Global warming sticky

[HyperionX]

If you check up on the history of the GW discussion on this board you'll find that all credible and properly made arguments all support the notion that GW is real and well-supported. Any good and thorough research you do on the subject of GW will basically lead you to the same conclusion. However, this issue is often challenge, usually with poor or discredible information. Thus, I propose that we simply sticky a thread on global warming where we basically lay out the evidence for and against so we don't have to debate this subject over and over again.

[Xero Cool Down]

Most of the argument is not necessarily whether or not global warming is occuring, but rather why it is occuring. This is a subject that not all scientist agree on, especially since they are still collecting and analyzing data concerning how the environment naturally changes and how man made pollution affects the environment. From what I have personally seen in research papers the Earth's temperature changes naturally over the course of centuries, fluxuating by a degree on average, due to changes in the sun. If you look at data collected from 1880 to 1940 the Earth's temperature warmed as much as it has in the last 30-40 years, and we know that that was not comming from CO2 produced by man. The problem is that it man made CO2 has reached levels that are artificially keeping the temperature of the Earth from going back down (or at least making it go up faster than it should.) To stop this we need to reduce emissions of CO2 by around 50-60% and methane by 15-20%, otherwise our global average temp is going to go up about 0.5 degrees F over the next 100 years.


The reason I bring this up is because most people that argue about global warming don't argue that it isn't occuring, simply that it isn't due to pollutants produced by man, which is only partially true.

[Xero Cool Down]

I'd also like to note that some scientists believe that human production of greenhouse gases has not signifigantly affected the environment at all, and that all of the warming we are experiencing is due to changes in the sun. This could be true, but I'd rather be on the safe side and attempt to reduce emissions over the next few decades. Note that I say decades and not just a few years. Unless evidence comes out that with quite a signifigant degree of surity that global warming is mostly the fault of human pollutant production I see no reason to ruin our economy by signing on to such treaties as the Kyoto.

Even if it comes out that human production of pollutants is mostly not at fault for global warming, at least reducing the amount of CO2 production will improve local environments and hopefully lead us to use power sources that make us less dependent on nations that control the vast majority of the world oil reserves.

[HyperionX]

You know Xero, you're the reason why I'm trying to put up a GW sticky. While solar output seems to have affected the climate before, there is absolutely no credible evidence that it is the cause now (and plenty of evidence that it isn't). Ok, let me clarify a little bit about GW: Yes, the actually occurrence of GW is itself virtually undisputable. The cause may be disputable, however in reality you really can't. It is almost certain or at least very very likely that human activities are the cause, in lieu of any other explanable causes.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Whether of not global warming is caused by humans almost doesn't matter. It's happening and if it goes to far the result will be disaster.

Besides, it seems implausible that it's not; the greenhouse effect is known physics,and I find it unlikely that other natural factors will just happen to precisely counter human contributions.

Human caused or not, we need to to something.

As far as a sticky goes, I think it's a good idea. It's an important topic that tends to be drowned in an endless rehashing of discredited rhetoric.

[SirNitram]

So if we throw out literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers on the subject, we can say it's not necessarily our fault, so let's throw petroleum onto that burning fire!

Madness.

[Xero Cool Down]

You know Xero, you're the reason why I'm trying to put up a GW sticky. While solar output seems to have affected the climate before, there is absolutely no credible evidence that it is the cause now (and plenty of evidence that it isn't). Ok, let me clarify a little bit about GW: Yes, the actually occurrence of GW is itself virtually undisputable. The cause may be disputable, however in reality you really can't. It is almost certain or at least very very likely that human activities are the cause, in lieu of any other explanable causes.

The fact that global warming was occuring before we started dumping massing amounts of CO2 is proof that global warming is not entirely do to human production of greenhouse gases.

[Xero Cool Down]

Whether of not global warming is caused by humans almost doesn't matter. It's happening and if it goes to far the result will be disaster.

Besides, it seems implausible that it's not; the greenhouse effect is known physics,and I find it unlikely that other natural factors will just happen to precisely counter human contributions.

Human caused or not, we need to to something.

As far as a sticky goes, I think it's a good idea. It's an important topic that tends to be drowned in an endless rehashing of discredited rhetoric.

