Man-made global warming

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that you'll reconsider your position every 20 years or so. That is a very small window when it comes to this kind of thing. Of course when it comes to these kind of discussions this makes you a bit closed minded of any 'new' information.

The Daily Mail graph doesn't give a good picture. The graph of historical data-points the Met office publishes itself is probably the best source - it shows 150 years of data, with the current flat bit put into some context: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut3/diagnostics/comparison.html

Originally posted by twhitehead
The chart shows no cooling, but a fairly consistent rise.that was my point. I was not trying to show a correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.

I didn't claim there was a cooling. I claimed there was a slowdown in the warming based on the Reuters article.

CO2 should be included with the chart showing warming. CO2 levels vary too and any chart omitting either is not worth looking at.

Originally posted by googlefudge
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/16/1873531/reuters-contradicts-its-own-accurate-reporting-on-rapid-warming-of-oceans/?mobile=nc

[quote]Why are so many climatologists now speaking out about global warming? As Lonnie Thompson explained a couple of years ago, “Virtually all of us are now convinced that global warming poses a clear and present da ...[text shortened]...
Unlike you I actually know what I am talking about.

You are the one here spouting nonsense.

You must be desperate since the Reuters article I posted actually does mention the ocean temps as one of the theories to explain the slowdown. Here is the excerpt:

"Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking the sun, or that greenhouse gases trap less heat than previously believed.

The change may be a result of an observed decline in heat-trapping water vapor in the high atmosphere, for unknown reasons. It could be a combination of factors or some as yet unknown natural variations, scientists say."

As you can see there is no contradiction between the 2 articles. There are several theories mentioned in the article I posted that "MAY" be possible explanations. Kind of silly to use what is in both articles as some "head exploding" contradiction.

CO2 is used in greenhouses to increase the growth rate of plants. CO2 is a good thing. Don't fight it.

Originally posted by humy

The Reuters link I posted has scientists trying to explain it with several different theories from different scientists. Are you [b]claiming that these scientists are stupid for trying to explain it?

No. And I didn't say nor imply anything about the link. What has this got to do with what I just said?
You said:

“Warming is slowing ...[text shortened]... lobal temperature increase is a lie made up by global warming deniers and doesn't even exist![/b]

"And, as if that was not enough, judging from recent posts by others here, this so-called slowdown in the rate of global temperature increase is a lie made up by global warming deniers and doesn't even exist!"

Anybody can make a false claim. Show me the proof from a reputable source. Slowdowns in the temperature rise have happened in the 20th century as well. This chart from PBS actually shows a decline after 1942.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

Originally posted by moon1969
Will people choose science over right-wing ideology?

Of course not. It has already been demonstrated people will choose left-wing ideology over science, so there is no reason to think they won't buy into global warming.

It's probably a good idea to unload any coastal real estate as soon as possible, before we start seeing polar bears floating in on what's left of the polar ice caps... because by then it will be too late.

By the way, why aren't scalpers buying carbon credits by the gross? Don't they know how popular those credits are?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
CO2 levels vary too and any chart omitting either is not worth looking at.

Now we get to why you show such ignorance on the topic. You only look at data/articles that support your viewpoint.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"And, as if that was not enough, judging from recent posts by others here, this so-called slowdown in the rate of global temperature increase is a lie made up by global warming deniers and doesn't even exist!"

Anybody can make a false claim. Show me the proof from a reputable source. Slowdowns in the temperature rise have happened in the 20th century ...[text shortened]... m PBS actually shows a decline after 1942.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/etc/graphs.html

Routers and PBS are not reputable sources.


EDIT:
They may or may not cite reputable sources at any given time but they are media/news
organisations not scientific organisations.

They are only every going to be as good as the sources THEY cite.
So you might just as well go to the scientists and ask them.

And the scientists are pretty damn close to unanimous that climate change is happening,
that it's dangerous, and that we're causing it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/24/global_warming_news_items_about_climate_change.html

Originally posted by Metal Brain
You must be desperate since the Reuters article I posted actually does mention the ocean temps as one of the theories to explain the slowdown. Here is the excerpt:

"Theories for the pause include that deep oceans have taken up more heat with the result that the surface is cooler than expected, that industrial pollution in Asia or clouds are blocking t ...[text shortened]... n greenhouses to increase the growth rate of plants. CO2 is a good thing. Don't fight it.

CO2 is used in greenhouses to increase the growth rate of plants. CO2 is a good thing. Don't fight it.

