Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Lord Blood

Lord Blood

There's been a sudden drop in temperature all throughout the US. Not to mention that it was snowing in the Tri-state area and beyond. Now you may be wondering, what is wrong with snow in the tri-state area, but need I remind you that this is October, the temperature outside is like 55 degrees... Not exactly a Christmas morning if you ask me.

So, my question to you Smogonites is, What's happening to Mother Earth, is she going through Global Warming or Global Cooling?

Here's an article I found that relates to Global cooling and it's rates: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/superfreakonomics_global_cooli.php

Discuss.

(I'll add more links if I can find some.)
 
An effect of Global Warming is colder winters. That's why it's sometimes referred to as Climate Change, to be more accurate. So, to answer your question, it's both global warming and global cooling.
 
Most physicists say that 90% of the climate changes is most likely due to Global Warming and the amount of CO2 in the air we produce.

Come on Al Gore advocates, let's see what kind of bullshit you try to produce.
And to people who try to deny Global Warming, look at asia, and downtown LA during 6pm, and TELL me that Global Warming ISN'T real.

I believe it is real to an extent, but I don't believe all the evidence there is to it.
 
Sure, Global Warming is valid as a trend if you look at it in the thousands of years. In the last few decades, it's been cooling; that's why they've changed their catch-phrase from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Of course, they still haven't shown anything beyond a correlation between human activity and global temperatures.
 
b0b3rt said:
Sure, Global Warming is valid as a trend if you look at it in the thousands of years. In the last few decades, it's been cooling; that's why they've changed their catch-phrase from Global Warming to Climate Change.
Click to expand...

That must be news to NASA...

Fig.A2.lrg.gif


EDIT: If "they" refers to Republican political consultant Frank Luntz, then yes, "they" have changed their catchphrase.
 
b0b3rt said:
Sure, Global Warming is valid as a trend if you look at it in the thousands of years. In the last few decades, it's been cooling; that's why they've changed their catch-phrase from Global Warming to Climate Change.

Of course, they still haven't shown anything beyond a correlation between human activity and global temperatures.
Click to expand...

Please explain why the UN and most physicists who are definitely more knowledgable about the subject about Global Warming, say that it is 90% sure that we are causing global warming, and that 10% is because of the normal climate shift. The odds?

Furthermore, the amount of carbon emissions we spew out is disgusting. China builds a giga watt coal power plant every week to supply their nation. Can you imagine how much carbon emission they're emitting? Are you too stupid to realize that we ARE having an adverse effect on the earth?

Of course you haven't shown anything except a statement saying that Global Warming exists. Please explain why and back it up with evidence.
 
In other news, CO2 and global temperature have nothing to do with each other:

tempvsco267m.png


67 million years.... or 30 years of data that I could have gotten out of the Farmer's Almanac instead of a hi-tech Global Climate Model.

Hmmm....

Also SSBMRoy's graph is slighty outdated:

2coomlw.gif


Ooops. Thanks WattsUp.

Now, can you warmists please stop saying we're all going to die and put on your winter boots so you won't catch cold?

Oh, and stop trying to ban incandescent light bulbs to boost sales of the portable toxic waste dumps known as CFLs.

And none of these even include that odd Medieval Warming Period.

Now maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I prefer the most obvious explanation, the source of 98% of planet earth's heat and light.

20081229Sunspot_Activity.jpg

20081229_390_Years_of_Sunspot_Observations.jpg


I know it's not romantic. But then, statist goals backed up by fraud isn't romantic either.

An effect of Global Warming is colder winters. That's why it's sometimes referred to as Climate Change, to be more accurate. So, to answer your question, it's both global warming and global cooling.
Click to expand...

The Red Sox losing to the Angels and dropping out of the playoffs must also be an effect of Global Warming. Everything is. There is no possible effect that could disprove global warming, all roads lead back to global warming.

Colder winters? Global warming.

Warmer winters? Global warming.

Moderate winters? Global warming!

Edit: To clarify: Climate Change is worthless as a term. We'll have as much luck fighting "global climate change" as we will high and low tides.

My advice for dealing with earth's ever-changing climate: When it's cold, get a jacket. When it's warm, take it off.
 
So....your telling me that producing hundreds of tons of CO2 a year will have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the Earth? Ever?

That's like saying dumping fuel onto a fire will not effect it at all. Ever.

And Sunspots are cooler areas of the sun. How is their appearance heating the Earth? Or am I mis-reading the graph?

