Is Global Warming fake?

GDnaruto

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
266
Reaction score
16
You can't seriously just say ice age and expect me to believe. of course its still melting, but when statistics are showing that its melting more than half times faster than expected. Don't give me your iceage bull. Give me serious statistics since your the one debating the topic because im willing to believe you if you can prove it. as for my proof, i told you to check tyt on youtube they even give you links to scholarly articles that say whats happening
 

King-Panda

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
251
Got this from a website, will be using this, as people that say it's really true



TEN MYTHS of Global Warming



MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.


MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.



MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.



MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.


MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.


MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.


MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.

FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.

MYTH 8: Global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes.

FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.


MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.

FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.


MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.

FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.

Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
 

Darthlawsuit

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 24, 2010
Messages
3,530
Reaction score
310
Did you read the facts? Our CO2 emissions has decreased, it used to be worse I think, not 100% sure, but yeah as I said there, we should cut in our pollution, but this is dramatized, in order to control people minds and stuff... Like I said increase tazes and that.... We contribute, yes we do, but little, and if we can reduce this contributiom, even better
We also used to have more forests to sequester the CO2. When your CO2 emissions rise and you reduce forests at the same time you cause increases in CO2 in atmosphere.

Our smog emissions also decreased which means more sunlight is hitting the surface. Smog actually reduces the sunlight that hits Earth so it has a cooling effect strangely enough.

Also our sun had went into a low activity level for past 20-30 years. Now each year it will be getting more powerful until it hits its peak.

If we still had the forests we HAD 100 years ago we would be fine.
 

King-Panda

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
251
We also used to have more forests to sequester the CO2. When your CO2 emissions rise and you reduce forests at the same time you cause increases in CO2 in atmosphere.

Our smog emissions also decreased which means more sunlight is hitting the surface. Smog actually reduces the sunlight that hits Earth so it has a cooling effect strangely enough.

Also our sun had went into a low activity level for past 20-30 years. Now each year it will be getting more powerful until it hits its peak.

If we still had the forests we HAD 100 years ago we would be fine.

Well that's why jobs environment related are increasing and in 10-15 years time there will be a high demand!
Also jobs related to finding the resources of energy and such....

So we (humans) are doing our best to reduce the pollution and increase the forest areas

where is the website you got this from?

 

The Immortal God

Banned
Regular
Joined
Nov 6, 2012
Messages
627
Reaction score
22
Global Warming is a natural thing. The Earth has always done it. Once an Ice Age occurs (glacial period) there has to be a time for the Earth to warm up (interglacial period). We are currently in an interglacial period so it is natural that the Earth is warming up (global warming). However, due to human activities we are speeding it up. However, the amount we are speeding it up by isn't even countable. All in all we are bascially turning a say 10,000 year interglacial period (not real length) to say a 9,999 year interglacial period. The government is just exaggerating it waaaaaay to much.
 
Joined
Apr 2, 2012
Messages
199
Reaction score
28
I just read 15 different articles found through out the website above (if you research the site's sources you run into F.O.S. site)

after reading all of those and some other stuff ....I stand corrected, there is alot of interesting info in there and as I know personally how Big Gov can do what they do..it adds to the creditablity of the site.

Unfortunately while reading all the info one thing did remain true. We are not helping as much as we could...and it is something that is being controlled and propagated by "the controlling governments of the world(business)"
 

King-Panda

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
1,996
Reaction score
251
I just read 15 different articles found through out the website above (if you research the site's sources you run into F.O.S. site)

after reading all of those and some other stuff ....I stand corrected, there is alot of interesting info in there and as I know personally how Big Gov can do what they do..it adds to the creditablity of the site.

Unfortunately while reading all the info one thing did remain true. We are not helping as much as we could...and it is something that is being controlled and propagated by "the controlling governments of the world(business)"

nice nice, and about we not helping, I mentioned about it in my last post, cba to write it again ahah
 

drknght

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,464
Reaction score
66
In the place of forest there will be a field of cabbage and it will absorb CO_2 as well.
 

GDnaruto

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
266
Reaction score
16
Now i understand, he writes for the U.S. energy tribune, so of course he is going to disprove what is going on. You were mislead man. His bio says it all, he is a right winged journalist. HAHA, i thought you actually got this from a scientific journal, instead you got it from a freelance journalist working for the british parliamant and u.s. government, you are forgiven. Check the authors bio and contributors before commentating, people get misinformed because of this. The fact his source is from a site named friends of science, just makes me laugh. you're probably gonna say it doesn't matter what the name is but honestly man they got to have an obvious title to lure in gullible people.
 
Last edited:

GDnaruto

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2012
Messages
266
Reaction score
16
What news media are you listening too, where they talk about global warming. That news topic is so miniscule
 

Grim

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
4,491
Reaction score
685
It's hard to tell, but something is going on... still winter in Europe and still summer in Sydney :D work's for me though!
 

Joebama

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
63
Reaction score
8
Sorry to burst your bubble, but climate change is an indisputable and scientifically proven occurrence and people like you are just adding to the problem.
Just don't, seriously.
 