It does matter in that if it is due in whole or in part to a natural cycle of warming or cooling then it means that we don't have to take as drastic of an effort to cut emissions. I'm not saying that we don't need to do something or that their are no consequences to it, just that we don't need to jump to conclusions when their is still argument among credible scientists as to the causes.

[Xero Cool Down]

So if we throw out literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers on the subject, we can say it's not necessarily our fault, so let's throw petroleum onto that burning fire!

Madness.

Quit being a fucking idiot, that's not what I said or meant, which is quite evident if you would actually pay attention to what I posted. We do need to cut emissions of greenhouse gases, but our production of them is not the sole cause for global warming.

[HyperionX]

You know Xero, you're the reason why I'm trying to put up a GW sticky. While solar output seems to have affected the climate before, there is absolutely no credible evidence that it is the cause now (and plenty of evidence that it isn't). Ok, let me clarify a little bit about GW: Yes, the actually occurrence of GW is itself virtually undisputable. The cause may be disputable, however in reality you really can't. It is almost certain or at least very very likely that human activities are the cause, in lieu of any other explanable causes.

The fact that global warming was occuring before we started dumping massing amounts of CO2 is proof that global warming is not entirely do to human production of greenhouse gases.

Which is blatantly false. Show me the evidence first if you're going to make such an idiot claim.

Just my luck, I'm trying to make a permanent way to show the truth to those who aren't aware and suddenly some one jumps in with that same ignorance I'm trying to stamp out.

[Xero Cool Down]

Which is blatantly false. Show me the evidence first if you're going to make such an idiot claim.

First graph on the page. Hope NASA is a credible enough source for you.

Just my luck, I'm trying to make a permanent way to show the truth to those who aren't aware and suddenly some one jumps in with that same ignorance I'm trying to stamp out.

If you are trying to stamp out ignorance I suggest you start backing your statements up in some way instead of just assuming that everyone agrees with you.

[El Moose Monstero]

Which is blatantly false. Show me the evidence first if you're going to make such an idiot claim.

First graph on the page. Hope NASA is a credible enough source for you.

Erm, what is that trying to prove exactly? That first graph is dated from the 1880's. Hate to break it to you, but before the 1900's was a little thing called the Industrial Revolution. How about this one?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf - about page 34. What you should be looking at there is an Intergovernmental protocol on climate change modelled graph reconstructed from ice cores and other sources of the global temperature over the past 1000 years. Granted, the further back we go, the margin of error is a little larger, but the 1600 - 2000 data is probably reliable enough. What we've got there is a rather obvious upwards trend that begins about 1880. This admittedly coincides with two major volcanic eruptions, and I'm not going to deny that volcanic output can have a much larger effect on global warming than human output (the ontong java plateau eruptions of the Cretaceous caused an estimated 10 degree increase in global temperature due to CO2 output). The difference is, that is natural.

Now lets scroll back on that report to page 7, where we see a graph showing modelled results since 1800 taking into account natural forcing and finding an unaccounted for increase which can be explained by additional forcing from human sources (see the bottom graph, which matches the observed and modelled results much closer).

Admittedly, some scientists have claimed that it was due to sun spots, but I seem to recall a paper from Scripps which was posted on here a few months back which discredited the sunspot theory. This occurred in rough coincidence with two studies at seperate institutions which claimed that the outcome had laid the blame for the rise in global temperatures over the past 200 years squarely at our own doorstep.

[Prozac the Robert]

Not that my say carries any weight, but I think the sticky is a good idea.

[HyperionX]

Thanks a lot El Moose Monstero. You're a real help.

In fact I too have argued with people with virtually the exact same points that Xenos raised: Sunspots, previous warming trends not caused by humans, etc. Frankly I'm tired of it. No one has yet to come up with a single new piece of evidence against global warming in a while and I think it's time to simply flat lay out the evidence and show why GW is real, and humans are causing it.

[Xero Cool Down]

Erm, what is that trying to prove exactly? That first graph is dated from the 1880's. Hate to break it to you, but before the 1900's was a little thing called the Industrial Revolution. How about this one?

The Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century wasn't dumping nearly as much greenhouse gas into the environment as the world began to in the 1940's and on as the automobile became so popular. If we were still putting CO2 into environment at the rate we were in the late 19th and early 20th century there would be very little noticable difference in the average global temperature since both the ocean and vegatation would be absorbing most of it.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf - about page 34. What you should be looking at there is an Intergovernmental protocol on climate change modelled graph reconstructed from ice cores and other sources of the global temperature over the past 1000 years. Granted, the further back we go, the margin of error is a little larger, but the 1600 - 2000 data is probably reliable enough. What we've got there is a rather obvious upwards trend that begins about 1880.

That very same graph shows that the world's average temperature was higher up till the 14th century, the late seventeen hundreds, and at numerous points inbetween than it was until around 1950, proving my point that global warming and cooling occurs naturally and that it wasn't until the 1940's and 50's that the world's production of greenhouse gases exceeded the world's ability to naturally absorb them.

This admittedly coincides with two major volcanic eruptions, and I'm not going to deny that volcanic output can have a much larger effect on global warming than human output (the ontong java plateau eruptions of the Cretaceous caused an estimated 10 degree increase in global temperature due to CO2 output). The difference is, that is natural.

Which is what I have been saying. The point HyperionX is arguing is that no global warming has ever occured naturally and that it is all due to human production of greenhouse gases.

Now lets scroll back on that report to page 7, where we see a graph showing modelled results since 1800 taking into account natural forcing and finding an unaccounted for increase which can be explained by additional forcing from human sources (see the bottom graph, which matches the observed and modelled results much closer).

If you will read my fucking posts I have said that human production of wastes has been forcing the global temperature to increase. However the article you linking shows, like I have been saying, that human production of wastes is not the only cause of global warming, and that the earth has naturally gone through periods of global warming that having only been exceeded in the last 60 years.

Admittedly, some scientists have claimed that it was due to sun spots, but I seem to recall a paper from Scripps which was posted on here a few months back which discredited the sunspot theory. This occurred in rough coincidence with two studies at seperate institutions which claimed that the outcome had laid the blame for the rise in global temperatures over the past 200 years squarely at our own doorstep.

The article you just linked to lists "solar irradiance" along with volcanos as a cause for natural production of greenhouse gases. It also shows that the temperatures we have now have only exceeded what we have had more than half of the last 1000 years in the last 50-60 years.

[Xero Cool Down]

Thanks a lot El Moose Monstero. You're a real help.

With all due respect to El Moose Monstero, he needs to learn to read a graph correctly.

In fact I too have argued with people with virtually the exact same points that Xenos raised: Sunspots, previous warming trends not caused by humans, etc.

The article El Moose Monstero linked to shows that solar irradiance does affect global temperature, it also shows that there have been previous trends of global warming. I suggest that you read the article and look at the graphs on the last two pages of it.

Frankly I'm tired of it.

Tired of it? You seem to do very little to prove your case and spend most of your time agreeing with others. Your not putting a whole lot of effort forth, and that tells me that you are either lazy and really don't care enough about the issue to put any time into researching it, or you are simply to stupid and stubborn to admitt that you might wrong about the subject.

No one has yet to come up with a single new piece of evidence against global warming in a while and I think it's time to simply flat lay out the evidence and show why GW is real, and humans are causing it.

No one (or at least not me) is arguing that global warming is not occuring or that humans are not contributing it, simply that we are not the sole cause of it.

[Xero Cool Down]

"solar irradiance" along with volcanos as a cause for natural production of greenhouse gases.

Edit: Should be


"solar irradiance" along with volcanos as a cause for increase in global temperature. Solar irradiance does not produce greenhouse gases.

[El Moose Monstero]

It seems I owe you an apology then, as I did misread your posts; reading them as trying to argue that the immediate global warming and cooling trends of the past millenia are comparable to anthropogenic output and hence why should we worry instead of what you just described there.

Yes, I can read a graph, and I do see those spikes of temperature changes, however, as you yourself pointed out, the only definate deviation and upwards trend begins around 1900, so it's not just a case of it being exceeded, but that it's actually trending upwards from the rough average which you could draw through the modelled/observed data for 1000-2000. That's roughly what I was trying to get to I think, I thought you were arguing that since natural global warming had made the earth hotter in the past, then we shouldn't worry about what it's doing now.