67 million years ago? How did they go that far back?
 
From the opposing viewpoints ive seen I would have to say I do not agree with Global Warming.

IF they are gonna use graphs for their arguments to prove that CO2 has an effect on climate, at least explain why CO2 lags behind temperature in laymen terms as well as everything else the scientists have found out.

Literally the ONLY arguments ive read about for global warming just go to this damn graph to get people convinced when at a glance it doesnt even make sense.

Maybe its just my luck finding graph based arguments but this is my stance on the matter and am open to opposing viewpoints, however as of now this is what I see.
 
We are still warming up from the last ice age, so it's probably still going to get hotter. This is all part of Earth's natural climate cycles, and should not be cause for alarm. Of course, the people pushing global warming aren't too keen on that idea, as it ruins their plan to spread panic and unrest. Why does everyone freak out over things like these?
 
WaterBomb said:
We are still warming up from the last ice age, so it's probably still going to get hotter. This is all part of Earth's natural climate cycles, and should not be cause for alarm. Of course, the people pushing global warming aren't too keen on that idea, as it ruins their plan to spread panic and unrest. Why does everyone freak out over things like these?
Click to expand...


The Earth's natural cycles are irrelevant. Once again:

Tell me how we can dump hundreds of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere with ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the Earth.

We can make graphs all day, but until someone explains this ^ logically, I will not sway from my position.
 
MetalGearSamus said:
So....your telling me that producing hundreds of tons of CO2 a year will have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the Earth? Ever?
Click to expand...

First, water vapor is the king of greenhouse gases. Second, we're at a point where additional CO2 has negligible effect on its percentage in parts per million in the atmosphere.

Finally, I don't think you understand the scale on which humanity operates. The earth has 5,973,700,000,000,000,000,000 metric tons of mass, 75% of its surface is covered in water (whose evaporation causes water vapor, the big blue giant of greenhouse gasses). Humanity, especially developed humanity, is an insignificant spec on this planet's inhabitable land area. Humans as a whole occupy an area about a mile thick in a planet over 60 miles deep.

There are single volcanic eruptions that have spewed more toxins into earth's atmosphere than humanity could ever hope to muster, even if it were run by the Rogue's Gallery of Captain Planet. Earth remained, and remains habitable.

That's like saying dumping fuel onto a fire will not effect it at all. Ever.
Click to expand...

No, warmist doomsaying is akin to suggestion a single drop of water will cause a flash flood, killing all inhabitants unless we drastically cut back the production of Hummers and harmless incandescent light bulbs. Humanity is also not the sole producer of CO2. I'm assuming you exhale. Therefore your very breath is a vile toxin, at least if you buy into this junk. The planet has multiple mechanisms for reprocessing CO2, not the least of which being plant life. This is 3rd grade science textbook, animals inhale oxygen, exhale CO2, plants absorb CO2 and vent oxygen. Warmists would have you believe you and every living creature on earth is destroying the planet simply by drawing breath and passing gas.

And Sunspots are cooler areas of the sun. How is their appearance heating the Earth? Or am I mis-reading the graph?
Click to expand...

You're mis-reading the graph, less sunspots = less solar activity, meaning colder temperatures.

67 million years ago? How did they go that far back?
Click to expand...

Ice cores, as explained in the graph heading. Modern climate technology has only been available for about 50 years. 50 years is a laughable amount of time to project into a planetary disaster.

Whether the planet is warming or cooling is irrelevant. I am not as easily compelled to "do something" about something I have zero control over, and I'm certainly not going to let equally powerless people curtail my liberty just because in their religious zeal, they believe by enacting tyrannical and frivolous laws and killing economic prosperity that mother Gaia will be saved.
 
an interesting little aside here, the milankovich hypothesis states that earth gradually goes through periods of heat and cooling naturally every 400,000 years or so due to eccentricities in the earth's orbit. i'm not saying that this disproves global warming via co2 or anything, just something else to mull over.

i for one don't really give a shit about global warming long term, to be quite honest, i just find the whole process fascinating
 
Deck Knight said:
No, warmist doomsaying is akin to suggestion a single drop of water will cause a flash flood, killing all inhabitants unless we drastically cut back the production of Hummers and harmless incandescent light bulbs. Humanity is also not the sole producer of CO2. I'm assuming you exhale. Therefore your very breath is a vile toxin, at least if you buy into this junk. The planet has multiple mechanisms for reprocessing CO2, not the least of which being plant life. This is 3rd grade science textbook, animals inhale oxygen, exhale CO2, plants absorb CO2 and vent oxygen. Warmists would have you believe you and every living creature on earth is destroying the planet simply by drawing breath and passing gas.
Click to expand...