The Fourth

Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
330
Reaction score
32
Found this graph which shows opposing solar and temp activity in the last 35 years:

You must be registered for see images


Over the last 35 years the sun has shown a slight cooling trend. However global temperatures have been increasing. Since the sun and climate are going in opposite directions scientists conclude the sun cannot be the cause of recent global warming.
The only way to blame the sun for the current rise in temperatures is by cherry picking the data. This is done by showing only past periods when sun and climate move together and ignoring the last few decades when the two are moving in opposite direction.

Evidence for Hockeystick argument, can't post it all here:


Atmospheric CO2 PPM:

You must be registered for see images


It's a well known fact that the solubility of CO2 in sea water decreases as temperature increases, atmosphere temp increase -> Co2 comes out of solution from ocean into atmosphere -> vicious cycle. Its also a well known fact that the thermal expansion of water is the main cause for sea level rise and not the melting of the glaciers and polar ice caps.

There seems to be evidence in both directions, my personal view would be that humans are certainly having an effect and IMHO not an overly positive one. Just my $0.02.
 

drknght

Jōnin Strategist 🧠
Regular
Joined
Nov 20, 2011
Messages
1,464
Reaction score
66
Cabbage does not absorb near as much CO2 as a fully developed forest.

If not cabbage then something else. It's good if we have a lot of CO2, because that's what plants need in order to grow. Actually, they oxidize CO2 into sugar, and they make oxygen out of H2O molecules (so it's not like plants make O2 out of CO2). But, the thing is, Earth is an auto-regulating system, climate will change even without asking people for permission. So again, a lot of CO2 is good, not bad. During the carbon era you had maximum amounts of it. Plants were growing, it was warm. Wait until we burn the oil and coal we have, so that we can reach the levels of CO2 from carbon period.
 

Aim64C

Anbu Operative 🎭
Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
3,681
Reaction score
608
Now i understand, he writes for the U.S. energy tribune, so of course he is going to disprove what is going on. You were mislead man. His bio says it all, he is a right winged journalist. HAHA, i thought you actually got this from a scientific journal, instead you got it from a freelance journalist working for the british parliamant and u.s. government, you are forgiven. Check the authors bio and contributors before commentating, people get misinformed because of this. The fact his source is from a site named friends of science, just makes me laugh. you're probably gonna say it doesn't matter what the name is but honestly man they got to have an obvious title to lure in gullible people.



The fact of the matter is that when you treat the "evidence" used to "conclude" that there is a recent global warming trend to the same scrutiny that we use for any other field of science; the argument breaks down.



This is an interesting lesson in climate models:



It's actually quite hilarious:

"Direct tests of climate models tell the same tale. In 2002, Matthew Collins of the UK Hadley Centre used the HadCM3 GCM to generate an artificial climate, and then tested how the HadCM3 fared predicting the very same climate it had generated.28 It fared poorly, even though it was the perfect model. The problem was that tiny uncertainties in the inputs — the starting conditions — rapidly expanded and quickly drove the GCM into incoherence. Even with a perfect model, Collins reported that, “It appears that annual mean global mean temperatures are potentially predictable 1 year in advance and that longer time averages are also marginally predictable 5 and 10 years in advance.” So with a perfect climate model and near-perfect inputs one might someday “potentially [predict]” and “marginally [predict],” but can not yet actually predict 1 year ahead. But with imperfect models, the IPCC predicts 100 years ahead.

Likewise, in a 2006 test of reliability, William Merryfield used 15 GCMs to predict future El Niño-Southern Oscillations (ENSO) in a greenhouse-warmed climate,29 and found that, “Under CO2 doubling, 8 of the 15 models exhibit ENSO amplitude changes that significantly (p<0.1) exceed centennial time scale variability within the respective control runs. However, in five of these models the amplitude decreases whereas in three it increases; hence there is no consensus as to the sign of change.” So of 15 GCMs, seven predicted no significant change, 5 predicted a weaker ENSO, and 3 predicted a stronger ENSO. This result is exactly equivalent to ‘don’t know.’ The 15 GCMs tested by Merryfield were the same ones used by the IPCC to produce its Fourth Assessment Report.

.
.
.

A proper assessment of their physical reliability would include propagating all the parameter uncertainties through the GCMs, and then reporting the total uncertainty.33 I have looked in vain for such a study. No one seems to ever have directly assessed the total physical reliability of a GCM by propagating the parameter uncertainties through it. In the usual physical sciences, an analysis like this is required practice. But not in GCM science, apparently, and so the same people who express alarm about future warming disregard their own profound ignorance."


Emphasis my own.

And then you have individuals like these:



Basically - when the Western World lost the threat of communist invasion and nuclear apocalypse, something bogeyman had to fill the gap. Since drumming up wars against other countries would be a little difficult - a war on industry seemed much more feasible. It had been done before, and the EPA offered the perfect platform to launch from. In times of ubran expansion - reverence for the natural world is a popular thing.

Edit: quoted source apparently had what the forum iterpreted as a tag - fixed.
 
Top