ClimateGate

I concede. I will not spend any more time on trying to demonstrate the obvious fact that the globe is currently warming up. I spent... seven pages? Seven pages trying to argue my point against every single person who came here. Every single one of you. Granted that some of you went completely off-topic namely Lord Kerwyn and his delusion that Global Warming is something necessarily involving politics.
If I thought I can change your mind I might consider continuing bashing my head against this wall, but I deem that highly unlikely as (LK hinted at) most people mix science with their religion and politics far too much.
Have fun in here and iffjdrie feel free to PM me those links you promised if you find them (if they even exist).

 

I only mentioned religion as an analogy. As for 7 pages, that depends what limit on posts per page you have, as your post is only on page 3 for me.

Just because you show a graph, it doesn't prove anything unless you can show where the data came from. For all I know, that graph could have been completely fabricated. I never agreed that the world was cooling, only that you failed to provide evidence to explain noted strange occurrences in your graph.

There is no doubt that the early readings would be off slightly since back then, temperatures were recorded by observing thermometers because computers didn't exist for commercial use at that time. For all I know, the advancement in technology during and after WWII with more accurate recording instruments may be the cause for the slight average temperature decrease between the 40s to 80s.

 

argue? all you did was point at the graph, then ask for citations if someone actually looked at the graph.

 

According to the current “scientific” notion, carbon emissions in the atmosphere are the main culprits for global warming, and all other factors are disregarded in the ETS equation. Most scientists are supporting the carbon dogma by claiming that increases in glacial melting, rising sea levels, and warmer air and water temperatures around the world indicate that the truth behind the carbon dogma is irrefutable. However, the mere existence of these symptoms does not necessarily make them correlative, and as such they cannot conclusively support, let alone verify, the carbon dogma. This begs the question, “Does the concept necessarily explain the environmental symptoms, and do the symptoms preclude the validity of any other concept?”

My question about whether carbon emissions cause higher temperatures is enough to have me ridiculed and mislabelled as a climate-warming denier by the “educated” scientists and by those who echo the carbon dogma.

It is a known fact that many springs, creeks, streams and rivers are warmer than they were in past decades. Is it not much more reasonable to assume that the temperature increases in springs, creeks, streams and rivers are directly caused by geothermal conditions rather than indirectly caused by a warmer atmosphere? Water is more resistant to temperature changes than air is. It is quicker and easier to heat a pot of water on a stove than it is to heat the air around the pot of water and wait for it to increase the temperature of the water in the pot.

In simple terms, the carbon dogma points to the warmer atmosphere as the main contributor to global warming. I propose that there is climate change, but that it is mainly caused by the sun and the Earth, and only marginally caused by the atmosphere.

The sun is hotter, which is evidenced by increases in solar flares and other things. Since scientists cannot credibly argue that humans have polluted the Earth’s atmosphere so much that it has caused more solar flares and a hotter sun, for purposes of their carbon dogma, they ignore the hotter sun. Likewise, the same carbon dogma proponents ignore the fact that the Earth is getting hotter. Scientists are only looking at the hot air, which is the least significant factor in global warming, whilst ignoring the much more significant factors of a hotter sun and a hotter Earth. What kind of scientific equation would eliminate the most significant factors from it? One that is unsound and filled with hot air!

© 2009 Amitakh Stanford

 

at the molecular level, the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs more radiation and increases temperatures has been proven. it soaks up IR rays better than oxygen, nitrogen, and water, the main components of the atmosphere, trapping heat.

add that to the fact that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are highly correlated to global temperatures, it's pretty solid evidence that CO2 is one of the biggest, and certainly the biggest controllable factor when it comes to average global temperatures.

other anecdotal evidence includes the other planets- venus is hotter than mercury (at midday), despite being further away from the sun, because its atmosphere has extremely high levels of CO2.

 

The main argument around climate gate is whether or not human activity is responsible for changes in global temperature. All the evidence to support human involvement in global warming doesn't have solid ground. Were discovering new things about the earth, and its atmosphere that is leading some scientist to believe that the earth is more efficient at cleansing itself then what was once thought. Some exploding volcanos were measured to have pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere in less than a day then all human activity on the planet for almost a century! The fact of the matter is, weather patterns change; they always have, and they always will. You can sit here, and argue all day about global warming, and the consequences, but really you will find no evidence to suggest otherwise that the earth has been around for a very long time, has probably survived numerous catastrophes that we aren't even aware of, and has seen countless shifts in weather patterns, and climate change to which some we are aware of (ice age). The global warming scare seems to have a very political aim to me, and the real consequence of buying into it could mean another big tax for you, and me.

 

The problem isn't whether or not the planet survives global warming. We know it can. The question is whether we as a species survive it because we know that 99.8% of all species in earths history went extinct largely due to climate change. There is some very good evidence that suggests that we are significant catalysts to this process although I didn't make up my mind yet. Even if it wasn't true however I still support many (definetly not all!) of the enviromental efforts because renewable energy is the way to go regardless of global warming.
What I do find insulting though are people who claim that global warming doesn't exist. That's where I will get into an argument.

 

I support many environmental movements too, simply because I don't want my home to be filled with trash, but I don't think our activities have a huge impact on global temperature change. If the climate is going to change, it's going to change whether were here or not. Anyway, that's what I believe, I could be wrong, or I could be right. However, like I said, new scientific evidence has been emerging this past decade that has been changing a lot of what we know about the earth and its' atmosphere.

Could we survive? I think as a species we have the capacity to. As far as we know, in the entire earth's history there has not been any species like us; we are superior to anything that has ever walked the earth. At this point in our history, despite having a great capacity for self-destruction, we also have an even greater capacity for survival. If needed be we can send people off to live in space until the disaster is over, and then we could return home to start again.

 

I agree with you Higgs that global warming definitely does exist and that we are experiencing it to a degree in our time. However, I don't think man kind is going to be effected by it. If anything we still have some (yes I know its like 4 or 5 people.) in a space station above earth. So.... If all else fails they can find a way back from it and repopulate.

I don't believe natural disasters have the capacity to end man kind. I think if anything is going to end our species its going to be nuclear war. Which is a far bigger threat at the moment then nuclear weapons. If people spent as much time and effort looking for ways to defend against nukes that would be far better spent.

Global warming is real and can very well be a problem in a hundred years or so. Nuclear weapons are a far more clear and present danger to our species. Currently three nations have enough nuclear weapons to kill every living thing on earth. They all give the authority to launch said nukes to a single person. If just one of those people decide to use their nuclear arsenal we are all dead.