Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you live in Europe or the Pacific Northwest then you know whats going down. It's been hotter in both these places then it has been ever in their recorded history. Although I don't know much about Europe, in the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho) outland of the mountains we get very moderate weather all year round, and in summer it's usually 70s-80s farenheit. This summer it didn't drop below 65 for like two months. Unheard of around these parts, not to mention the lack of rain. Anywayz I blame global warming anyone else have a more informed opinion on this...

back in romania we're used with this. very little rain, hardly any snow during the winter (though it's cold). we have the hottest summers ever. 55 degrees celsius ground level sometimes. we'll be having 36 degrees celsius up untill october this year. it is a worry....especially with the ice caps melting and sea level rising.....(new yourk seems to be in danger from ALL SORTS of things ) northern american doesn't seem to have a problem though..the winters here are terrible.

Still no direct evidence anywhere of man-made global warming.

how come...polution is a prime factor. there are particles that absorb sun light rases better. besides...we destroyed the ozone layer

O-zone layer has NOTHING to do with global warming

Mankind's contribution to carbon levels is so minute as to be irrelevant.

Repeat: There is no proof, anywhere, of man made global warming.

explain

The amount of carbon created by mankind each year is less than the margin of error we build into our determing of how much is naturally produced. Which is to say, so much is naturally produced each year that the vaguery in determining such huge figures is larger than the amount we produce in one year.

Which is to say our contribution is about 0.001% of the whole.

It may also interest you to know that artic ice is thicker this year than it was the year before.

Temperatures cycle. That is the way of things. But man-caused global warming remains unproven.

word. Man has nothing to do with it.

Might be worth looking at this whilst we are on the subject...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95260,00.html

the thing is..these are shared opinions...there are scientists on both sides that swear their saying is true, and they can both proove it. So i just don't know.

Indeed- but there is a hell of a lot of money being spent on something that is unproven- and simply because it wins votes.

our fault or not..we DO need to stop it. we can help by as they say there restricting the use of fossil-fuel energy. rocketing the gas prices (as theys ay in there) might be the rough way to do it...finding alternative fuels that are economicaly fezable is another, harder and more advantageous one.

If it is naturally occuring it will subside again.

See, the biggest temperature rise last century occurred before 1940, long before anything man is meant to be doing to the situation came up.

And it is doubtful man is- or can- have any effect on it at all, either direction.

And also note that ubiased satellite (as opposed to very bias ground station) readings so no significant global temperatrue increase in the last two decades.

but man has prooven himself often lethal with his polution on rather large scales (ruling global worming out for now, untill prooven) like the dying coral reef and/or rain forest damages (and i don't mean deforesting)...

the heat cumulates A LOT in cities..and that is felt, literally

Cities are becoming warmer due to increasing energy consumption.

Probably the only thing man does that actually significantly affects carbon levels is start forest fires.

Meanwhile, here are a few tables to look at.

This first one is temperature data gathered from worldwide heat monitoring stations. This is part of the data that the global warming theory is based upon. However, its gathering material in much of the world is gathered inaccurately- the data is incorrect.

This is the same data gathered in the US only- where global warming pollution is meant to be worse. Here the data is gathered with far more scrutiniy and accuracy. Note the great difference.

Finally, here is the most modern method of temperature detection- satellite, unbiased by distortion caused by the proximity of heat sensors to cities. This measures actual increase in atmospheric temperature. You will note there are cold yeara and warm years and that the mean is almost flat.

You will also note that the satellite record and US record concur- thereby showing that the distortion is being created by inaccurate records from stations outside the US.

As a bonus- this graph contrasts satellite and ground readings, showing the distortion of the ground readings.

For those of you that are wandering, the univerally agreed spike in 1998 was caused by El Nino- and mankind isn't stopping THAT in a hurry, much as we want to!

no but we have to stop or slow it down (the global warming) in any way we can...because in time, cumulated with other incidents (the ozone layer for ex) will be our slow undoing

That environmental measures are simple good sense I do not wish to dispute. Global warming theory is sound, it's just certainly not happening the way it was first thought and uncertain if man can cause it at all.

