rebutting.

It is only cum hoc ergo propter hoc assuming there is no other evidence. I didn't provide it, and I do not intend to.

Lol. If you don't provide evidence (which you admitted to) then it is cum hoc. You contradicted yourself.

You came in here, indirectly made a fallacious claim and did not back it up. I called hyou out on it, corrected your intended conclusion with fact, then you chide me for not proving global warming. Your originally assertion (through means of the story) was that there is no rise in global temperatures, and subtly that global warming is a hoax. I pointed out that your initial supposition was wrong.

You didn't prove or disprove anything, cum hoc and statements without evidence are not proof.

The onus of proof is on you, not I. I never claimed that I would establish a case for global warming, nor do I intend to, because there aren't enough hours in the day for me to waste them arguing you.

Resolved: Global Warming Exists.
>You are Pro.
>I am Con.

Pro has the burden of proof. This is quite obvious. I don't see how I have the burden of proof at all.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 11:36:46 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/15/2009 6:58:45 PM, Nags wrote:
Lol. If you don't provide evidence (which you admitted to) then it is cum hoc. You contradicted yourself.

Groan. It would have been fallacious had I been trying to establish a case, which I wasn't. I was disagreeing with what you said. I never tried to establish a case for global warming based what I posted.

You didn't prove or disprove anything, cum hoc and statements without evidence are not proof.

Your argument; 1998 was the warmest on record, therefore global temperatures aren't rising.
My argument; global temperatures are rising, based on my graphs, and that a year-over-year increase is not a prerequisite for 5-year levels are rising.

Resolved: Global Warming Exists.
>You are Pro.
>I am Con.

No, that's not true. The resolution is that 'Global warming does not exist because 1998 was the warmest year on record'.
You are pro
I am con

This is ridiculous. I'm not going to sit here while you try to throw out my argument by trying to redefine what we're talking about because you're completely and utterly unable to dispute my criticism of the argument that could not even yourself make.
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 12:13:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 11:36:46 AM, MistahKurtz wrote:
Groan. It would have been fallacious had I been trying to establish a case, which I wasn't. I was disagreeing with what you said. I never tried to establish a case for global warming based what I posted.

Ok. Fallacious or not, your point does not stand without evidence.

Your argument; 1998 was the warmest on record, therefore global temperatures aren't rising.

Since when did I say that was my argument?

My argument; global temperatures are rising, based on my graphs, and that a year-over-year increase is not a prerequisite for 5-year levels are rising.

Your graphs = Cum hoc.

No, that's not true. The resolution is that 'Global warming does not exist because 1998 was the warmest year on record'.
You are pro
I am con

Straw man. I never claimed "Global warming does not exist because 1998 was the warmest year on record."

This is ridiculous. I'm not going to sit here while you try to throw out my argument by trying to redefine what we're talking about because you're completely and utterly unable to dispute my criticism of the argument that could not even yourself make.

You haven't made any criticism of any credibility. Once you establish a case, which you said you will not do, I will refute.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 12:22:35 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Gravity predicted Neptune prior to any other knowledge of the planet. Gravity has also been experimentally established-- we use rocket ships to take people away from the large mass (planet) and, other things equal, we have much less of the observed effect. Return them, and we have more. Your "whole systems theory" is not presumed by gravity, and the burden is on you to establish this new epistemology.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
ournamestoolong
Posts: 1,059
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 1:05:24 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/15/2009 1:00:05 PM, Nags wrote:
Your whole argument was cum hoc ergo propter hoc. Your report: "attempts to correlate global warming to carbon emissions. ... If Matthews and his team are correct in their calculations" Your report is presented in a biased manner with inconclusive evidence. Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%.

Humans contribute more than 3%. Look at this graph (http://www.whoi.edu...) It will show a sharp increase at about 100 years ago. Now thin, what event 100 years ago could have triggered a sharp increase in CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Think about it. Now how could this event possibly be caused by natural cycles.

There is conclusive proof that CO2 and other gasses cause an increase of temperature. My favorite example of this is a temperature comparison of Venus to Mercury.

Venus - 673K - 755K (http://hypertextbook.com...)
Mercury - Flucuating between 700K and 90K (http://hypertextbook.com...)

Now this fluccuating occurs because, Mercury, unlike Venus, doesn't have an atmosphere that traps heat. So though Mercury is closer to the sun, Venus is hotter.
I'll get by with a little help from my friends.

Ournamestoolong

Secretary of Commerce

Destroy talking ads!
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 4:09:39 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 12:13:38 PM, Nags wrote:
Ok. Fallacious or not, your point does not stand without evidence.
I provided evidence for the points I was making. Some points do rely on external evidence that I'm just not going to provide because then I'm going to get into the whole global warming debate, which in retrospect, probably would have just been easier.
Since when did I say that was my argument?

