Global Warming or None Like it Hot?

Question

First, I will make three definitions.
The Theory of Global Warming is the idea that carbon dioxide and flourochlorocarbon emissions cause an increase in atmospheric temperature.

Global Warming Propoganda are theories that believe since the Theory of Global Warming is practically confirmed... we are all gonna die. (Amongst other hypothetical situations)

Effects of Global Warming are scientifically confirmed effects, verifiable by repeating a scientific experiment (NOT Statistics), that result from increases in atmospheric temperature.

I want someone to give me Effects of Global Warming that can NOT be immediatly dismissed as Global Warming Propoganda. This means you have to find information from an accredited source that gives proof's that can be experimentally verified.

Also, Wikipedia is not an accredited source... nor is a fourm, news webpage, the BBC, climatecrisis.net, or any other questionable source.

Anders, to list the sources I looked up while writting my essay against AIT would require me to dig up that essay... sigh.

I'll look at your rebuttle, but there is a difference between what you guys do, and what I do. Instead of saying "Glacial Melting is not caused by Global Warming" I attacked it. I stated every reason why it can NOT be caused by global warming.

My alternatives may have been a bit 'loosely thought' but the purpose was to state that global warming is not the ONLY environmental syndrome. There are other reasons for events.

In Closing.
Trevor, I can find 30 people in only a few min who believe we will die because of global warming... that list it as an Armegeddon. I blame the media for this.

There are also unverifiable 'models' that we use to predict the future of global warming. In the scientific community, conflicting models means either all models are correct or only one model is correct. Of course what the PUBLIC gets is the 'all models are correct' and that would only be in special situations (Relativity vs Quantum Mechanics).


What I asked for was cold verified facts of effects. Not predicted statistical models, but what we KNOW will happen due to atmospheric heating. And I will only accept something if I can scientifically verify it's veracity... and when someone gives me a BS explanation... I know it.

As for the BBC, that was (arbitrary?), what I had against it really isn't that signifigant in retrospect, but wikipedia is crap, and the refrences are crappier.

Answer 1

It's nice to see someone else who thinks Wikipedia is not always right.
I think there is a distinction between Global Warming and Climate Change. The climate is always changing, day by day . year by year. Take Australia , five years no rain and now there's more water than they know what to do with in some parts. Now is that global warming or climate change? What is normal rain fall for any given area? Just because we have a few years of long hot summers, does that constitute global warming.
When I was growing up in fiftys and sixties , summers were long and hot. By the end of the sixties , start of the seventies, summers didn't seem as warm and scientists began to say we were heading toward a mini ice age. That was when the whole CO2 argument raised it's head. You only have to go back into old film footage of the time to find it. Today I can go out into the sun and feel the difference. The day may not be that warm but the sun's rays are definitely more burning. We all know that can't be UV as UV rays are cold. So it can only be infrared or are there other rays in there that give off heat as well? We have meters to measure UV levels and down here in the South Pacific, New Zealand, they are up and down daily due to the density of the ozone. Some days they are strong enough that a light skinned person burns in five minutes at a certain time of the day. The increase in heat,is that because the atmosphere has changed or the sun getting hotter?
To find that out I would need to ask an engineer who builds satellites to see if extra protection is being build into them against higher radiation. Double check by asking an astronomer if he has noticed any increase in sun activity.
We know the sun goes through 11 year sunspot cycles affecting radio communications, so what's it doing at the moment?
Scientists are drilling the ice caps and bringing up core samples to measure CO2 levels thousands and thousands of years ago with some amazing results. The data shows that CO2 levels have been rising and falling many times over time, but so have temperatures. Both , government and independent scientists agree on this but where it all falls to bits is in what order. I have found conflicting information here. Some say when temperatures rise, seas warm up absorbing less CO2 and visa versa. Considering the vastness and depth of the oceans , can this happen over a few decades? So what if the sea ice is melting and huge chunks are breaking off. Last summer New Zealand had iceburgs float past the South Island up from Antarctica but bigger ones were seen doing the same in 1937. No one was alarmed back then but now they are telling us it's due to global warming.
You cannot predict what's going to happen from computer models as to what's going to happen to the climate anymore than you can get a computer to tell you when an earthquake is going to hit precisely.
Ok I agree there are many ways we could be doing things differently but does it need to cost as much as governments want us to believe. If you wish to extract something from someone then you give them the data to justify the extraction. I don't believe the data we are being fed is conclusive enough to warrant the millions and millions we will be expected to pay in the near future. I there's a cleaner or more efficient way of doing something then just do it. You don't need to be taxed for it.
I see you believe the BBC not a creditable source but have you seen the doco on Google Video called Global Warming Swindle. There's some hard data there worth considering .

Answer 2

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence but it appears you are unwilling to accept it whatever the source.

I agree that ClimateCrisis and forums are not the best source of information but Wikipedia cites all statements including full references and links to sources so it's easy to verify statements for yourself. Likewise, the BBC cites it's sources and on all newspages includes links to all sources mentioned in the report.

If you want to 'cut out the middleman' and go straight to the sources then visit the NASA or European Space Agency websites, the Royal Scoiety, The Met Office, the US Geological Survey, the NOAA, the IPCC or any one of perhaps 10,000 organisations.

--------------

To put your statements into context - GW is the consequence of the greenhouse effect, the primary greenhouse gases are carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. Chloroflourocarbons have been banned and exist in the atmosphere in tiny amounts, they are extremely powerful as warming agents but dichlorodiflouromethane is the only one contributing significantly to GW (0.9% contribution).

Nobody who understands global warming is saying we're all going to die.

Some effects of GW are scientifically confirmed, some are yet to be confirmed, some are predictions that may or may not be confirmed with the passage of time.

Answer 3

in basic terms because of the fact some international locations are dealing with cooler temperatures doesn’t advise international warming does not exist. you may desire to comprehend the complexity of the earth and how particular factors of pollutants impact the choice part of the international. the united kingdom case in point has been secure by potential of the Gulf flow, which many have faith has now shifted, inflicting very strange climate for the final ten year and iciness has decrease back. it extremely is going to be like Canada until eventually now long. the only reason human beings gained’t settle for international warming is using the fact they're too egocentric of their strategies yet enable them to forget with regard to the indications and indications at their own peril… international warming isn't almost warmth! It’s with regard to the planet combating returned; this year is a chief occasion of Earth complaining... and it’s going to get plenty worse…

Answer 4

Lol, I answered your previous post in "Is anyone else besides me sick and tired of all this Global Warming nonsense?" It is laughable tha you make the claims you have, without showing one source for the information, only to go on to the next topic and demand those with an opposing view to produce evidence. Hypocrit.

Answer 5

Sounds like you are a little skeptical also.