How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[Deleted]

The temperatures did not grow since 14 year now. That is why I cannot believe it.

And you know why the snow may be less? The earth is rotating, not in a direct circle and whatever. 14 year ago the earth may have been 1 mile more near the sun...it is ot much at all...but this changes a lot.

[Deleted]

One final point
I do believe in global warming (as shown in the geological answer from my very first point)
I do not believe humans are nearly as big a factor that the media and neo-hippies would have us believe

[breadisfunny]

One final point
I do believe in global warming (as shown in the geological answer from my very first point)
I do not believe humans are nearly as big a factor that the media and neo-hippies would have us believe

what do you mean by 'neo-hippies'? how big a factor do you think humans are in the grand scheme?

[semaphore]

Semaphore don't even talk about credible scientific reports when you just linked Wikipedia to "prove" ( /insert sarcasm) someone wrong.

Don't act so smug when you clearly can't read. Larrissa linked Wikipedia. I pointed out that their own source disagree with their claims.

And I do believe someone linked sonething about humans only causing 1% of global warming

In your imagination. That person "think" its 1% and linked nothing. My point is about it accumulating year after year anyway, good job missing the point completely.

I think the Ocean, Volcanos and animals in general produce about 98-99% off the co2, I think it's even in that order. While 1% is still a decent amount, considering how many humans are out there and how many bad stuff we do I think it's fair to say that 99% natural co2 is worse. :P

[Deleted]

Urban dictionary neo-hippie and I believe about 1%

[melodramocracy]

Folks can't wrap their heads around global warming because the human ego is a powerful thing. The mindset that used to believe that the sun spun around the earth is the same sort of self-obsessed thought process that feels that well over a century of industry spewing harmful toxins into the atmosphere will simply have no impact at all.

We have no problem destroying our own environment for the sake of our own comfort and an economy that only exists in our concious.

Irresponsible, naive and childish at best, but it's generally impossible to expect any more out of this species.

[Deleted]

Semaphore ill. Give you that, As I said difficult to read and type etc off phone, and my geology professor also says 1% so ill probably stick with his train of thought rather than some dude on the Internet. Regardless I'm not trying to argue I just. Want to. Tell you your all wrong and I'm right. (Joking)
Sheen out for the count

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 03:33 PM ----------

Folks can't wrap their heads around global warming because the human ego is a powerful thing. The mindset that used to believe that the sun spun around the earth is the same sort of self-obsessed thought process that feels that well over a century of industry spewing harmful toxins into the atmosphere will simply have no impact at all.

We have no problem destroying our own environment for the sake of our own comfort and an economy that only exists in our concious.

Irresponsible, naive and childish at best, but it's generally impossible to expect any more out of this species.

Sheen back in.. So 100 years of humans spewing out toxins, has a greater impact than the millions of years that volcanoes threw out MUCH more toxins....right.....

[Deleted]

The last five years we barely had any snow whatsoever here, today there's so much snow I'm barely able to get out of this shithole.

Thoughts?

My thoughts?

It's totally random.

[Masark]

The temperatures did not grow since 14 year now. That is why I cannot believe it.

And you know why the snow may be less? The earth is rotating, not in a direct circle and whatever. 14 year ago the earth may have been 1 mile more near the sun...it is ot much at all...but this changes a lot.

1. Wrong. Try getting your information from somewhere that isn't sourcing from the Daily Junk Mail.

2. Either your math or your astronomy is vastly lacking. The earth's distance from the sun varies by over 3 million miles depending on time of year and does so in a quite predictable manner over any reasonable timescale.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 09:44 AM ----------

Sheen back in.. So 100 years of humans spewing out toxins, has a greater impact than the millions of years that volcanoes threw out MUCH more toxins....right.....

No, but volcano are much slower. Volcanoes (also forest fires, etc.) resulted in a 6C temperature increase over a period of about 20,000 years (P-E thermal maximum). Humans have managed about 3C over about 100 years.

[Deleted]

That's the point though, humans have increased very little of that 3 degrees, we are technical still in an Ice age, just because we're used to the current climate doesn't mean that this is how the climate is supposed to be! Oh and here's a link about when volcanoes ruled the earth http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com...-the-world/580 not exactly scientific but covers the basics.