But I have GREAT sympathy to the point of view that we cannot afford to waste billions of dollars on something which is just theory. This isn't about being Scrooge-like on saving the world- it is that millions of normal people are losing their jobs and, it seems, thousands are losing their lives, Mankind should not abandon the principle of only acting upon PROVEN information- it is the only logical way to go. If we go on theory, then we should also be preparing for the next ice age, which scientists also tell us is just around the corner.

ofcourse, an alternative fuel would make it's way slower, but would probabl eventualy gain the market and by it's comerfialising, would make a lot of money...natural desaster avoidance would only be bonus on the paper...so it comes down to advertising in the end afterall

Talking of ice ages... here is another discursive link...

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2003-08-09&id=3395

Saw a report from the US where they bagatelles the effect of outlet of CO2, boy are these boys cleaning their own porch

just to back up USH here, Norwegian researchers have worked in the polar regions for years and have found no evidence of global warming. And theese dudes are THE BEST of their field, they are years ahead of the rest of the world when it comes to this issue. But enviromentalist tend not to listen to them cause Norway is too small of a country to be recon with in their minds so the enviromentalist dont care if the facts are laid infront of them. And if the researchers where American they (enviromentalists)would claim they been paid off

yea I've heard some of the same conclussions Finti

but I still think it's good that the public thinks they need to do something about it, cause we f*** up nature enough as it is

the climate works in cycles and has always done so and without the aid of humans

yes, that's the global warming, and some think it's the humans fault,
and a part of it could be true

good, lets melt those plar ice caps.

we had global warmings before humans even had any chance to influence it so whos fault was it then

dinosours.

i used to believe in the myth of global warming untill i saw the show BULLSHIT with penn and teller on showtime, watch that show and youll see its just Bullshit

nah

its hotter because of weather abnormalities such as el nino's, humans have only been recording temeptures for about a 100 years now and with a planet that is 100 million years old so you need a little more data than a hundred years of research. I know scientists can specualte with ice and rock what weather may have been like hundreds and or even thousands of years ago and they all agree that wheather fluctuations occur all the time and can last for hundreds of years.

Omega, that graph you provide is false. Look at the graphs I provided earlier where I showed that that graph is INCORRECT INFORMATION.

Satellites- the most accurate form of temperature measurement- show NO significant temperature increase in the last two decades. Any rise is very small- as yerss says- and very 'local'- as the satellites show- insignificant over any major length of time.

You say the polar ice caps are melting abut as Finti points out the best scientists in the field disagree. As I said before, arctic ice has actually thickened in the last year.

You are providing incorrect information this time, Omega. That you could just post that graph after I had a. already posted the same data and b. demolished its accuracy by comparison with accurate and satellite records surprises me greatly.

You say it is 'peculiar' that current warming- exceptionally modest- takes place when we are chucking CO2 into the atmosphere. What is peculiar, if you think it is the cause, that the actual significant increase in temperature in the last century happened before 1940- BEFORE mankind started doing any such thing.

http://www.helsinki-hs.net/news.asp?id=20030108IE1

Tell these people where the melting ice is...

It is worth noting that if there is anywhere that mankind is going to cause global warming, it would most likely be with gases other than CO2 in which we can actually make a worthwhile difference with.

As for that ridiculous report about the earth being warmer than for thr last 1800 years- it is based on highly discredited techniques and is not at all credible.

"Greenhouse scientists Michael Mann and Philip Jones (GRL v.30, no.15, 1820, 2003) have launched `Hockey Stick Mk.II'. It will be remembered that Hockey Stick Mk.I was published several years ago and became instantly adopted as policy by the IPCC. In a nutshell, the `Hockey Stick' theory presented a 1,000-year `reconstruction' of northern hemisphere temperature and in so doing denied the existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age as hemispheric or global events during the previous millennium. This denial then allowed them to incorrectly assert that the 20th century was warmer than any previous century and that `1998 was the warmest year of the millennium'. This was in spite of a large body of peer reviewed literature confirming the existence of these two climatic events during the last 1,000 years.

