CBS News Confirms... Global Warming is MAN MADE!

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Shivetya
of course its man made...... MAN MADE UP


The real trick is, there is no money in it, research or fixing it, if it were not man made, so what result did you think they would come up with?

Ding ding, global warming has become a big industry for govt researchers. Who the hell is going to come out with findings that will eliminate their job?

If anybody can explain to me why we have more ice on greenland now than they did 1000 years ago and tell me 1000 years ago man caused that warming trend. Then maybe Ill start to really believe in the new religion called Man Made Global Warming.

Otherwise this whole idea we can alter the climate so it doesnt warm sounds about as futile as pissing into the wind. The Earths climate has moved up and down in temperature for billions of years. Only the ego of man can conclude the latest seesaw effect is his own doing and he can stop it.

Do some volume calculations, just simple 'order of magnitude' stuff, and you will see that the CO2 we produce is capable of affecting worldwide levels, and therefore of altering solar energy absorption/reflection ratios.

Methane worries me more, why dont people attack this more?
My theory of course is methane is a byproduct of everybody, not just western nations. Cattle herds in a 3rd world country, we cant be limiting 3rd world progress. Only those ebil western countries with a lot of wealth.

My understanding of Co2 deposits in ice samples is the warming trend happens several decades or centuries after the rise in Co2. In other words the correlation is very small and possible non-existent all together.

We have been putting out substantial CO2 for 'several decades' or more precisely for at least a century - we haven't seen the results of our current CO2 levels yet.

So you are saying that there is a lag between CO2 emissions and actual effects? Does it somehow take 20 years for CO2 emitted today to filter up to the atmosphere to effect us? I'd love to know why you think that what we have done recently hasn't been felt.

Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Considering that cars were a novelty in 1907 and weren't even mass produced for another year, planes had only been around for 4 years, and while there were lots of factories, they weren't as numerous in other countries. I know there are studies which have attempted at correlating fossil fuels with emissions, but they don't show aggregate amounts, nor total effect on the planet.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Sheik Yerbouti
So sad all the people that so vehemently deny that we caused global warming. It's a fact, it's our man made destiny, if you don't believe it, fine, keep your head up your ass, but it's the truth and more information is being disclosed and discovered that confirms this. Check out the front page of USA Today if you get a chance.

Wasn't global cooling a "fact" a couple of decades ago? Wasn't it a "fact" that the world was flat a few centuries ago?

Dont forget another fine example of mans ego.

The sun circled the earth and the entire universe did as well.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Shivetya
of course its man made...... MAN MADE UP


The real trick is, there is no money in it, research or fixing it, if it were not man made, so what result did you think they would come up with?

Ding ding, global warming has become a big industry for govt researchers. Who the hell is going to come out with findings that will eliminate their job?

If anybody can explain to me why we have more ice on greenland now than they did 1000 years ago and tell me 1000 years ago man caused that warming trend. Then maybe Ill start to really believe in the new religion called Man Made Global Warming.

Otherwise this whole idea we can alter the climate so it doesnt warm sounds about as futile as pissing into the wind. The Earths climate has moved up and down in temperature for billions of years. Only the ego of man can conclude the latest seesaw effect is his own doing and he can stop it.

Do some volume calculations, just simple 'order of magnitude' stuff, and you will see that the CO2 we produce is capable of affecting worldwide levels, and therefore of altering solar energy absorption/reflection ratios.

and go look at how much CO2 is pumped out by the Amazon river... but I know you wouldn't want to do that...

I saw an article about it a few years ago and many of the scientist were stunned at how much it pumped out, apparently most rivers do it

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Remember I said in my Global Warming thread that once Republicans lose power then the truth would come out.

Same with the jobs numbers.

innuendo ftw

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Remember I said in my Global Warming thread that once Republicans lose power then the truth would come out.

Same with the jobs numbers.

innuendo ftw

Maybe Dave is admitting Democratic tax and business policy will finally deliver the high unemployment numbers he so desires?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Dont forget another fine example of mans ego.

The sun circled the earth and the entire universe did as well.