Just saying that when plants/animals eventually die, the carbon is released as they decompose.
Though I agree thoroughly with your stand point. Bio fuels are a joke, the amount of rain forests cut down to plant the sugar cane for this supposed 'ecologically friendly fuel' is phenomenal. The lower carbon output fuel vs loss non renewable, carbon sinks know as forests? Hmmm.
 
To exemplify Deck Knight's level of discourse, his first graph appears to have been created by a random commentor named Bill Illis on Anthony Watts' (himself a former meterorologist with no scientific credentials) blog. Now, actual scientists (like the ones at the IPCC) may not be professional enough to add arrows pointing to dinosaurs to the edges of their graphs, but I'd say they retain an edge in credibility.
 
MetalGearSamus said:
The Earth's natural cycles are irrelevant. Once again:

Tell me how we can dump hundreds of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere with ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on the Earth.

We can make graphs all day, but until someone explains this ^ logically, I will not sway from my position.
Click to expand...

I never said we're not affecting it AT ALL, I'm saying that what we are dumping is not causing global warming. The real damage humans are causing is rapid deforestation, but even the decreased oxygen and increased CO2 from human activities is not enough to actually cause the climate to warm. I don't think you really understand the sheer amount of CO2 we'd have to pump out in order to alter the overall climate even by a little bit. We don't possess the technology to create that amount even if we WANTED to.

As you can see through history, the planet has gone through periods of warming and cooling. The cooling culminates in our Ice Ages, and the warming melts all the glaciers and restores the oceans to their natural equilibrium with the land. This has happened many times over the long life of this planet, which I am sure you learned in grade school.

Notice how the people who push global warming as a human effect are much more vocal than those saying it's part of the natural cycle? These people are simply conspiracy theorists trying to incite panic and gain the spotlight. More money is to be made when people panic.

Now, this is all not to say that we can't help our environment by reducing toxic emissions, but to say that it is actually affecting the climate is like saying a man can lift a 20 ton boulder. It's just not enough to do anything.
 
I haven't done enough research on the topic to actually participate in this discussion, but according to the polls, something like 90% of climatologists (biologists and engineers do not have a relevant opinion) support the idea of man-caused global warming. Hardly some crazy conspiracy theorists. If you're going to argue against man-caused (by the way, this doesn't mean it's solely caused by man, but it means that man is making a natural process so much worse - picture a marble rolling gently down an uneven table, then humans picking up the legs of that table and having the marble roll right off) global warming, fine, but you're arguing against the general scientific community, not just a couple outspoken nutjobs.

Edit: It's actually closer to 97%. A larger percentage of climatologists support man-caused global warming than biologists support evolution.
 
What causes climate change is irrelevant with regard to the standard arguments.

Consider the following statements:

If something has a negative effect on humanity, humanity should do something to stop it.

Regardless of the reason, climate change is happening.

Climate change has a negative effect on humanity.

Therefore, we should do something to stop it.

Simple logical argument. I don't care if the cause is volcanic activity, sunspots, carbon dioxide, water vapor, or same-sex marriage, the argument for whether we should do something still holds true.

The argument that the total of water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than the amount of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere each year is incredibly misleading. Greenhouse gases are not bad. If we had no greenhouse gases, the side of the earth facing away from the sun would freeze every night, and the side facing the sun wouldn't get that warm, either. Clearly, some amount of greenhouse gas is essential.

This is why looking at the total numbers is misleading. All modern life has adapted to living at roughly the current temperature. The amount of water vapor in the air, sunspots on the sun, and volcanic activity are all roughly constant and beyond our control (volcanic activity is slowing, I know, but the rate of decline is on a geological scale. also I'm not entirely sure that the water vapor and sunspot activity are constant, I'm just assuming). In other words, we have adapted to whatever the climate was prior to us.

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is not in question (see: Venus). It is obvious, therefore, that an increase in CO2 means an increase in global temperatures. It really doesn't matter how small of an effect it has relative to the effect of all the water vapor in the air, what matters is that the increase leads to a change. As we've already established, a change in climate is bad for humanity. Therefore, taking measures to counteract CO2 emissions is a good thing.