Hockey Stick Mk.II now extends the time period back 1,800 years, but using much the same technique, this time taking a mere 23 selected proxy sites (tree rings mostly) to represent the whole world, processing them statistically, and then grafting the result onto the CRU version of global temperature during the last century (that CRU series is itself disputed due to urban contamination of weather station temperature records).

Is this version of climate history credible? Just because it has appeared in peer-reviewed literature is no sufficient reason to accept it. Papers which affirm the existence of the MWP and LIA are peer reviewed too - and much more numerous. So what might be wrong with Hockey Stick Mk.II? Basically, everything that was wrong with Mk.I, namely it denies a mountain of contrary evidence.

Three central problems arise with Hockey Stick Mk.II.

Firstly, grafting a data stream from one type of marker (tree rings and ice cores) onto a completely unrelated data stream (weather station records, most of them urban) is simply bad practice statistically. It's the proverbial apples and oranges comparison, making the result quite meaningless.

Secondly, there was no attempt to deal with the huge volume of peer reviewed literature attesting to the existence of the two major climatic events which Mann & Jones deny - the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. One recent paper by Soon & Baliunas (Clim. Res. 23, 89-110, 2003) also used proxy data and concluded the two events really did happen. But Mann & Jones' response was this comment, delivered as if it were a statement of fact instead of what it really was - merely a statement of their opinion.

"A flawed recent study compels us to stress two points..." etc. etc.

A statement opened and phrased in that way is a clumsy attempt to pre-judge the issue and can only be viewed as a political statement, not a scientific one. Such political tactics do not belong in scientific literature and should have been queried by the reviewers. Opinion is not science, especially in a controversial matter like this.

Finally, tree rings are an unsatisfactory proxy for determining regional or global temperature. They only cover the growing season, not the winters. They only cover the daytimes, not the night. They only cover a fraction of land areas, with no ocean coverage at all (amounting at best to perhaps 15% of the planet's surface). The rings themselves are conditioned by a variety of environmental factors of which temperature is only one.

With such limitations, it is absurd to even imagine that something as grandiose as `global mean temperature' could ever be determined from them, let alone `reconstruct' past temperatures as Mann & Jones have done to a claimed accuracy of tenths of a degree!

As to the 23 proxy sites, that is much too small a sample to conclude anything, particularly as they were selected against other proxies which may have told a different story. If one selectively chose 23 weather stations out of the thousands available, one could even prove we were headed for an ice age, or a global heat wave - selectivity and intensive statistical processing allows any outcome to be produced.

The final nail in the coffin of Hockey Stick Mk.II is contained in their own graphs. In their reconstruction of recent decades (shown below), the authors overlapped the weather station record (red line) with the reconstructed proxy record (blue). And the two make a very poor match. The CRU weather station plot shows much wider temperature variations than the proxy plot. If the weather stations are assumed to be more accurate than the proxies, then the 1,800-year reconstruction presented by Mann & Jones is largely an artifact of statistics and data selectivity. As one commentator remarked -

"It looks like the authors are just averaging together a bunch of noise.""

BTW, that pic you posted is just a child's picture of the atmosphere with words on- on its own doesn't show a thing. But the link you provide agrees with much fo what I say- it being NASA, of course. It also talks of the possible inaccuracy of ground records.

And to counter your link about censorship (which you need to fix- the link doesn't work as provided), here is the same story from a more practical perspective:

http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20030701-092341-9612r.htm

Gosh, I am bored already...

So anyway, yeah. for my conclusion- nothing proven, try and question everything you are told about global warming because it is rarely the subject of objecitve debate... and so on.

