Global warming and climate change

[Die Hard]

I'm curious whether this is a hoax or not. You always hear there are two camps, both have valid arguments blahblah. I just wanna know the truth about this without reading thousands of scientific papers, can any of you help me with this?

 

[speed dawg]

No one knows, bottom line. I don't too much believe in the Ice Age, maybe it's true, maybe it isn't. We know there was a big flood where the water rose all over the earth a few thousand years ago, then receded, that's recorded history. So we know it warmed up then cooled down rather quickly. 'Glacial Galactic' periods, and the sun getting hotter every 7 million years, all that seems like non-observatory science to me. Bro-science of the profession, if you will. I mean, some scientist say the sun is getting weaker. And it also seems like to me we could float off into outer space and freeze to death at any time. A meteor hits us and it's all over.

Of course, I'm a creationist, and I don't believe the world is millions of years old. I think there is a rhyme and reason for all of it.

 

[Bible_Belt]

The climate change deniers say we are going through a natural cycle of warming, which is true, we are. However, in every sample that scientists have been able to drill, it looks like in the previous warming cycles that came before modern humans, the atmosphere has never been anywhere near this rich in CO2 and greenhouse gases.

In scientific and academic circles, climate change is a fact. Denial of it is limited to Internet conspiracy theories and people who celebrate their own ignorance. They must not go outside much, either, or else they would notice that weather events that are supposed to happen every hundred years are now commonplace.

 

[daddymonsterpoodle]

I live in the pacific. Islands are going under water. Glaciers are retreating at an alarming rate. We are already exceeding the temperature shifts of previous "warm up" times by several degrees. Also during those periods the warming up period took 1000s of years NOT 100.
They are managing two crop cycles a year IN GREENLAND!!!

I have friends who are geologists, geographers, physisists and environmental scientists who are rational people who don't want to believe in global warming but do.

Watch "an uncomfortable truth"
Yes it is happening.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Is "climate change" happening? Of course it is. The "climate" has been "changing" since the Earth was formed.

Is the CO2 higher than usual? Yes, it is.

Does this PROVE that "climate change" "caused" by humans? There's really no way to tell. Proving causality is very difficult. It requires repeating the process several times in a lab and holding various variables constant.

Do people who BELIEVE in "man mad climate change" have a vested interest? They sure do. Politicians always want more power, and they are always looking for ways to get it. "Man made climate change" is a great excuse to force all kinds of draconian laws onto people "because climate change."

Do people who BELIEVE that "man made climate change" is false have a vested interest? They sure do. Big companies that make billions of dollars aren't going to voluntarily make less just so some island doesn't go underwater.

My opinion?

If man is causing climate change, so what? Move to higher ground. Unless you're prepared to kill half of planet Earth to stop it, lay off with the carbon tax BS.

If man is NOT causing climate change, so what? Move to higher ground.

Interesting Reframe:

Man IS INDEED causing the climate to change, and the EARTH is pissed! She is raising her oceans to hopefully kill all of us pesky humans, so She can tweak things back to where they were before us dumb monkeys learned how to talk.

Go Earth!

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

Remember, the Earth was far far hotter during many previous eras, especially during the dinosaur.

Now that you mention it, I DO remember how hot it was when all those dinosaurs are moping around. I was always sweating so much trying to outrun them....(lucky for me they was pretty slow)



But speaking of rigged data....

Source

Climate Central just ran this piece, which the Washington Post picked up on. They claimed the US was “overwhelmingly hot” in 2016, and temperatures have risen 1,5°F since the 19th century.

The first problem with their analysis is that the US had very little hot weather in 2016. The percentage of hot days was below average, and ranked 80th since 1895. Only 4.4% of days were over 95°F, compared with the long term average of 4.9%. Climate Central is conflating mild temperatures with hot ones.

They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows.

The problem with the NOAA graph is that it is fake data. NOAA creates the warming trend by altering the data. The NOAA raw data shows no warming over the past century

e adjustments being made are almost exactly 1.5°F, which is the claimed warming in the article.

The adjustments correlate almost perfectly with atmospheric CO2. NOAA is adjusting the data to match global warming theory. This is known as PBEM (Policy Based Evidence Making.)

