Global Warming is a hoax? Watch

Yawn11
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#41
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
Anyone denying the science should start with this diagram and say what's wrong with it.
Pretty easy, it's based on the last 2 thousand years. The Earth has existed for 4.5Billion years. What you've displayed is a mere blip.

If you were to find a graph extending to let's say the last 50 million, you would also see far more dramatic fluctuations. You'd also find we're no near the Earth's peak temperatures in it's habitable state.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 5 years ago
#42
(Original post by Yawn11)
Pretty easy, it's based on the last 2 thousand years. The Earth has existed for 4.5Billion years. What you've displayed is a mere blip.

If you were to find a graph extending to let's say the last 50 million, you would also see far more dramatic fluctuations. You'd also find we're no near the Earth's peak temperatures in it's habitable state.
Even across much longer timescales than the 2000 year one, the rate of growth in temperature in any given time period has been nothing like as sharp (ditto CO2 growth) as in the modern period.

There are one or two very scary near-exceptions to that, when temperatures rose sharply in past eras - they resulted in massive melting of the polar caps and dramatic rises in sea level (hundreds of feet) and were probably linked to big methane-blow events, similar to the current causes of global warming.
0
reply
Yawn11
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#43
(Original post by C_G)
I hope this helps your lazy ass to come to terms with what I am saying.
Video I posted thankfully touches on that facade as well
0
reply
C_G
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#44
Report 5 years ago
#44
(Original post by Yawn11)
Video I posted thankfully touches on that facade as well
As my screenshot and someone else pointed out, if it is not academic and peer reviewed then there's little point in using it as a source. Also, I really can't be arsed with watching a weighted documentary for an hour and something.
0
reply
LiamMcMorrow
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#45
Report 5 years ago
#45
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
It isn't, but there's a very heavily funded denial industry out there that wants to make you think so - they are financed by the oil and coal industries, that feel threatened by talk of climate change.
Did you know global warming has increased since pirate population has shrunk?
0
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#46
Report 5 years ago
#46
(Original post by Yawn11)
Pretty easy, it's based on the last 2 thousand years. The Earth has existed for 4.5Billion years. What you've displayed is a mere blip.

If you were to find a graph extending to let's say the last 50 million, you would also see far more dramatic fluctuations. You'd also find we're no near the Earth's peak temperatures in it's habitable state.
Right, so what do you think is driving the change in climate? Milankovitch cycles? Solar irradiance?

You cited 'the great global warming swindle', if you've any sincerity you'll be interested in the countless rebuttals to it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxw3_XBvm94



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gre...rom_scientists

https://web.duke.edu/nicholas/bio217/tls14/general.html

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis.../science.media

http://www.swindonclimate.org.uk/200703GGWS
2
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#47
Report 5 years ago
#47
Unfortunately, climatology is a science where experiment cannot be used to verify hypothesis. We are part of the experiment.

So unlike all other science disciplines, climate science must be content with mathematical modelling which makes it all to easy to attack and very difficult to defend.

It's also highly politicised and disinformation is rampant as Fullofsurprises states. Joe Bloggs is too easy to fill with doubt because it's easier to believe it is all natural cycles and much much harder to accept the medicine.

However, it is unprecedented for the volume of evidence alreadt accrued and continuing to accrue, and all pointing to an anthropogenic cause.

I despise the way some people are quick to trash the science but have no alternative peer reviewed and published hypothesis of their own to back up their claims.

Talk is cheap.
0
reply
Ireland6
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#48
Report 5 years ago
#48
Global warming is happening...... naturally!! we're still technically in an Ice Age!! to get to the next warm period and the cycle to continue we need the polar ice caps to melt. Now whether man's contribute will effect that cycle is a completely different question. one to which nobody at the moment it seems definitively knows the answer.