But on the other hand, environmental policies are a good idea because even if man is not making a difference now it does not mean we never will. Greenhouse theory is POSSIBLE, after all.

That all said, I have to revise something I said before; the error range for natural greenhouse is 0.2%, which is i turn mankind's contribution to greenhouse gases (ALL greenhouse gases)- not as small a fraction as I said before but still utterly insignificant.

it may or may not be getting hotter, but no matter what we do to the planet will survive... perhaps without us. maybe the next great spices will thrive on the excess heat... if in fact it is getting hotter. so noone really needs to worry... 500,000 years from now they will be arguing that its getting too cold, and that they didn't descend from humans. and if it is getting hotter maybe i'll buy some beach front property on antartica... the caribbean of the future....

Global Warning is crap!

The earth always heats up before it enters an ice age, we are currently in this phase, besides, 1 Volcano eruption releases more toxic gasses into the atmosphere than the entire worlds population can in 75 years.

Ozone layer?
Who needs it?
It's so 80s

you need ozone layer or the UVs will fry that pretty volvo of yours p..with you in it

as said the temparature or global warming comes in cycluses, what they havent found out of yet is a pattern in it. We have had warmer summrs now, but since they started messure the temrature we have had just as warm summers 100 years ago as these last one was. The glaciers and polaqr caps are melting and then freezing again, As for the glaciers you Omega should be glad they expand and retracts every now and again, if they hadent there wouldnt been a Denmark That country is solomly made up by the moraine gravel that flowed from the moving glaciers in Norway.

and the last reports says the the ozone layer is actually repairing itselfs, so until other proves it otherwise, which I am sure some one desperate will or else the enviromentalist looses a major momentum , then.......we are just as wise/dumb as we were 25 years ago

Are you calling Denmark a geological Norwegian colony?

That's whay he says about every country!

The world is Norway and Norway is the world

Thing is a volcano erutpion dwarf the co2 outlet of all countries combined, so the thing that polute the most is actually nature itself

and every Danish dream is to be Norwegian, that way Danish can learn how to not to be dizzy going higher than the 3rd floor

Yes, I believe I made the volcano statement!

there are many greater issues humanity needs to address before global warming. To me this is just wasted efforts. Maybe instead of investing time and money into theorys if even they were correct would take hundreds of years before any major consequence efforts should go into immediate conflicts. but when we live in an age where major studies go to new ways to packaging hot-dogs Importance seems a few millinia away

i opend a popcicle and because of the rapid global warming it melted on me run for the hills the temp is going up by the second "yells loudly in firght" who kinda cares we wont see it happen i mean lets let our kids worry about that shit lol

so right mang i dont worry about nothng that ownt effect me so why care like who gives a shit about kids in these countries that r going hungry i mean im fed and by them gettin fed doesnt help me it is just prolongin their lifes wich will be pointless ne way so why wast mony on them and wow is this a evil post lol

o by the way if ne one feels like this is offensive pm me and tell me so i can edit it so i dont get in trouble cause for some odd reson i feel this would be a post that not many people would be happy about for some odd reason

dont worry we can edit it when we feel like

EP VI
Revenge of the mods

WE PLAY LESS OF A ROLE IN GLOBAL WARMING THAN MOST THINK!
At least, this is what I believe...

I'm with everyone who stands by the fact that volcanos have completely dwarfed the carbon dioxide output of all countries combined since the beginning of the industrial revolution. I also believe this 'Global Warming' we are experiencing is more of a regular trend for Earth than a catastrophe caused by us humans.

I just want to say that our planet regularly goes through periods of increasing and decreasing temperatures...

If you plot time against temperature on a graph, you will see that in relation to the mean temperature: we are plummeting on a large temperature-fluctuation towards another ice age, but rising on a small temperature-fluctuation, thus we experience 'Global Warming'.

Some other points:

-The overall temperature of Earth WILL NOT continue increasing forever. It will plummet again (not for our generation anyhow).