Wow is that stupid.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/10/carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming_more_is_not_better.html

... Everything comes with a price. Droughts, flooding, fires, rising sea levels…increasing CO2 may help some plants in some places, but it will have catastrophic effects elsewhere. The authors just dismiss all this without evidence. Hence my use of the term “denial”.

Simply claiming increased CO2 will help plants grow while ignoring everything else it does is a stunningly tone-deaf argument, yet one deniers seem to use over and again. Looking at a few plants growing better due to more CO2 is like ignoring that you killed a patient while curing their hangnail.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-basic.htm

Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.

Added CO2 will likely shrink the range available to plants while increasing the size of deserts. It will also increase the requirements for water and soil fertility as well as plant damage from insects.

Increasing CO2 levels would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Routers and PBS are not reputable sources.


EDIT:
They may or may not cite reputable sources at any given time but they are media/news
organisations not scientific organisations.

They are only every going to be as good as the sources THEY cite.
So you might just as well go to the scientists and ask them.

And the scientists are pretty damn c ...[text shortened]... w.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/24/global_warming_news_items_about_climate_change.html

When have I ever denied climate change is happening? It never happened!

Originally posted by googlefudge

CO2 is used in greenhouses to increase the growth rate of plants. CO2 is a good thing. Don't fight it.

Wow is that stupid.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/05/10/carbon_dioxide_and_global_warming_more_is_not_better.html

... Everything comes with a price. Droughts, flooding, fires, rising sea levels…increasing C ...[text shortened]... would only be beneficial inside of highly controlled, enclosed spaces like greenhouses.

"Droughts, flooding, fires, rising sea levels"

Wow! You blame those 3 things on climate change? That is what is really stupid. We have always had those things. I live in Michigan....the Great Lakes State. Lake water levels are low right now. I'll bet you blame climate change on that too. What about hurricane sandy? Do you blame climate change on that too?

Another nostradumbass. You should be a meteorologist so you can tell us all what the weather will be like. You would be an asset to us all. You could tell me when to water my garden and when not to. If you can predict all of those things you listed why do you waste your time on this forum? You could buy and sell land and become the richest man on the planet.....not!

The truth is that nobody knows what the result of climate change will be. There are way too many factors for any person to know. That is a fact.

Originally posted by moon1969
Will people choose science over right-wing ideology?


[quote][b]Obama Climate Change 2013 Policy Speech Outlines Executive Orders

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Tuesday invoked his executive authority to undertake a slew of measures aimed at curbing climate change and preparing America for its costly impacts. . . .

"The question is no ...[text shortened]... te]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/25/obama-climate-change-2013_n_3497151.html[/b]

Science is contrary to the global warming scam as put forth by Al Gore.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
When have I ever denied climate change is happening? It never happened!

It never happened!

Whoa! I think that might be going a little too far. You don't think there was a climate change with the worldwide flood of Noah's day?

The Instructor

Originally posted by Metal Brain
When have I ever denied climate change is happening? It never happened!

what you deny, despite what very basic science clearly shows, is that CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning are causing the climate to warm by increasing the greenhouse effect.

Even the very basic science of photochemistry says CO2 should absorb infrared.This absorption has been directly measured both in the lab and in the wider Earth's atmosphere using i.r. lasers and i.r. spectroscopy.
All the credible climate models that have ever been produced say that this absorption should cause temperatures to rise -it is just a matter of very simple physics.
And, once other causes of global temperature changes are fully taken into account, there is an observed general and erratic (erratic because the weather is a chaotic system) increase in temperature exactly like the kind predicted by the models.
No real credible evidence against the greenhouse theory has ever materialized -only evidence for.

Therefore, given all these above facts, there cannot be any reasonable rational doubt that the greenhouse theory is correct and we are increasing the greenhouse effect via our CO2 emissions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]It never happened!

Whoa! I think that might be going a little too far. You don't think there was a climate change with the worldwide flood of Noah's day?

The Instructor[/b]

Um actually what he was saying never happened was that he had denied that the climate was changing.

Not that the climate had never changed.

Originally posted by joe beyser
Science is contrary to the global warming scam as put forth by Al Gore.

Oh for crying out loud.

Would all the climate denying nut jobs in this thread go read the links I posted because they include refutations of every idiotic claim you have made.

Look here is a list that includes all the claims you have made with the links to the science that refutes them

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

including the claim you just made...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/al-gore-inconvenient-truth-errors.htm