That was what was suggested by your link. Do you believe something different?

Your graphs = Cum hoc.
Graphs cannot be fallacious because they hold not conclusion. I am arguing that there is a correlation between the rise in CO2 emissions and the rise in global temperatures. I said that tying that into global warming relies on other evidence.

Straw man. I never claimed "Global warming does not exist because 1998 was the warmest year on record."

So your strategy is to post a link arguing something, then you distance yourself from the argument once you're called on it?

You haven't made any criticism of any credibility. Once you establish a case, which you said you will not do, I will refute.

You have not actually disputed my first post. You just said "cum hoc!" then ignored the rest. You proceeded to conclude that global warming is not correct because "Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%." which actually is a cum hoc argument.

Failing that, you just demanded that I provide the evidence, since I was the one making the case (which is wrong.)
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2009 7:44:49 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/16/2009 4:09:39 PM, MistahKurtz wrote:
I provided evidence for the points I was making. Some points do rely on external evidence that I'm just not going to provide because then I'm going to get into the whole global warming debate, which in retrospect, probably would have just been easier.

You did not provide evidence.

That was what was suggested by your link. Do you believe something different?

That wasn't the thesis of the article. Straw man.

Graphs cannot be fallacious because they hold not conclusion. I am arguing that there is a correlation between the rise in CO2 emissions and the rise in global temperatures. I said that tying that into global warming relies on other evidence.

Wtf? Correlation does not necesarrily equal causation < Cum Hoc.

So your strategy is to post a link arguing something, then you distance yourself from the argument once you're called on it?

Nope, you're oversimplifying the argument to suit your needs. Straw man.

You have not actually disputed my first post. You just said "cum hoc!" then ignored the rest. You proceeded to conclude that global warming is not correct because "Anyway, humans contribute ~3% of CO2 levels while animals contribute the other 97%." which actually is a cum hoc argument.

Do you ever know what cum hoc is? ...I countered that humans CO2 emissions have a significant effect by providing a statistic of humans vs. animals. Human emissions are minimal compared to animal. Not cum hoc whatsoever.

Failing that, you just demanded that I provide the evidence, since I was the one making the case (which is wrong.)

Haha, you keep thinking that. I have to prove a negative, oh yeah, that makes sense.
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 3:32:54 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 10:49:48 AM, Volkov wrote:
Its still there, but scientists are just realizing now that its natural cycles, instead of too much human tinkering.

Not at all. They are realizing that the change that was seen under the 90's to a larger part was a question of cycles than previously thought. That doesn't mean that the green house effect is gone or not problematic.

But that in turn does not mean we need to cut down on resources that are finite, because all resources are finite, and what use are they of they aren't used? It just means we should release less crap into the environment, that's all.
So prove me wrong, then.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 8:46:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/18/2009 3:32:54 AM, regebro wrote:
At 10/12/2009 10:49:48 AM, Volkov wrote:
Not at all. They are realizing that the change that was seen under the 90's to a larger part was a question of cycles than previously thought. That doesn't mean that the green house effect is gone or not problematic.

I never said it was gone and not problematic - I said it is not the result of human tinkering. Get your facts straight.

But that in turn does not mean we need to cut down on resources that are finite, because all resources are finite, and what use are they of they aren't used? It just means we should release less crap into the environment, that's all.

The goal should be sustainable use - not use just for the sake of use. Our resources are finite, and we would take care not to lose them too quickly. Plus, I don't want all the pretty trees in the forest to be cut down. I prefer not having my cottage end up in a desert either.
MTGandP
Posts: 702
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2009 11:06:20 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 10:32:24 AM, Nags wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk...

Scientists have known about this since... well, 1998. It's old news.

That article attempts to give equal representation to unequal sides. The skeptics make up less than 5% of the scientific community.

http://climatesight.org...
regebro
Posts: 1,152
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2009 8:31:02 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/18/2009 8:46:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 10/18/2009 3:32:54 AM, regebro wrote:
At 10/12/2009 10:49:48 AM, Volkov wrote:
Not at all. They are realizing that the change that was seen under the 90's to a larger part was a question of cycles than previously thought. That doesn't mean that the green house effect is gone or not problematic.

I never said it was gone and not problematic - I said it is not the result of human tinkering. Get your facts straight.

Yes, and I was unclear. When I said "They are realizing that the change that was seen under the 90's to a larger part was a question of cycles than previously thought" I should have made clear that the implication of that is that the rest is caused humanity.

The goal should be sustainable use - not use just for the sake of use. Our resources are finite, and we would take care not to lose them too quickly.

Define "too quickly".

Plus, I don't want all the pretty trees in the forest to be cut down. I prefer not having my cottage end up in a desert either.