[satanicway]

lol
People arguing that Global Warming exists use only circular logic and fallacies to justify their faith in global warming.

First, climate changes on small scale around cities, this is well know, and far different from a "global" effect. The world have the same average temperature, cities not.

Go back to basic chemistry and physics classes of how Pressure, volume and temperature works for gases, and you will realize that its an asinine argument to say that the world atmosphere is hotter because of gas emission.

I would also like to point that every perception we have in our daily lives about climate changes is skewed and biased.
First there is the "cultural effect" of the idea that we created about global warming, so people look for it everywhere, and blame things in its name.
Then, the fact that climate is not constant, and that over decades there is cycles, makes our perception useless. You need to look at climate changes over course of centuries not 1 or 2 decades.

Its well know that the climate can vary in short spams of time, and have varied many times before, both globally and locally in many places, because of different factors.
Its also well know that there is places that are becoming colder, making the idea of a complete global warming asinine.

The problem with this idea is human idea of self power. We like to think that what we do have global consequences, greeks already talked about climate changes at their time, and you really believe that they had the technological level necessary to change the weather of huge areas of land?

Seriously, we like catastrophes and "ends of the world", and this is just one more of those cultural waves.

There is zero, i mean ZERO, real large scale studies that confirm increase in global temperatures. Everything that is sayd till now is conjectures based on data collected mostly near big urban centers, that obviously have local climate changes.
People like to think that the poles are becoming warmer, when recent studies says exactly the contrary, that they are becoming colder now, as a normal cycle of temperatures that happens there.

The problem is that we like to see natures as static, as something immobile that is there forever, and doesnt change by itself.
We like to think that we are NOT nature, and that our actions is the opposite of what is "natural".
In fact we are natural, our actions are part of what is natural, there is no distinction between nature and humanity, and we do not destroy nature, we live as part of it, and nature changes itself all the time, we are only part of the mechanism of that change.
There is no better or worse for nature, it just IS.

We keep living in this old greek/roman idea of Duality between man and nature, right and wrong, good and evil, divine and terrain... and because of that we keep failing to use logic to understand what is happening, opting for fallacy, circular arguments, conspirator theories, and religious beliefs, to justify the way we live, and our moral standards.
Everyone can believe in what they want, and have their fears, their religiosity, and even their conspiratory theories, but trying to input then as true for the whole world to accept... THAT is wrong. And global warming is just one more case of that... sadly.


Masark:
1- His information is pretty accurate with the last research on the field.

2- Do you even know that the timescales are for more then thousand of years? And that it only starts the same pattern again in that time span?
So in 500 years, no, the sun will not be annually at the same distance, same for decades.

3- Wrong again, it result in no permanent gain of temperature since we have gained and lost temperature over the course of the alst 20.000 years.
It increases dramatically the temperature for short spam of times, some centuries in max.
Nothing simple "increase" the temperature perpetually. We lose it to space the entire time, and the hotter you become, the more you lose to it, learn basic physics...
All temperature gains are temporary, and humans have not achieved 3C in 100 years in any serious research. All those that appear from time to time, only uses temperatures on urban perimeters that are higher locally because of the way we build cities.
So you are wrong again.

[steveyboy]

lol
People arguing that Global Warming exists use only circular logic and fallacies to justify their faith in global warming.

First, climate changes on small scale around cities, this is well know, and far different from a "global" effect. The world have the same average temperature, cities not.

Go back to basic chemistry and physics classes of how Pressure, volume and temperature works for gases, and you will realize that its an asinine argument to say that the world atmosphere is hotter because of gas emission.

I would also like to point that every perception we have in our daily lives about climate changes is skewed and biased.
First there is the "cultural effect" of the idea that we created about global warming, so people look for it everywhere, and blame things in its name.
Then, the fact that climate is not constant, and that over decades there is cycles, makes our perception useless. You need to look at climate changes over course of centuries not 1 or 2 decades.

Its well know that the climate can vary in short spams of time, and have varied many times before, both globally and locally in many places, because of different factors.
Its also well know that there is places that are becoming colder, making the idea of a complete global warming asinine.

The problem with this idea is human idea of self power. We like to think that what we do have global consequences, greeks already talked about climate changes at their time, and you really believe that they had the technological level necessary to change the weather of huge areas of land?