Yet we still don't look at the uncountable times that science has been flat-out wrong. It's wrong so often that I see no point in jumping into alarm mode. To study something so vast as the entire global temperature of today AND the past several thousand years in relation to the effects of air and about a million other factors leads me to believe we won't really have an answer (if any, really) until another 50 years or more.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

This graph shows only 400000 years, but the deepest they've drilled is 800000 years, and the same pattern still holds.

So what do you think? Natural or human caused?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

This graph shows only 400000 years, but the deepest they've drilled is 800000 years, and the same pattern still holds.

So what do you think? Natural or human caused?

I conclude that the ice ages and warming after the ice ages had absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

This graph shows only 400000 years, but the deepest they've drilled is 800000 years, and the same pattern still holds.

So what do you think? Natural or human caused?

I conclude that the ice ages and warming after the ice ages had absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

Ah, so this is a big coincidence as well?
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/images/CO2temp.gif

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

This graph shows only 400000 years, but the deepest they've drilled is 800000 years, and the same pattern still holds.

So what do you think? Natural or human caused?

I conclude that the ice ages and warming after the ice ages had absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

Ah, so this is a big coincidence as well?
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/images/CO2temp.gif

Ok, maybe I am reading these charts wrong, but your first chart shows several different ice ages with a near static level of CO2, but your second chart shows temperature almost in synch with CO2 levels. If the latter was the case, then wouldn't we have some of the highest temperatures ever known in the past 200 years, seeing how dramatically the CO2 level has risen? Correct me if I am missing something.

 

[Genx87]

How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Remember I said in my Global Warming thread that once Republicans lose power then the truth would come out.

Same with the jobs numbers.

Yea but you also claimed gas would be $5 a gallon after the elections.

I hereby predict that Castro is going to die!! You heard it hear first folks, when it happens I want all the credit.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: ericlp
Wow, I guess no love for the starving polar bears and penguins eh? Didn't you see Happy Feet?

I'm still trying to get over all of the poor dinosaurs that died, did we cause that too?

Nope but we've done a good job on the whales so far, tigers, elephants, etc.

If you still think climate change has nothing to do with us, or doesn't matter (or both) you really do have your head stuck in the sand.

First of all, species go extinct, its how nature works, get over it.

Second, yea, we probably do have something to do with the climate change, as do all creatures on this planet, the debate is how much we have to do with it. If you think that the wolrd would have no climate change and be a great big garden of eden with no species going extinct and everything living in harmony together if humans weren't here then you really do have yourhead stuck in the sand.

Its been a long time since as many species have gone extinct in as short a time as is currently happening. While some of this has been due to direct human intervention (romans drove the elephants and lions in the m/e to extinction, we killed off the dodo,etc) you can't omit the indirect impact that climate changes has had.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Shivetya
of course its man made...... MAN MADE UP


The real trick is, there is no money in it, research or fixing it, if it were not man made, so what result did you think they would come up with?

Ding ding, global warming has become a big industry for govt researchers. Who the hell is going to come out with findings that will eliminate their job?

If anybody can explain to me why we have more ice on greenland now than they did 1000 years ago and tell me 1000 years ago man caused that warming trend. Then maybe Ill start to really believe in the new religion called Man Made Global Warming.

Otherwise this whole idea we can alter the climate so it doesnt warm sounds about as futile as pissing into the wind. The Earths climate has moved up and down in temperature for billions of years. Only the ego of man can conclude the latest seesaw effect is his own doing and he can stop it.

there was a mini-ice age the coincided with the middle ages, which is when the Glaciers in Glacier national park and elsewhere were created.


And if we really want to attack motives, climate change denial is simple greed.

 

[ProfJohn]

Just a small aside here?
Military (government) intelligent officers believe that Iran may have something to do with the Karbala raid and all the people on the left trip over themselves in claiming the government lies and can?t be trusted.

Government scientists claim global warming is man made and the same people trip over themselves yelling ?see we told you?

Now why is it you believe the government when it comes to high theoretical work on global warming and climate change, and yet totally discount them when it comes to intelligence work? Could it be that you want to believe the global warming story, but don?t want to believe the Iranian connection story? This would seem like a perfect example of internal bias at work here.