/edit: My proposed measure to counteract CO2 emissions does not rely on long-term regulation like cap-and-trade or geosequestration. Instead, I would rather spend money now to develop better energy technology. China (and everyone else in the world) would instantly stop building coal-powered plants if someone came up with a better technology. Improve the power of nuclear power, for instance. There are ways to avoid the "Everyone has the bomb now!" argument with reactor design. You can create nuclear reactors that use different fuels than nuclear bombs. They can, by design, never spit out any weaponizable material.

In other words, people don't pollute because it's fun, they do it because it's profitable. Make a solution that is cleaner and more profitable and people will make the switch.
 
This topic is a good example of why journalists should be educated in what they cover. If people get their information from people who use Global Warming and Climate Change as synonyms, how will they not know they're not the same thing?
 
obi, you have to consider the current costs of what we want to do to stop global warming to the theoretical, possible, future costs of global warming.

Right now, it will cost us jobs, it will cause energy prices to go up, it will increase taxes, etc.

Also:
If something has a negative effect on humanity, humanity should do something to stop it.

This assumes humanity can in fact stop whatever is harming it.

Regardless of the reason, climate change is happening.

Ok, sure.

Climate change has a negative effect on humanity.

That's like saying "Life leads to death", except it isn't even necessarily true in all situations. As has been said before, a large part of climate change is influenced by factors that we can do absolutely nothing about. We'd have about as much luck putting the sun out (that would stop Global Warming!).
Click to expand...
 
b0b3rt said:
obi, you have to consider the current costs of what we want to do to stop global warming to the theoretical, possible, future costs of global warming.

Right now, it will cost us jobs, it will cause energy prices to go up, it will increase taxes, etc.
Click to expand...

You're backpedalling. First you claimed the climate was cooling, then you denied any anthropogenic contribution to warming and now you've settled on promoting inaction. Which card is going to get played next? Deck Knight at least found some homebrew graphs from denialist cranks to throw in to his post, whereas you haven't made an attempt to cite any evidence.
 
Yeah, Climate Change is a natural process that the Earth is undergone before. I think the part that most anti-Climate Change sayers are forgetting is that we are speeding up this process. That is the problem. I really like the analogy that involved the marble rolling casually off a table, but humans tilt the table on such an angle in goes flying off.

Also, it's just easier to get into a car and drive around. If there was push for a cheaper, and 'eco-friendlier' technology I'm sure companies would be all over it.

And it all comes together with 1 problem, pollution. We can't keep destroying forests, dumping crap into the ocean, and pumping the air full of CO2 (Yes, I know living beings breathe out CO2. Doesn't mean I'm blowing out concentrated black smoke into the air...). It's pretty disgusting how people misuse the planet. :/
 
How is that backpedaling?
It has been cooling in the last decade AND I deny that humans can contribute a significant amount to climate change AND I think that attempting to do so is harmful to our economy

...I see no contradictions
 
SSBM roy said:
To exemplify Deck Knight's level of discourse, his first graph appears to have been created by a random commentor named Bill Illis on Anthony Watts' (himself a former meterorologist with no scientific credentials) blog. Now, actual scientists (like the ones at the IPCC) may not be professional enough to add arrows pointing to dinosaurs to the edges of their graphs, but I'd say they retain an edge in credibility.
Click to expand...

So your counterargument is: I heard it from the government, it must be true?

The IPCC? You mean the people who have been entirely discredited?

That page largely quotes the IPCC's own take on their models and provides minimal input. This page is a handy aggregator of other studies. This one is mercifully brief.

The IPCC is essentially the first perpetual motion machine. It exists to find evidence for global warming that continues its funding of studies that conclude more funding is necessary for studying global warming.

But who are you going to trust? Jet-setting prophets who offset their sins against Gaia with carbon indulgences, or your own lying eyes? Global Warming is built on a house of cards, which would be fine if it were just another run of the mill religion. But Governments take the pronouncements of these doomsayers seriously and impose restrictions on liberty based on these feckless, irresponsible, unproven, unreproducible studies. Those suggestions rarely address actual climatological effects, but rather exist to impose more restrictions on economic activity. The clergy of global warming are already rich beyond measure, what do they care if CFLs are toxic? They got to ban the incandescent light bulb from the homes of the peasants. They got those nasty Hummers off the road. They are the real heroes.

Skepticism is the highest duty of people in science. Terms like "deniers" are not in the lexicon of science.

Here's an easy test: Name any one single climatological effect that would, by the very nature of that effect, not be pigeonholed as global warming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top