Obviously, but that's hardly a question of sustainability, but of beauty.
So prove me wrong, then.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 8:22:00 AM
Posted: 7 years ago

Global warming does not imply a year-by-year increase in average temperatures in America.


The CO2 models where derived from the temperature increases from the 70s through the 90s. The physics of CO2 itself do not come close to accounting for the temperature rise, so math models were tweaked to provide multiplier effects. The premise was that since nothing else was going on --no solar effects, no volcanoes, no periodic oscillations of the climate system-- all temperature increases must have been due to CO2. Re-tweaking the models with new data keeps revising future temperature projections downward.

There have been no temperature increases since 1998, so now we are way, way below the CO2 model predictions. The claim that nothing else is driving climate is dead. The record 1998 temperature were due to El Nino, nothing related to CO2. Climate is probably driven most strongly by solar effects being amplified by cloud cover. There is a long term rise in temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age in the first half of the nineteenth century, most of it before CO2 rise.

Satellite measurements of air temperatures do not show the dramatic rises in recent temperatures such a those shown in many graphs reproduced in Wikipedia.

"From Nov. 16, 1978, through June 30, 2007, the global lower troposphere has warmed about 0.4 Celsius (about 0.72° Fahrenheit), or global warming at the rate of approximately 1.4 C (about 2.52° Fahrenheit) per century." http://www.uah.edu...

Alarmists rely mainly upon surface measurements made in cites where heat island effects are boosting temperatures rather than climate. For proxy reconstructions, they heavily weight two sets of tree ring data that have the desired sharp rise. Sometimes they take out one of the two sets of bogus data to show the rise is still there. http://www.climateaudit.org...

Past patterns of solar activity suggest that the world will be in a cooling cycle for the next two decades. "CO2 dominates climate" is unsustainable.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 12:24:16 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I love when people on this site discuss global warming. All you're doing is regurgitating "facts" and "evidence" that you found on the internet from various sources. Those on the right will specifically site sources from scientists who say that it's a myth, and those on the left will just as easily quote scientists who say that it's a problem. I'd be surprised if most people here had even a basic grasp of HS graduate level science, let alone enough to point fingers and say someone with an opposing POV is wrong.
President of DDO
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 12:30:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I love when people on this site discuss global warming. All you're doing is regurgitating "facts" and "evidence" that you found on the internet from various sources.
Really? I don't think I cited anything I found on the internet in this discussion. And I was in the discussion. ;)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2009 12:35:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 4:04:46 PM, comoncents wrote:
The years highest global temperatures is, of course, 2008...No? 2007? Nope. 2006? Try again. Actually, 1998 was the warmest year on record. Hmmm, how about that - wasn't Miami supposed to be underwater by now? Global temperatures are not rising, but there is one thing that is rapidly increasing: Al Gore's net worth. In 2000, the goofy VP was worth about $2 million. Now he's worth over $100 million and stands to make much more off new 'green' technologies. Just another case of Jack and his magic beans, apparently.

............... wow you don't know anything about Global Warming, do you?
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 1:10:42 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/12/2009 4:04:46 PM, comoncents wrote:
Global temperatures are not rising, but there is one thing that is rapidly increasing: Al Gore's net worth. In 2000, the goofy VP was worth about $2 million. Now he's worth over $100 million and stands to make much more off new 'green' technologies. Just another case of Jack and his magic beans, apparently.

"The Inconvenient Truth" seemed all too convenient of a truth for Al Gore. lol
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2009 2:08:28 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 10/22/2009 12:24:16 PM, theLwerd wrote:
I love when people on this site discuss global warming. All you're doing is regurgitating "facts" and "evidence" that you found on the internet from various sources. Those on the right will specifically site sources from scientists who say that it's a myth, and those on the left will just as easily quote scientists who say that it's a problem. I'd be surprised if most people here had even a basic grasp of HS graduate level science, let alone enough to point fingers and say someone with an opposing POV is wrong.

I actually have some university level science behind me, but I don't think it's generally necessary to the general debate. Sure, it's nice, but the most important thing about climate change is that it affects -all- of us, regardless of education. That's why this information has become so widespread on the internet; to educated people. Those on the right have tried to fight back, but consensus (at least outside the U.S) remains strong; climate change is man made. The consensus is there in the science world as well.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2009 10:40:35 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Global warming is, as far as researches have shown, a fact. However, what is not a fact is that it is caused by humans. It's just a theory. It is very complicated, and it will take a long time before we find out whether it is natural or caused by human manufacturing. The temperature has always increased and decreased, and the increase in temperature during the glacial period made the period itself become history, yet it was not caused by humans.

I think the governments around the world should invest in technology, rather than decrease CO2 emissions. Advanced technology can always be a solution to such problems, not because technology can be used to cool the air, but because it can help neutralizing the harm of the gas that is going to the atmosphere, and there are many more benefits.