I suggest all you Global warming people head over to wikipedia and look up ?ice age? and read about the natural cycle.
Of course none of this excuses us to destroy the earth via pollution. But it also doesn?t mean we should adopt regulations that would cripple our economy. (Even the Clinton administration didn?t like Kyoto because of its effects on our GDP.)

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

This graph shows only 400000 years, but the deepest they've drilled is 800000 years, and the same pattern still holds.

So what do you think? Natural or human caused?

I conclude that the ice ages and warming after the ice ages had absolutely nothing to do with CO2.

Ah, so this is a big coincidence as well?
http://jove.geol.niu.edu/faculty/stoddard/images/CO2temp.gif

Ok, maybe I am reading these charts wrong, but your first chart shows several different ice ages with a near static level of CO2, but your second chart shows temperature almost in synch with CO2 levels. If the latter was the case, then wouldn't we have some of the highest temperatures ever known in the past 200 years, seeing how dramatically the CO2 level has risen? Correct me if I am missing something.

The first one shows only CO2, no temperature. It shows CO2 concentrations oscillating between 200 and 300 parts per million for the last 400k years, then a sharp increase from 300 to 380 from 1800 to 2000. They've drilled down to 3.2km, analyzing the last 800k years and they've yet to see a CO2 concentration of 380ppm.

Now, this CO2 spike has two explanations: natural or man-made. Explaining in terms of human impact is straightforward, but if you want to think its natural, you're going to have to provide a theory that explains it and back it up with data. Needless to say, no one has been able to do this.

The second shows a correlation between CO2 and global temperatures. Here again, you may think that the are unrelated, but this is not the scientific consensus. And if you have a better theory that is backed up by evidence, go ahead a submit your paper, you could become the next Einstein.

And funny you should mention that the CO2 spike should be affecting temperatures, because in the article I read this morning, it said that 11 of the last 12 years were the hottest since records started being kept in the 1850s.


People were speculating in this thread why US schools are so bad, and this thread certainly shows one (if not the biggest) the symptom and cause of that - contempt for science and learning is widespread and encouraged. Here we have hundreds of the world's top climatologists saying one thing, and people with virtually no knowledge dismissing them because what the scientists say doesn't agree with their preconceived, worthless opinions.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Damn, I guess it's for real now. I mean, now we are gonna hear noting but global warming and maybe even Bush might chime in? It's pretty bad we have let it go this far and let the bush administration keep everyone in the dark about the warnings from thousands of scientist.... Amazing... I wonder what else the GOP is keeping from us? Very...very sad. I think this alone should be grounds for impeachment...

Other crimes of the henious (and seemingly all powerful) GOP/Bush administration:

Repression of the Boxer Rebellion
Fat people
Poor people
Smelly people
Suppression of the Loch Ness Monster
Cancer
AIDS
The Spanish Inquisition
Genocide in Africa
Prostate enlargement
The Cubs losing every year
Receding hairlines
That stuff that accumulates in the corner of your eye after sleeping
Hurricanes
Costing Dave more to fill up his yacht
Tasty foods fried in trans-fats

etc....


I say we hang the bastards.

 

[ccbadd]

I say we should go back to the true cause, MEDICINE. If people didn't live so long, we would have taken more time to reach the level of technology we are at. Heck, most of us would be dead by 35 or so. This would have held back the Co2 levels and strain on the vegetation and wildlife of the Earth. I guess it's time to start shooting people on there 40th birthday!! How about just the wacky libs?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Further, I'd love to see your CO2 emissions graph that shows worldwide CO2 levels for the last 100 years, showing exactly how much has been released and that we have had "substantial" amounts since then.

Please provide proof. Otherwise, stop being a fearmongerer.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1c/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

This graph shows only 400000 years, but the deepest they've drilled is 800000 years, and the same pattern still holds.

So what do you think? Natural or human caused?

How come the Vostok ice cores do not show anywhere close to that type of increase?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png


I answered my own question. It's because they utilize three difference methods of air sampling. Vostok cores, another ice core, and finally Mauna Loa air readings.

