Global Warming IS human made

Post Reply New Topic

But not in the way you think it is.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/resu ... tions.html



http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

The rule, established by NOAA, is that temperature sensors “should be at least 100 feet from any paved or concrete surface.” Paved surfaces also means no roofs. Further temperature sensor sitting rules say “When possible, the [sensor] shelter should be no closer than four times the height of any obstruction (tree, fence, building, etc.).” It doesn't take a scientist to figure out why sensors need to be 100 feet away. Paved or concrete surfaces create inflated heat readings. More results from Google here and here.

Yes, global warming is human made but it's also a multi-million dollar business. I'm all for protecting the environment but not when it's based on questionable science.

I would be interested to hear what you think about this. I know this topic tends to turn passionate between global warming supporters and anti-global warming supporters, but please try and keep the discussion civil. Thank you.

Like you said, this will be civil. You said they are inflated, I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing, not knowing enough to make a good judgement, but if they are inflated there must be some warming. Then you say that over history there have been fluctuations in temperature, then I say but they come down unlike this one and the data from 20 years ago which is proven evidence shows we have gone far higher than ever before.

Basically, I don't believe it is a myth and I don't believe anyone does, but I am willing to accept that recent data is incorrect but I must reject the idea that we should not make atleast a small effort to help slow global warming.

I think global warming does happen, but on what scale? i don't think anybody knows the answer to that one.

Do we really need to limit the amount of greenhouse gasses? could we start some form of positive feedback and damage the world? Yet again, i don't think anyone knows the answers to these questions.

I think we have enough science to prevent or reverse anything we cause, but we should definately be funding it and looking into it now. I think the carbon-trade schemes and reduction of co2 are the wrong ways to go about the issue. Any solutions should be be on solid-economics.

I think that mankind is a component of global warming, but I don't think you can categorically state that we're the sole cause. We only have a couple of centuries (well, barely over 1... of semi-accurate data to go on. Compared to billions of years, it could be an aberration, or actually under-reporting the true extent.

I'm thinking it's probably like a recession, you won't know for sure until it's already happened. Remember, we came out of a 'mini-ice-age' only in the 19th century.

There is little we can do about it, unless it is human activity that is the major cause for warming, a position that is a long way from proven.

Keep in mind that at one time Greenland was green and way before the Industrial Revolution.

ruveyn

^^ I believe there is certainly much debate concerning this. However I personally believe that, as long as no individuals are perhaps directly harmed (including non-humans), all efforts must be taken in order to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. ^^ Sorry if I have been silly however.

Human activity is a factor in global warming, but it's not the whole story. This planet has been through big natural changes and disasters before (ice ages etc) and will do so again.

I really appreciate everyone's feedback.

However before this topic gets too far out there let me try and stir it back into focus. The topic is about a specific problem related to the placement of electronic devices that are used to measure temperature. More specifically the inaccurate data sent to NOAA that some how finds its way into reports on global warming. Reports the scientific community sign off as fact.

Now it's entirely possible the people placing these devices are ignorant of NOAA's rules. But it would seem to me if science is a crucible that burns away irrelevancies until the truth is revealed, would they not do everything within their power to ensure these devices are placed according to NOAA's rules? Or is there some other agenda in place?

Science based on fact should never be questioned, but science based on tainted results should always be questioned.

edit: typo fixes. I'm a grammar nazi. lol

Last edited by kxmode on 08 Jun 2009, 5:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

This is false. Both it and Iceland were given there names by Eric the Red - Greenland was just as frozen then and Iceland was more temperate. For some reason he wanted more colonists to go to Greenland.

What about the temperature stations in every other country in the world?

That's a great question Manerg and something worth looking into. Perhaps you could do some research and post your findings here?

Studies of ice cores from Greenland indicate that it was once so warm its waters were largely free of ice and the coastal areas were fertile pasture and farm land. Greenland was warm at one time, and without any help from the humans. In fact there as a warm period in Europe from about 800 c.e to 1300 c.e. that ended with what is called "the little ice age". From about 1300 to 1815 c.e. winters were longer and summers cooler. It was during that period that ice fairs were held on the Thames River during the English winter. Yet it was during this period that there was increased burning of coal and wood.

If one studies the time plot of CO2 and surface temperature one will notice that the increase of CO2 follows, rather than leads temperature increases. Which raises some interesting questions concerning the main cause of CO2 increase and the relation between warming and CO2. Are other factors besides human activity at work? What about cloud formation which is influenced by secondary and tertiary cosmic rays from the upper atmosphere.

As far as global warming goes, desertification of North Africa occurred at a time when human population was too small to produce enough CO2 to influence climate. What about that?

ruveyn

Overgrazing and natural rainfall changes have both been cited to have caused the desertification of north africa. The currently held belief is that, overgrazing increased the rate of something that would have happened anyway.

I cannot believe that there are doubters still after the science hating bush regime have been thrown out of the whitehouse.

Scientists know pretty well how the weather works, like the cloud/surface albedos, greenhouse gasses and such, and if you screw around with that stuff you WILL get an effect. It is stupid to even debate IF there will be a global weather impact if we continue the way we do right now.

But clear, indisputable indicators of global warming wont pop up overnight. The timeframes scientists are talking about are centuries. Smart people realise this, stupid people expect change overnight and dismiss the facts just because they are unaccustomed to that kind of thinking.

And finally: As a Darwinist, for those of you who believe global warming, move to a high geological position, like a hill or so. The rest of the oblivious people who are immune to science will be taken care off by a natural mechanism called flooding.

The underlying physical processes to climate is chaotic dynamics which is no where as well understood as say quantum physics where the linear laws of superposition hold.

Generally any physical process involving chaotic dynamics or turbulence is only partially knows. The conditions under which the Navier-Stokes equations are numerically solvable are still not completely known.

We have no well founded physical theory of weather or climate. What we have are models . The effect of secondary and tertiary cosmic rays emitted from the upper atmosphere because of incoming cosmic rays from outside the atmosphere has not been completely factored into cloud formation which is a major driver of both weather and climate. Then there is the pesky fact that CO2 levels trail increases in temperature rather than lead. Causes should precede effects.

There are many reputable scientists who do not consider the case for CO2 causing the temperature increases as established in a rock solid manner. Now it may be true, but a really solid case has not been made. There are other factors: cosmic ray effects, orbital variations, variation in solar activity including flares, variations in the inclination of the axis of rotation. Until these factors are integrated into a well formed solid theory of climatic practices we are stuck with computer models.

So there are many unanswered questions: like why did temperatures rise when there was not sufficient human activity to affect them. Why did temperatures fall during a period when CO2 effluence increased (during the so-called Little Ice Age) in Europe. A solid case for anthropogenic climate change has not been made.

Then there is the matter of motive. By making human activity the main driver for climate change governments have a pretext for further increasing their powers of taxation and regulation. One wonders to what extent political considerations have affected the judgments.

ruveyn

You're only ever going to be able to use computer models to investigate the climatic factors you're discussing, ruveyn. The effectiveness of the algorithms used will improve as our understanding develops. And the orbital parameters you mention can be allowed for, as they can be defined mathematically as can the resultant influence on solar radiation we receive.


Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are influenced by other factors, too. There's a lot of research information available on the affect of large igneous provinces on those levels, for example, and evidence that increasing those levels saw significant increases in global temperature. Those examples are a long way back in geological time, but they do provide some corroboration to the argument that you're refuting.