FYI here's a link on Ice Age

http://geography.howstuffworks.com/t...ns/ice-age.htm

lots of refereces
0
reply
uberteknik
  • Study Helper
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 5 years ago
#49
(Original post by Ireland6)
Global warming is happening...... naturally!! we're still technically in an Ice Age!! to get to the next warm period and the cycle to continue we need the polar ice caps to melt. Now whether man's contribute will effect that cycle is a completely different question. one to which nobody at the moment it seems definitively knows the answer.

FYI here's a link on Ice Age

http://geography.howstuffworks.com/t...ns/ice-age.htm

lots of refereces
Anthropogenic contribution to warming is the most plausible and widely scientifically agreed explanation for the unprecedented rate of increase in the average global temperature irrespective of the (incidentally scientific) 'technical' description of 'ice-age'.
0
reply
Extremotroph
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#50
Report 5 years ago
#50
(Original post by C_G)
Whatever you say pal.
I'm not your pal, friend.
0
reply
james22
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#51
Report 5 years ago
#51
(Original post by c_al)
What rise in temperature is it you're talking about? The earths average temperature has remained the same for the last 15 years now.
No it hasn't. The amtosphere has no increased but the oceans have.
0
reply
lucas13
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#52
Report 5 years ago
#52
thats cuz it almost definately exists, the question is by how much. it all depends on the positive and negative feedback loops which noone really understands though
0
reply
TheOriginalAng
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#53
Report 5 years ago
#53
Personally, I'm on the fence. I don't really think that anyone's opinion matters though.

It may be down to us, it may not. We can argue until the cows come home but the point is that we can't be 100% sure. However, what can be said with fair certainty is that, if it isn't us and we act, the consequences for that won't be nearly as severe as if we don't act and it is down to us.

Besides, with fossil fuel prices only getting more expensive, it's going to be worthwhile investing in more "green energy" because of the economics.

(Original post by Yawn11)
Here's a documentary full of them.
Spoiler:
Show
Very thought-provoking documentary, presenting a good case against human responsibility. It's actually presents some really good, convincing arguments. In particular, the argument that CO2 concentration lags behind temperature increase really calls the whole thing into question.

I do enjoy seeing these sorts of videos just because global warming is always shoved down our throats and we never hear counter-arguments. It would be nice to have balanced arguments but, of course, an apocalypse is far more interesting.
0
reply
pjm600
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#54
Report 5 years ago
#54
(Original post by Ireland6)
Global warming is happening...... naturally!! we're still technically in an Ice Age!! to get to the next warm period and the cycle to continue we need the polar ice caps to melt. Now whether man's contribute will effect that cycle is a completely different question. one to which nobody at the moment it seems definitively knows the answer.

FYI here's a link on Ice Age

http://geography.howstuffworks.com/t...ns/ice-age.htm

lots of refereces
No, that is totally incorrect. The earth is currently in the Holocene - an interglacial period.

Name:  1-3-temp-CO2.gif
Views: 97
Size:  22.1 KB
source

Sounds like you reject the greenhouse effect. Why? What studies have you seen that the rest of us missed?
0
reply
Pastaferian
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#55
Report 5 years ago
#55
(Original post by David_Cook)
Climate change undoubtedly exists, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise.
The question is: do humans influence the climate via manufacturing?
Even if the answer is 'Yes' we still need to decide whether this change is good or bad. Are people like Al Gore really saying that there are no benefits to a slightly warmer climate?!!
And even if we accept that warming is happening, and humans are causing it, and it's negative, we still need to be convinced that wind turbines and green taxes are the answer.
These are reasonable questions that climate change supporters seem unwilling/unable to answer.
The science is pretty much settled insofar as our responsibility for climate change is concerned, and all UK parties bar one accept this. However, the argument about how to address climate change is ongoing, and rightly so. Obviously there are different opinions about whether wind turbines etc are part of the solution and what percentage of the world's population will have to relocate, but these are not issues for climate scientists. The science tells us we have a problem - it's up to the politicians to decide how to address it. What we shouldn't do is allow skeptics to spread misinformation about the science to bolster support for their views about the responses.