More....

 

[Die Hard]

Good posts, everyone! Keep em coming

 

[ubercat]

When I was a kid the world population was 3 billion. Now it's 7.5 billion all off the back of fossil fuels. The predicted tipping points are being reached. Vast reservoirs of CO2 and Methane locked up in the Siberian permafrost, the Antarctic sea floor and ice shelves r beginning to release.

 

[backseatjuan]

This is all you need to know.


A. Climate change scientists have lied to us, that you can google yourself.
B. Carbon tax is a scam. You can also google this one.
C. Climate change is happening, but not because of CO2, it is a natural cycle, against which we can't do anything

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

This is about saving mankind. T

I believe it's ensuring that certain "groups" within mankind can continue to live the high life will forcing the "lower people" to get by with less.

Same old Crony-Capitalist strategy. Kill everybody and everything to dominate market share, and then pass laws to make it impossible for your competition to do the same.

 

[Deep Dish]

People talk about polar caps melting, but they even melted on mars during the same timeframe....why? Because it was the sun cycles causing it, not humans.

The sun cycle is not an explanation because the sun has been cooling. Though the Martian polar ice caps melted, that could be a local effect—there isn’t evidence that Mars has experienced a global effect. A global effect could be explained by the Milankovitch cycle

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2007/04/29/is_global_warming_solar_induced.html

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system-basic.htm

 

[Bible_Belt]

Mars is a sad story. It's now widely accepted that Mars once had an abundance of liquid water and flowing rivers, which were presumably teeming with life. It would have required an atmosphere that isn't there today. The top theory is that it blew away in the solar wind. Whatever the cause, it is a statement about the fragility of planets.

 

[Bible_Belt]

There were also no polar ice caps, because it was so warm, which makes sea levels rise about a hundred feet. In south Florida, that would put you about 90 feet underwater.

 

[backseatjuan]

Somebody tell me something about carbon tax please? To whom will a country pay the carbon tax? Who are those persons that will collect taxes from countries?

 

[KingofPuss]

You see, the easy and common answer is yes, there is scientific evidence to support "climate change", but as I believe Danger said, there is financial corruption here. Scientists want their federal funding and in order to get it must bend the truth a bit. So I don't believe in any bit of "evidence" presented. And it's sad because scientists are supposed to be the unbiased good guys.

My parents, both extremely smart chemical engineers with tons of experience, say it's a myth. My father works in the oil industry, and his company has researched it a lot; they say it's not true. Now take that with a grain of salt, they could be easily as biased as the government, but my father is no head of the company, he has no reason to lie to me. He says the whole premise behind it is just stupid. You take a look at cattle who produce massive amounts of methane, what are you going to do about that?

My sister is a soon-to-graduate physicist. She says it's a hoax. I have family friends who in chemistry, they say it's a hoax. I have a ton of very smart people who claim that it is not true. But that's just my opinion and experience. I'm not saying it couldnt be true because for all I know it could be, but I think at this point nobody REALLY knows. It's all speculation

 

[Bokanovsky]

The so-called "man-made global warming" is the biggest hoax since "Y2K" (anyone remember how computers were all of a sudden supposed to stop working at the turn of the century?) Notice how they don't even call it global warming anymore. Now it's "climate change". Well, climate change does not necessarily imply warming; cooling is a change too. According to the Russian Academy of Sciences, a new mini-ice age has started at the end of 2015.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that there is climate change. Climate change has been around as long as there has been such a thing as "climate". And it has always been due to natural sources - i.e. the variable amount of heat that our planet got from the sun. What we have today is no different.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Climate change is only still a political debate in the United States and some third world countries.

If you accept science for what it is, climate change is a fact with almost unanimous consensus (the few dissenters are paid off by the fossil fuel billionaires). If you think it's a hoax, you are more inclined to still believe in creationism and the earth being flat.

To answer the OP... climate change is true. It naturally occurs but is being accelerated by human activity.

 

[EyeBRollin]

No one knows, bottom line.

We do know. Either way, pleading ignorance is not an acceptable answer to the question.

I don't too much believe in the Ice Age, maybe it's true, maybe it isn't.