And yes, you're right, I think the global carbon excess from anthropogenic sources is about 2 gigatons per year which can't be removed by the various sinks.

Re: the solar irradiance stuff, that article is the synthesis report from 2001, whilst I believe the scripps global sea surface temperature analysis is from late 2004 and represents a more detailed study. Can't provide you with anything more on that one though, I doubt it's available on our journal search engines at uni.

My apologies for not reading your posts correctly, I feel sufficiently like a prick now, thank you.

[HyperionX]

In fact I too have argued with people with virtually the exact same points that Xenos raised: Sunspots, previous warming trends not caused by humans, etc.

The article El Moose Monstero linked to shows that solar irradiance does affect global temperature, it also shows that there have been previous trends of global warming. I suggest that you read the article and look at the graphs on the last two pages of it.
[/quote]

I suggest you get your eyes checked. There are no previous global warming trends dating back a thousands years. All of those in the past were neither sustained trends nor very large and quickly went back to normal anyways. Solar irradiance was definitely one of the cause of climate change in the past but the claim that it is now is almost completely false.

Frankly I'm tired of it.

Tired of it? You seem to do very little to prove your case and spend most of your time agreeing with others. Your not putting a whole lot of effort forth, and that tells me that you are either lazy and really don't care enough about the issue to put any time into researching it, or you are simply to stupid and stubborn to admitt that you might wrong about the subject.

Why don't you search back on this board of my previous debates with global warming naysayers. Or even better just look at the general course of nearly all GW debates on this board. In fact recently on the New & Politics board one such broke out and ended (when I stopped read) with a ridculously lopsided win for the GW supporters. Read it yourself and see why GW sticky is so necessary.

I as well as other have clearly laid out this argument before with good sources and I'm not willing to do it again. This is get VERY repetitive. IMO all GW naysayers have been idiots or ignoramouses, and you're not shaping up any different. This is why I'm proposing this GW sticky; it's for idiots like you.

No one has yet to come up with a single new piece of evidence against global warming in a while and I think it's time to simply flat lay out the evidence and show why GW is real, and humans are causing it.

No one (or at least not me) is arguing that global warming is not occuring or that humans are not contributing it, simply that we are not the sole cause of it.

Not this canard again. It is us primarily, there is a huge amount of evidence for this, and everything is pretty minor if not zero or even negative, and there is big evidence for this too. Any claim not to this effect is a red herring.

[Xero Cool Down]

My apologies for not reading your posts correctly, I feel sufficiently like a prick now, thank you.

No problem, I've done the same in the past myself. Sorry I've taking out my annoyance with HyperidotX on you.

[Xero Cool Down]

I suggest you get your eyes checked. There are no previous global warming trends dating back a thousands years.

And there are no Americans in Bagdad, indeed our glorious army is at this very moment fighting them on the shores of Maryland.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

All of those in the past were neither sustained trends nor very large and quickly went back to normal anyways.

READ THE FUCKING GRAPH.

Solar irradiance was definitely one of the cause of climate change

Oh so solar irradiance does affect global temperature? Well know that is completely different from what you have said before.

in the past but the claim that it is now is almost completely false.

You have just acknowledged that it has affected it in the past, the burden of proof is on you show it doesn't now.

Why don't you search back on this board of my previous debates with global warming naysayers. Or even better just look at the general course of nearly all GW debates on this board. In fact recently on the New & Politics board one such broke out and ended (when I stopped read) with a ridculously lopsided win for the GW supporters. Read it yourself and see why GW sticky is so necessary.

Well I actually did try until I noticed that nearly every one of your posts was in the Gaming forum and it was going to take forever to find it.

I like the way you conviently side step the fact that I have repeatedly said that I am not arguing the fact that global warming is occuring, shows that you really are just a me-tooer with no real knowledge of the subject at hand.

I as well as other have clearly laid out this argument before with good sources and I'm not willing to do it again. This is get VERY repetitive. IMO all GW naysayers have been idiots or ignoramouses, and you're not shaping up any different. This is why I'm proposing this GW sticky; it's for idiots like you.

If you didn't want to repeat yourself you shouldn't have started the thread. What, did you expect to start the thread and have everyone else do the work for you?

Not this canard again. It is us primarily, there is a huge amount of evidence for this, and everything is pretty minor if not zero or even negative, and there is big evidence for this too. Any claim not to this effect is a red herring.