(Original post by Yawn11)
[...] anyone who has done background reading cause they'd know humans only account for a small percentage of CO2 that is produced every day, that it's damn near insignificant.
And anyone who has done some deeper background reading would know why you're wrong. Carbon14 is mostly created in the earth's atmosphere by cosmic rays, but is largely absent from fossil fuels (because its half-life is measured in thousands of years). By measuring the ratios of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere over time, we can show that fossil fuels are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The science is more complex than that (it always is) but the short version is that we are responsible for the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. There is now 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere than nature intended.

(Original post by Yawn11)
Just as many Scientists with far more resources and greater knowledge than us believe it false, and many politicians across the world feel the same, so I don't see your point here.
Rubbish. The vast majority of climate scientists accept the IPCC position, and all the national science agencies of all the major countries back it as well. The point is that you're deluding yourself if you think that those with greater knowledge agree with you. They don't.

(Original post by c_al)
What rise in temperature is it you're talking about? The earths average temperature has remained the same for the last 15 years now.
(Original post by Verana)
Why should I trust the scientists, there has been no globar warming. Temperatures aint even rised a little bit, dont buy it. The saving the planet and that is good but i odnt buy global warmin
Mean global surface temperatures are affected by a range of factors and, in the short-term, the amount of heat entering and leaving the oceans is the most important factor (you've presumably heard of El Nino and maybe La Nina events?). All the skeptics are doing is picking an exceptionally hot year (1998) and trying to claim that warming stopped then. There is no attempt to explain why warming resumed in 1999, and no attempt to explain why warming would suddenly switch off - just repetition of the mantra that 'global warming has stopped'. In reality, warming has continued (there is no way to stop it) and surface temperatures have continued to rise. For the MetOffice view, see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/im..._global_t4.png and the bar chart below
Attachment 244503

(Original post by Extremotroph)
Translation: I can't think for my self, I am dependent on mainstream media in order to have an opinion on matters.
Most skeptics get their 'knowledge' from the Daily Mail or the blogosphere - there is little scientific opinion to support their views.

(Original post by Swanbow)
I'm not an environmental scientist, and have no interest in going through academic papers on the topic to come to a proper informed decision. However I will say this. If the climate gets warmer we will adapt, and if it gets colder we will adapt too. Do not underestimate man's ability to overcome adversity.
That may or may not be true - is it worth the risk? Are you sure we can abandon our flooded coastal cities, relocate millions of people, and cope with the loss of agricultural land? And would we be able to afford it?

(Original post by LiamMcMorrow)
Did you know global warming has increased since pirate population has shrunk?
Yes, I did know that!

(Original post by uberteknik)
[...] unlike all other science disciplines, climate science must be content with mathematical modelling which makes it all to easy to attack and very difficult to defend. [...] I despise the way some people are quick to trash the science but have no alternative peer reviewed and published hypothesis of their own to back up their claims. Talk is cheap.
Yes, the skeptics mainly parrot what they've been told and/or argue on the basis of personal incredulity or ignorance. Not a substitute for proper scientific debate. But it's important to note that the climate change paradigm does not depend on models - these just give us possible scenarios for how bad it could get in the future, and how soon. Nevertheless, the accuracy of climate models is improving, and this can be demonstrated by starting from known conditions several decades back and running forwards to the present day.

(Original post by Ireland6)
Global warming is happening...... naturally!! we're still technically in an Ice Age!! to get to the next warm period and the cycle to continue we need the polar ice caps to melt. Now whether man's contribute will effect that cycle is a completely different question. one to which nobody at the moment it seems definitively knows the answer. FYI here's a link on Ice Age http://geography.howstuffworks.com/t...ns/ice-age.htm
lots of refereces
The climate of the last 2.5 million years has been dominated by successive ice ages and interglacials, and we are very close to the warmest point in the latest cycle (the Climatic Optimum) which is very similar to the other cycles. It will only take a small increase to move the climate into a range which wasn't encountered in any of the previous ice ages, ie, outside the range to which all life on earth is adapted. And that delta will occur this century.