Seriously, we like catastrophes and "ends of the world", and this is just one more of those cultural waves.

There is zero, i mean ZERO, real large scale studies that confirm increase in global temperatures. Everything that is sayd till now is conjectures based on data collected mostly near big urban centers, that obviously have local climate changes.
People like to think that the poles are becoming warmer, when recent studies says exactly the contrary, that they are becoming colder now, as a normal cycle of temperatures that happens there.

The problem is that we like to see natures as static, as something immobile that is there forever, and doesnt change by itself.
We like to think that we are NOT nature, and that our actions is the opposite of what is "natural".
In fact we are natural, our actions are part of what is natural, there is no distinction between nature and humanity, and we do not destroy nature, we live as part of it, and nature changes itself all the time, we are only part of the mechanism of that change.
There is no better or worse for nature, it just IS.

We keep living in this old greek/roman idea of Duality between man and nature, right and wrong, good and evil, divine and terrain... and because of that we keep failing to use logic to understand what is happening, opting for fallacy, circular arguments, conspirator theories, and religious beliefs, to justify the way we live, and our moral standards.
Everyone can believe in what they want, and have their fears, their religiosity, and even their conspiratory theories, but trying to input then as true for the whole world to accept... THAT is wrong. And global warming is just one more case of that... sadly.


Masark:
1- His information is pretty accurate with the last research on the field.

2- Do you even know that the timescales are for more then thousand of years? And that it only starts the same pattern again in that time span?
So in 500 years, no, the sun will not be annually at the same distance, same for decades.

3- Wrong again, it result in no permanent gain of temperature since we have gained and lost temperature over the course of the alst 20.000 years.
It increases dramatically the temperature for short spam of times, some centuries in max.
Nothing simple "increase" the temperature perpetually. We lose it to space the entire time, and the hotter you become, the more you lose to it, learn basic physics...
All temperature gains are temporary, and humans have not achieved 3C in 100 years in any serious research. All those that appear from time to time, only uses temperatures on urban perimeters that are higher locally because of the way we build cities.
So you are wrong again.

Very well written post but im afraid people will just ignore the facts.

[Masark]

Very well written post but im afraid people will just ignore the facts.

Very little to ignore in that post then. The majority of his post relies on the discredited claim that the heat island effect created by cities is skewing the results. This is wrong as both urban and rural sensors show very similar changes in temperature, which is the important bit, regardless of the base temperature at the locations.



Replying to satanicway

1. The "no warming for 15 years" claim is nothing but distortion the Daily Mail inserted into an interview with a Met Office climatologist and has been rebutted by them. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-stopped-wrong

2. Long term patterns that DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR the present observed effects.

3. Yes, temperature gains are temporary, in geological time scales.

As for "learn basic physics". you appear to have skipped the day they covered the concept of "insulation".

[Deadvolcanoes]

Very well written post but im afraid people will just ignore the facts.

What facts? All I read were unproven statements without scientific peer reviewed sources to back them up.

It's impossible to ignore something that isn't there.

[Deleted]

Very little to ignore in that post then. The majority of his post relies on the discredited claim that the heat island effect created by cities is skewing the results. This is wrong as both urban and rural sensors show very similar changes in temperature, which is the important bit, regardless of the base temperature at the locations.

You're wrong.

This paper showed a statistical analysis of the correlations, which actually go beyond the heat island effect: http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html

ABSTRACT:
Monthly surface temperature records from 1979 to 2000 were obtained from 218 individual stations in 93 countries and a linear trend coefficient determined for each site. This vector of trends was regressed on measures of local climate, as well as indicators of local economic activity (income, GDP growth rates, coal use) and data quality. The spatial pattern of (temperature, ed) trends is shown to be significantly correlated with non-climatic factors, including economic activity and sociopolitical characteristics of the region. The analysis is then repeated on the corresponding IPCC gridded data, and very similar correlations appear, despite previous attempts to remove non-climatic effects. The socioeconomic effects in the data are shown to add up to a net warming bias, although more precise estimation of its magnitude will require further research.

