Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

[Lemonvariable72]

He failed to address the issue with the plateau in warming, and the constant doomsday, then doosmday postponed mentality around this.

Can't refute everything in under 4 minutes. But you shouldn't throw out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps you should spend more time on my first posting. That one's a little more in depth.

And I fail to see what those have to do with anthropomorphic global worming, are those eruptions made by people? Perhaps I should be more clear, I'm on the fence about man made global warming for a number of reasons, First and foremost being the dishonest tactics of the ipcc as well as the repeated failure of there scientific predictions and as the outright lieing exposed by the climategate scandal. There is also dishonest tactic constantly used in the media such as equating skeptics to holocaust deniers and they are often accused of being part of a conspiracy with the oil companies. All of that reeks of global warming being pushed by a agenda, but has little to do with the science behind it all.
Either way we need to move off of fossil fuel and to renewable energy because of peak oil, so I support anything to further renewable energy and get the west off its heroin addiction, it is carbon taxes and carbon trading I'm skeptical of.
Now on to those methane eruptions they are fucking scary. Methane is a far more potent insulator then CO2, and will warm the world much faster. This if it continues long enough could cause a event similiar to the PT event. Also known as the mother of all mass extinctions.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

I changed my mind. I will engage in a "debate" or whatever. It is an important topic after all.

LemonVariable, about climategate, i got this from wiki:

The material comprised more than 1,000 emails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[28] According to an analysis in The Guardian, the vast majority of the emails related to four climatologists: Phil Jones, the head of the CRU; Keith Briffa, a CRU climatologist specialising in tree ring analysis; Tim Osborn, a climate modeller at CRU; and Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. The four were either recipients or senders of all but 66 of the 1,073 emails, with most of the remainder of the emails being sent from mailing lists. A few other emails were sent by, or to, other staff at the CRU. Jones, Briffa, Osborn and Hulme had written high-profile scientific papers on climate change that had been cited in reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[21]
Most of the emails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences.[29] The Guardian's analysis of the emails suggests that the hacker had filtered them. Four scientists were targeted and a concordance plot shows that the words "data", "climate", "paper", "research", "temperature" and "model" were predominant.[21] The controversy has focused on a small number of emails[29] with 'climate sceptic' websites picking out particular phrases, such as one in which Kevin Trenberth said, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20] This was actually part of a discussion on the need for better monitoring of the energy flows involved in short-term climate variability,[30] but was grossly mischaracterised by critics.[31][32]
Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]

I think it is quite obvious they were not covering up anything. It isn't uncommon for scientists to exchange ideas about the best methods to use to analyze data.

About greenhouse gasses, it's not only how well they absorb heat that matters, it's also their halflife and it's also important to consider where their "sinks" are.

[Minimalist]

I suppose 10 million dogs could be pissing on the ice to make it disappear... but no one has seen them.

[-z-]

Is Global Warming a legitimate issue that the world should be concerned with, or is it just a sham?

How can we know? I don't have the resources to verify the claims made on either side of your question. I have to turn to others. The challenge is to open to all quality information, not just what supports your current belief.

Apparently, there is a near consensus among scientists in the field of climatology that anthropic climate change is occurring.(1) I think we should all be very concerned about that.

Overall, the expected effect is global warming. Locally, you might experience cooling, increased or decreased precipitation, drought, flooding, rising sea level (surprisingly, this can be a local effect), as well as all sorts of increased severe weather. Basically, we can expect accelerating climate change with unpredictable consequences.

I recommend watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

--
(1) http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-w...vanced.htm

[popeyespappy]

Because what someone calls it makes a difference whether it is true or not...

I Thought cooling ment cooler temperatures and warming ment higher and that those felt very different. Funny that.

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ! Not this shit again.

Surface warming did not stop in 1998. Below is a graph of the UAH satellite generated surface temperature record. It is compiled by Roy Spencer and John Christi. They are both well know climate change skeptics and their data is the most conservative of all the collections of temperature data. Since it is uses only satellite data it only looks at surface temperatures and does not include what is happening under the surface of the ocean. The ocean by the way is an important part of the climate.





As you can see on the graphs the trend line shows that surface warming didn’t stop after 1998.

[Lemonvariable72]

I Thought cooling ment cooler temperatures and warming ment higher and that those felt very different. Funny that.

Jesus Titty Fucking Christ! Not this shit again.

Surface warming did not stop in 1998. Below is a graph of the UAH satellite generated surface temperature record. It is compiled by Roy Spencer and John Christi. They are both well know climate change skeptics and their data is the most conservative of all the collections of temperature data. Since it is uses only satellite data it only looks at surface temperatures and does not include what is happening under the surface of the ocean. The ocean by the way is an important part of the climate.





As you can see on the graphs the trend line shows that surface warming didn’t stop after 1998.

Now that is a interesting graph. I will have to research more on that.

[Darth]

Erm… That link doesn't take us to that graph directly, mind…?

[popeyespappy]

The link is to the data set. I built the graph from the data set.

[Darth]

The link is to this page: http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
My bad, I stand corrected, the link is in there, didn't look close enough

The link is to the data set. I built the graph from the data set.

Below is a graph of the UAH satellite generated surface temperature record. It is compiled by Roy Spencer and John Christi.

That's not the impression this gave. So they compiled the data, you then created the graph…

[IAmNotHere]

I know that the world temperatures are changing but I am unsure on the specifics. I get annoyed at people who claim that things havent changed...Things are obviously getting hotter in summer.