Translation: I don't much accept science unless it is convenient.

Why stop there? How about gravity? Newton's Laws? You can have it your way, pal.

Of course, I'm a creationist, and I don't believe the world is millions of years old. I think there is a rhyme and reason for all of it.

That explains everything. Creationism is a cute story.

The so-called "man-made global warming" is the biggest hoax since "Y2K" (anyone remember how computers were all of a sudden supposed to stop working at the turn of the century?)

You obviously voted for Trump. You're adopting his baseless hyperboles.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that there is climate change. Climate change has been around as long as there has been such a thing as "climate". And it has always been due to natural sources - i.e. the variable amount of heat that our planet got from the sun. What we have today is no different.

The argument is about anthropogenic climate change. Stay on topic. Care to try again?

Does this PROVE that "climate change" "caused" by humans? There's really no way to tell. Proving causality is very difficult. It requires repeating the process several times in a lab and holding various variables constant.

This has been researched extensively. Pleading ignorance is not an acceptable rebuttal.

Do people who BELIEVE in "man mad climate change" have a vested interest? They sure do. Politicians always want more power, and they are always looking for ways to get it. "Man made climate change" is a great excuse to force all kinds of draconian laws onto people "because climate change."

Do people who BELIEVE that "man made climate change" is false have a vested interest? They sure do. Big companies that make billions of dollars aren't going to voluntarily make less just so some island doesn't go underwater.

Scientists are typically apolitical unless they are bought off by big business. What's the bigger motive, politicians listening to scientists or petro-billionaires paying off scientists and politicians to deny science?

You see, the easy and common answer is yes, there is scientific evidence to support "climate change", but as I believe Danger said, there is financial corruption here. Scientists want their federal funding and in order to get it must bend the truth a bit. So I don't believe in any bit of "evidence" presented. And it's sad because scientists are supposed to be the unbiased good guys.

So, you believe scientists are more corrupted than politicians and lobbyists of transnational oil companies? No wonder why you voted for Trump.

My parents, both extremely smart chemical engineers with tons of experience, say it's a myth. My father works in the oil industry, and his company has researched it a lot; they say it's not true.

Now why would an oil company deny climate change?

Deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

Now take that with a grain of salt, they could be easily as biased as the government, but my father is no head of the company, he has no reason to lie to me.

lol.

He says the whole premise behind it is just stupid. You take a look at cattle who produce massive amounts of methane, what are you going to do about that?

My sister is a soon-to-graduate physicist. She says it's a hoax. I have family friends who in chemistry, they say it's a hoax. I have a ton of very smart people who claim that it is not true. But that's just my opinion and experience.

You're allowed to have an opinion on if blue or black is the better color, not about what is true vs. false.

I'm not saying it couldnt be true because for all I know it could be, but I think at this point nobody REALLY knows. It's all speculation

Pleading ignorance is not an acceptable answer.

 

[taiyuu_otoko]

This has been researched extensively.

No, this has NOT been researched extensively. It is structurally impossible to demonstrate any kind of cause-effect relationship without repeating the experiment several times while separating out variables.

All science can tell is are current levels of C02 and their relationship with time. They can even demonstrate correlation, but you think that correlation implies causation, you are mistaken.

Correlation is EASY to demonstrate.

Causation is DIFFICULT to demonstrate.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Where are your facts to support it is accelerated by humans?

The only "facts" in science are scientific laws that cannot be disproven in the natural universe. Climate change is a theory, represents is best possible explanation given the mountain of evidence we have.

No, this has NOT been researched extensively. It is structurally impossible to demonstrate any kind of cause-effect relationship without repeating the experiment several times while separating out variables.

Yes, it has.

All science can tell is are current levels of C02 and their relationship with time. They can even demonstrate correlation, but you think that correlation implies causation, you are mistaken.

More than just CO2 but yeah. And if you're willing to simply ignore scientific consensus of the causation, that is on you.

Correlation is EASY to demonstrate.

Causation is DIFFICULT to demonstrate.

Well of course. Unless it can hold up to specific tests and become a law, it will never be "certain," which is your out to confirm your pre-existing belief.