-There have been many periods of time in Earth's history where temperatures have displayed trends similar to what we are now experiencing.

-There have been many periods of time in Earth's history where the temperatures averaged a lot higher than they do now. There have been times when temperatures averaged a lot lower...

-There will be a period of 'Global Cooling' after this period of 'Global Warming', and another period of 'Global Warming' after that 'Golbal Cooling' and so on and so on...

All in all, each period of warming and cooling will be colder and colder for a good hundred million years or so, as we head towards the next major ice age.

Compared with the Earth, we humans are extremely short-lived. Trying to base any sort of fact on "last year's summer being hotter than usual", or "ice caps melting over the past little while" for example, means next to nothing. As a part of the greater picture, this temperature increase is what I would call: normal.

For any one who is uninformed about global warming I beg you to look into any encyclopedia (at the local library or online) and inform yourself about the issues surrounding this very troublesome issue.

Man, I don't care. Hot or cold, I'm going to sweat anyways.

For anyone who is uninformed about global warming, dont bother getting informed about it. Focus your energy elsewhere like on things that matter and that are actually effecting the world, because global warming is nothing more than Bullshit.

Yes. Now get your ass to the General Discussion Forum where there are about 10 threads like this already.

I do not care

2100...we'll be out of fossil fuels by then, so I don't think it's anything to worry about.

It's a myth, if global warming were happening then the north states would feel the heat and we'd be cold as ****. Global warming would make the weather patterns and polarities go haywire. Though they reverse roles between poles every couple thousand years anyway.

But lately, that cycle's been going faster. Not cause of global warming though, Mother Earth is one very old ***** and is over the hill..

As the north-pole will be fully melted in 2060 at this rate, that would leave some troublesome scenarios open

Wee is the option that Says : Who Gives A shit

I will be offering swimming lessons

Have that in your own backmind, but I intend to place my kids in a world with atleast some future

Originally posted by The True Fear
I will be offering swimming lessons

Only if you promise to give mouth to mouth when I'm... "drowning"

Yes it is and Im so happy , the end is near

Twas not global warming! Twas me holding a magnifying glass and burning ants

Its global warming alright. The place were Im living right now its as hot as hell in the morning and the afternoon also a bit in the evening.

Global warming is happening... but it has very little to do with human activity.. only about 1%.... This is not the 1st time it has happened.

Considering mad dictators like Kim Jong..
Stupid STUPID political groups like liberal-democrats..
And Opera Winnfrey.. (she's not just an urban legend people!)

SpellJammer thinks global warming is the least of our worries..

Its Oprah Winfrey fool and she is faboulous

Gamewarrior that doesnt mean global warming just because the area you live in is hot maybe it just happened to be hot global warming is where places all over are warming up but it is happening but ill be long gone before it becomes a big issue

Dude were I live its hot ok but now it hotter than before I mean really hotter than before. Iv lived here all my life and I know when its temp changes. Seriously man not even the winows are keeping the heat out.

It's not the cause of hurricanes though..

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml

Well...you wouldn't need to swim if the northpole melted, as the water wouldn't rise an inch. The reason is that the ice is already floating in the water. The weight of water displaced by the ice floating in the sea equals the weight of the water in the ice -> the sealevel remains constant.



If the glaciers/icecaps/snow/southpole melted though, we would be in trouble.

Originally posted by Ulven
Well...you wouldn't need to swim if the northpole melted, as the water wouldn't rise an inch. The reason is that the ice is already floating in the water. The weight of water displaced by the ice floating in the sea equals the weight of the water in the ice -> the sealevel remains constant.



If the glaciers/icecaps/snow/southpole melted though, we would be in trouble.

Yes, the real problem are Greenland and maybe the South Pole.....the North Pole won't matter.....

I'd hate to be so negative, but we've pretty much already screwed our planet. We should have been keeping it clean a long time ago, and now it's cleaning itself up with natural disasters. Don't belive me? You're city might be next