I'd also like to know if the graph you show uses corrected or raw temperature data. Because if it is already corrected, your argument is circular - since the correction assumes a negligible effect.

urban and rural sensors show very similar changes in temperature

Think about this for a second:
- Central heating
- Air conditioning
- Electrical appliances
- Cars
- Flats
All these things produce a lot of heat.
All these things were introduced/widely adopted during the 20th century.
All these things occur only in urbanized areas.

Rural means there is no significant human development nearby.

So if your raw urban data and rural data show similar changes in temperature, something is obviously wrong.
More likely you're looking at the corrected data. And corrections were made under the assumption the urban heat effect is negligible, so of course that is what the corrected data will show!

P.S. If you're interested in peer-reviewed papers that are sceptical about the global warming effect, forget the climatic journals. Look through statistical journals instead.
Many arguments against global warming effects are from statisticians. Climatologists in general have poor background in statistics, and they often make statistical mistakes.

[Kurioxan]

2. Long term patterns that DO NOT ACCOUNT FOR the present observed effects.

3. Yes, temperature gains are temporary, in geological time scales.

As for "learn basic physics". you appear to have skipped the day they covered the concept of "insulation".

Hmm, what you say is true, but:

2: Long term records sadly, while giving an interesting idea of the general, I dont think are reliable enough as they represent specific areas and cant represent a global scale, its a guesstimate, a good one, but one nonetheless.
Landmasses move, currents shift, microclimates exist...

There is this research published in Scientific American (can find you a link if you want, but do try to look for it :P) in 2010 or 2011, in which geological records inside an underwater cave clearly show that the water levels were lower at the times when co2 were highest, which is an interesting thing to take into consideration if we assume co2 promotes global heating which leads to ice melting and increased water level, according to geological data, it isnt the case.

3: well, honestly in here is where i am against "global warming", not that i disbelieve it, but i see the radical effects its having in our society.
We NEED to reduce emissions, we need to reduce pollution, find sustainable ways, recicle and get alternatives, change the way the world works from such a wasteful, inefficient machine into a good one, that, is not even an argument.
The problem arises when we start making plans to "stop" global warming, I firmly believe that most of those plans would do far more harm than good, and think we should act on the side of caution before we start deliberately messing up with the climate.

Also i think he might be referring to venting atmosphere into space and how an increase in pressure will make it vent faster?
there is also the carbon cycle, co2 is taken out of the air by rain, and co2 is a very common metabolic gas, pretty much anything that is alive and dying produces it, and many un-living sources as well, not sure if the increase of temperature relates to co2 increase, or co2 increase relates to temperature increase?

Good old causation vs correlation...

[McTurbo]

your never going to get people to agree on this topic. the time spans are to large for people to grasp or even care about, and the data is to small a sample.. 30 years of data for a planet thats had life for millions.. sorry unless you can provide temperature readings over at least a million years your not going to get anything more than a "best guess" and that's not science.

[Shmazard]

All the dying vegetation on the planet causes more co2 than cars do.

[Aalyy]

Nobody denies climate change. It's just that some of us aren't arrogant enough to think that humanity alone is causing it. It's happened before.

Three things that can warm the earth: reflectivity, the Sun, and greenhouse gasses. It's not the sun causing the increase, reflectivity is actually cooling, and the overwhelming amount of evidence points to greenhouse gasses being responsible. Now explain what you know about isotopes, the increase in greenhouse gas emission since the Industrial Revolution, and the corresponding increase in mean global temperature. Then explain again how it's "arrogant" to conclude that humans are responsible for the Climate Change we are seeing.

[steveyboy]

What facts? All I read were unproven statements without scientific peer reviewed sources to back them up.

It's impossible to ignore something that isn't there.

Prove global warming is happening over the space of the last 1000 years. You can't. Our climate doesnt change over the space of 10 years, or since the 70s.

You are totally ignorant of the facts.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 05:53 PM ----------

Three things that can warm the earth: reflectivity, the Sun, and greenhouse gasses. It's not the sun causing the increase, reflectivity is actually cooling, and the overwhelming amount of evidence points to greenhouse gasses being responsible. Now explain what you know about isotopes, the increase in greenhouse gas emission since the Industrial Revolution, and the corresponding increase in mean global temperature. Then explain again how it's "arrogant" to conclude that humans are responsible for the Climate Change we are seeing.

The sun does change temputer depending on how many sun spots on it. GO look it up, stop talking out of your arse please.