(Original post by TheOriginalAng)
[...] Very thought-provoking documentary, presenting a good case against human responsibility. It's actually presents some really good, convincing arguments. In particular, the argument that CO2 concentration lags behind temperature increase really calls the whole thing into question [...]
The argument that CO2 lags behind temperature is routine skeptic misinformation. What actually happens is more complex... The two hemispheres do not warm simultaneously when we come out of an ice age, because the northern hemisphere has a higher albedo during periods of glaciation, having more land at high (ice-covered) latitudes. The evidence suggests the sequence is (1) Milankovitch (ie, orbital) cycles cause increased insolation (solar radiation) globally, (2) albedo differences cause a temperature rise in the southern hemisphere only, (3) increased biological activity (in response to the increased temperature) causes atmospheric CO2 to increase and spread globally, and finally (4) temperature rise in the northern hemisphere in response to the CO2 increase. This explains why CO2 lags temperatures in Antarctic (Vostok) ice cores and CO2 leads temperature in Greenland ice cores. It may confuse the laymen, and it's ammunition for skeptics who only quote the Vostok evidence, but it is entirely in line with our understanding of climate science. I've explained it before in http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=218 and http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...&postcount=127
And see the links in my sig block for sites which debunk many other skeptic myths.
4
reply
Yawn11
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report Thread starter 5 years ago
#56
(Original post by Pastaferian)
Rubbish. The vast majority of climate scientists accept the IPCC position, and all the national science agencies of all the major countries back it as well. The point is that you're deluding yourself if you think that those with greater knowledge agree with you. They don't.
Don't hold back, tell them why you're mad bro.

Fact is, people far educated are on both sides, not denying that the vast majority are probably for it, but the people against aren't wild conspiracy theorists. In Science things are rarely conclusive, new discoveries are constantly being made that change our perception of old theories. Scepticism is necessary.

Sarcasm and patronizing aside, you make some educating points. Not enough scepticism, naturally. Anyway, running late for a lecture. Peace in the middle east.
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#57
Report 5 years ago
#57
(Original post by Pastaferian)
That may or may not be true - is it worth the risk? Are you sure we can abandon our flooded coastal cities, relocate millions of people, and cope with the loss of agricultural land? And would we be able to afford it?
Is there any way to offset global warming? Do we have concrete evidence that reducing carbon emissions will making climate change go in to remission or even slow it down? If so can we even get countries to reduce their emission and turn carbon neutral in time?

At any rate I find it inevitable. Coastal cities will become flooded and millions will have to relocate. It won't be easy, it will be a huge challenge but I have belief that the human race will overcome these adversities. We dealt with rising tides and a warming climate before, we'll deal with it again.
0
reply
techno-thriller
Badges: 14
#58
Report 5 years ago
#58
probably is bull
0
reply
Swanbow
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#59
Report 5 years ago
#59
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
I'm sure that's true in the long run, but it may well be to a radically different type of society than we have now. If sea levels rise drastically, deserts expand and substantial areas are lost to agriculture, it is likely that there will be massive dislocation, collapses of civilised life as we know it and big declines in the human population. The question is whether those are desirable outcomes.
I'm not denying that it will radically change the world, that millions will be displaced and many people will die. But I don't believe that civilisation will necessarily collapse because of this. Mankind has the ability to adapt and I believe it will do so. Also with advances in technology and agricultural productivity we will be able to make use of less arable land to create more and elaborate coastal defences might be able to offset loss of land. A decline in human population is likely, but at the current rate we aren't exactly very sustainable and are going through our resources like there is no tomorrow.
0
reply
FlavaFavourFruit
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#60
Report 5 years ago
#60
I have no idea tbh :dontknow: but science says we are contributing
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How did your Edexcel GCSE Maths Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - feeling positive (132)
24.86%
The paper was reasonable (234)
44.07%
Not feeling great about that exam (102)
19.21%
It was TERRIBLE (63)
11.86%

Watched Threads

View All