Why those specific ones? Personally, I am betting that they were more or less cherry picked from the worst samples.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Just a small aside here?
Military (government) intelligent officers believe that Iran may have something to do with the Karbala raid and all the people on the left trip over themselves in claiming the government lies and can?t be trusted.

Government scientists claim global warming is man made and the same people trip over themselves yelling ?see we told you?

Now why is it you believe the government when it comes to high theoretical work on global warming and climate change, and yet totally discount them when it comes to intelligence work? Could it be that you want to believe the global warming story, but don?t want to believe the Iranian connection story? This would seem like a perfect example of internal bias at work here.

I suggest all you Global warming people head over to wikipedia and look up ?ice age? and read about the natural cycle.
Of course none of this excuses us to destroy the earth via pollution. But it also doesn?t mean we should adopt regulations that would cripple our economy. (Even the Clinton administration didn?t like Kyoto because of its effects on our GDP.)

As usual, there's hardly anything that isn't wrong in your post.

1. These climatologists come from all over the world, not just the US.
2. Their work is open to critique and examination. If you ask for proof, they'll give it to you instead of telling you you're a traitor and that revealing anything is a threat to national security.
3. I suggest you read about the differences between natural climate cycles and what is currently happening.
4. I also suggest thinking before you post next time.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Martin

Originally posted by: Genx87
How does one measure the temperature from 200,000 years ago? I am being honest.

btw did anybody else notice Martins graphs contradict each other?
The wiki link shows a particle concentration of nearly 400 while the 2nd graph shows 275 and CO2 and temperature being higher about 130,000 years ago.

No actually, there are no contradictions. The graph simply doesn't show it that well, since its 200 years out of 150000. But here is the same data show in a different manner:
http://ees.etf.bg.ac.yu/Predmeti/EG5OE/Uticaj%20na%20atmosferu_files/atm5.gif

How do they measure temperatures? They drill for ice cores, then measure the composition of the trapped air.

See, this is where these graphs completely lose me.


1. 140k years ago a CO2 levels went from ~180 -> 300. This 66% increase resulted in a 7 degree increase. With *NO* lag time.

2. Temps are about 0 degrees and are flat, yet CO2 levels increase from about 260 to 360, a 38% increase. If we consider the same order of magnatude = same temp increase, whcih is reasonably rationale, we would have already seen a 4 degree increase, not flat.


The reasonable explanation for this is that they are utilizing multiple sources. Vostok core goes until 1999, so why are they suddenly not using it? Why append yet another ice core AND regular air samples? That is very poor scientific process.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: ericlp

Damn, I guess it's for real now. I mean, now we are gonna hear noting but global warming and maybe even Bush might chime in? It's pretty bad we have let it go this far and let the bush administration keep everyone in the dark about the warnings from thousands of scientist.... Amazing... I wonder what else the GOP is keeping from us? Very...very sad. I think this alone should be grounds for impeachment...

Other crimes of the henious (and seemingly all powerful) GOP/Bush administration:

Repression of the Boxer Rebellion
Fat people
Poor people
Smelly people
Suppression of the Loch Ness Monster
Cancer
AIDS
The Spanish Inquisition
Genocide in Africa
Prostate enlargement
The Cubs losing every year
Receding hairlines
That stuff that accumulates in the corner of your eye after sleeping
Hurricanes
Costing Dave more to fill up his yacht
Tasty foods fried in trans-fats

etc....


I say we hang the bastards.

LOL!

 

[GoPackGo]

Dude...when the dinosaurs roamed the earth...the arctic was a rainforest.

 

[Fern]

You are all wrong.

It's the god d@mn lazy effin trees fault. If they'd get on ball and breathe up the CO2, which we so kindly provided for them, there's be no problem.

I really don't see how they've escaped the blame they so rightfully deserve. I guess they have a helluva lobbying group in Washington DC.

(Waiting for Dave to tell me that the trees are Republican, and ericlp to say this is another thing the GOP is keeping from us)

Fern