You know, I looked at that sentence for about 10 minutes, and I still can't figure out what the fuck you were trying to say. What the hell is "everything?"

[Xero Cool Down]

I as well as other have clearly laid out this argument before with good sources and I'm not willing to do it again.

Hmmm well I just wasted 15 minutes going through all of your posts. Seems that you have posted one link to a news article about global warming, and most of your arguments consist of "You're full of shit, I'm right, everyone agrees with me, and you know it!"

[HyperionX]

I suggest you get your eyes checked. There are no previous global warming trends dating back a thousands years.

And there are no Americans in Bagdad, indeed our glorious army is at this very moment fighting them on the shores of Maryland.

READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE.

All of those in the past were neither sustained trends nor very large and quickly went back to normal anyways.

READ THE FUCKING GRAPH.

Get your fucking eyes checking you retard. Jesus, do people see only what they want to see?

Solar irradiance was definitely one of the cause of climate change

Oh so solar irradiance does affect global temperature? Well know that is completely different from what you have said before.

in the past but the claim that it is now is almost completely false.

You have just acknowledged that it has affected it in the past, the burden of proof is on you show it doesn't now.

No you fucking retard. It has already been shown that it isn't the cause now. In fact, it has been shown that global dimming exists, mean we should be cooling down, not warming up based on solar irradiance. The burden of proof is exclusively on you.

Why don't you search back on this board of my previous debates with global warming naysayers. Or even better just look at the general course of nearly all GW debates on this board. In fact recently on the New & Politics board one such broke out and ended (when I stopped read) with a ridculously lopsided win for the GW supporters. Read it yourself and see why GW sticky is so necessary.

Well I actually did try until I noticed that nearly every one of your posts was in the Gaming forum and it was going to take forever to find it.

I like the way you conviently side step the fact that I have repeatedly said that I am not arguing the fact that global warming is occuring, shows that you really are just a me-tooer with no real knowledge of the subject at hand.

Use the archive forum. I hope your smart enough to find it.

I as well as other have clearly laid out this argument before with good sources and I'm not willing to do it again. This is get VERY repetitive. IMO all GW naysayers have been idiots or ignoramouses, and you're not shaping up any different. This is why I'm proposing this GW sticky; it's for idiots like you.

If you didn't want to repeat yourself you shouldn't have started the thread. What, did you expect to start the thread and have everyone else do the work for you?

No point in doing some again and again. Besides, this is the suggestion thread of a GW sticky, only that you like a dumbfuck want to come to in and prove exactly why such a thing is necessary.

Not this canard again. It is us primarily, there is a huge amount of evidence for this, and everything is pretty minor if not zero or even negative, and there is big evidence for this too. Any claim not to this effect is a red herring.

You know, I looked at that sentence for about 10 minutes, and I still can't figure out what the fuck you were trying to say. What the hell is "everything?"

"Everything else" is what I meant to say. I apologize for any confusion, but there's no edit function allow in this board.

[HyperionX]

Ok, nevermind about the archive forum, it's apparently gone since the server upgrade it seems. Just search for me and global warming. They are big threads so you'll have to look through them.

[Xero Cool Down]

Get your fucking eyes checking you retard. Jesus, do people see only what they want to see?

I'm prefectly capable of seeing, and, unlike you, capable of correctly interpeting the graphs.

No you fucking retard. It has already been shown that it isn't the cause now.

Show me a credible source.

In fact, it has been shown that global dimming exists, mean we should be cooling down, not warming up based on solar irradiance. The burden of proof is exclusively on you.

"It has been shown?" Do you even hear yourself? Part of debating any subject is showing proof to back up your statements, which you seem to be incapable of doing.

Use the archive forum. I hope your smart enough to find it.

Don't need to. I looked at all of your posts and you linked to a grand total of one page trying to show something about global warming, and that link was broken, so I don't even know what that was.

No point in doing some again and again. Besides, this is the suggestion thread of a GW sticky, only that you like a dumbfuck want to come to in and prove exactly why such a thing is necessary.

No point in proving your point eh?



HyperionX you are entirely missing the point, and have shown yourself to not even be capable of debating in a rational manner.