Results 1 to 5 of 5
Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By baylee

Thread: Global Warming

  1. #1
    oldfriend's Avatar
    oldfriend is offline Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Global Warming

    Has this already been discussed?

    I've been, up until very recently, on the "scam" side of the isle with this debate.......

    A few folks have been trying to educate me in the other direction. What are everyone's thoughts on this?

    It seems to me that, laying aside the politics ( I know, admin/mods - politics a no no) the science is compelling in favor of the idea.

    Really has me wondering what kind of world we will be living in within the next 100 years, if the hardcore theories surrounding this are true.

  2. #2
    baylee is offline Senior Scambuster
    Join Date
    Jan 2011

    Re: Global Warming

    Here is a website where people volunteer their computer downtime for different projects. There are many different projects and one of them is for global warming. I have one old computer running several projects for different colleges (projects) around the clock. One of them is for global warming. One must choose what, how many, and download software (Bonic) for these projects. Some are kind of fun.


    Choosing BOINC projects

  3. #3
    Beacon is offline Antiauthoritarian skeptic
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Is Eireannach mise

    Re: Global Warming

    Ironically the anti Global warming guys have a good case. But part of the reason for this is that climate change is over hundreds of years at best maybe a millennium and weather changes every day or from year to year.

    So if you take the last century or decades in the last 100 years there ARE periods when the temperature went down and there was cooling. In the 1970 we were worried about an ice age. Ironically, global increases can cause localised cooling e.g. a shift of the Gulfstream north might cause Ireolnd and scotland to freeze. similarly global cooling might cause then to generate a Mediterrinean climate. For most of the last century ther was not huge change in overall temperature but ther is a slight trend upward . This trend is most pronounced over the last 20 years.

    The whole thing is a bit like argument about evolution without having discovered microbiology , bio informatics or genetics at the DNA level as opposed to the phenotype level.
    Then there is the problem of whether this is natural and caused by the sun for example or "man made"

    But the name neoconservative mindset promoting this
    "we don't know about global warming being true and should do nothing because others expect it is true and a threat to the world"

    at the same time said " we have no evidence of WMD but should act even though we have no evidence in case it MIGHT BE TRUE"?

    Clearly there is a (non scientific) political agenda driving this mindset.

    The UN inspecors said "NO EVIDENCE OF WMD" but the neocons told the congress that that was a lie and that
    Saddam was lying and that they KNEW there were
    1. WMD
    2. Training camps supporting Al Qaeda in Iraq which Saddam supported

    One person quoted a lot is Latif
    6 Oct 2009
    Recently some new information has become available which seriously
    questions the whole UN's basis on climate change and its computer
    modelling work of future changes.
    The week before the latest UN's world leaders' conference there was
    another UN climate conference in Geneva where one of the UN's own leading
    climate scientists and computer modellers, Professor Mojib Latif from
    Germany's Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Keil University, stated
    that from recent research he has conducted he has had to conclude that
    global warning has ceased
    Here is my response to that

    October 1, 2009

    he Nature study is consistent with the following statements:

    a.. The "coming decade" (2010 to 2020) is poised to be the warmest on
    record, globally.
    b.. The coming decade is poised to see faster temperature rise than any
    decade since the authors' calculations began in 1960.
    c.. The fast warming would likely begin early in the next decade - similar
    to the 2007 prediction by the Hadley Center in Science (see "Climate
    Forecast: Hot - and then Very Hot").
    d.. The mean North American temperature for the decade from 2005 to 2015
    is projected to be slightly warmer than the actual average temperature of
    the decade from 1993 to 2003.
    In his published research, rapid warming is all-but-inevitable over the
    next two decades. He told me, "you can't miss the long-term warming trend"
    in the temperature record, which is "driven by the evolution of greenhouse
    gases." Finally, he pointed out "Our work does not allow one to make any
    inferences about global warming."

    He added that the planet is currently cooling and will likely continue to
    do so for another 20 years.
    No he didn't!

    Here is his paper:
    Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over
    the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and
    tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.
    [end quote]

    What that means is that global temperature WILL FLATTEN (NOT Decrease) and
    the reason will be because of factors which work against the WARMING caused
    by human beings.

    Global warming
    Time: 5 hours
    Level: Introductory

    Section 1

    Natural climate change?

    To understand what the chart shows, it is necessary to take the 'long view',
    looking back through the whole history of the Earth.

    a.. How can we know the temperature of the planet over time-scales of
    billions of years?
    b.. Is this current warming part of the Earth's natural temperature
    c.. What factors affect and force changes to the global temperature, and
    to what extent are these being affected by human activity?
    d.. What are the best predictions for change over the next 100 years?

    3. Recorded temperatures
    Analyses of over 400 proxy climate series (from trees, corals, ice cores and
    historical records) show that the 1990s was the warmest decade of the
    millennium and the 20th century the warmest century. The warmest year of the
    millennium was 1998, and the coldest was probably 1601. (Climatic Research
    Unit, 2003)

    Throughout historical times, fluctuations in the Earth's mean temperature
    have been recorded. During the seventeenth century, the Thames periodically
    froze over during winter and mini-glaciers were present in the North West
    Highlands of Scotland. More recently, the 1990s included some of the hottest
    years ever recorded in the British Isles, and 10 August 2003 was the hottest
    day ever on record. An annual temperature record for central England has
    been constructed, beginning in 1659.

    Open Learning - OpenLearn - Open University

    In fact for the last 150 years the data has been
    recorded and the average is rising!

    There are other data but here is GISS:
    for the US:

    Here is a source for the US climate history

    The upward trend is apparent

  4. #4
    mark.k is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    May 2016

    Re: Global Warming

    I read somewhere that a global warming is a lie made up (needlessly) by governments to make some legislative changes and of course earn on it. In the Earth history was so many global temperature periods, it is totally a normal phenomenon! I do not believe in global warming, in my opinion it is just a natural process.

  5. #5
    consolidation is offline Godwin's is straw
    Join Date
    Jun 2010

    Re: Global Warming

    Sarcasm because you were told something by someone ....You have decided you do not believe well over 97% of all true Scientific Experts and the Scientific community and all scientific evidence and scientific global trend predictions ...that global warming is real.
    Ps:the remaining 3% of so called scientist will tell you things like ...nicotine is not addictive or that coal is good for the sky because they get well paid to do so.....they have a degree but not a conscience or any respect.

    Ps.. All the hype in the post above was one interpretation and please note 150 years ago the industrial revolution began.

    Wow I think you are in need of some serious judicious reading on this subject. Please look into it further. Try only to look at data and studies that are Peer reviewed otherwise they are just opinion pieces dressed up as studies....even the above Govt data is just that?... data! .......and the conclusions drawn from it are interpretations not justifications or facts.

    Who is the bigger fool?

    1) The fool
    2) or the fool who argues with the fool? (me)
    Last edited by consolidation; 07-04-2017 at 12:05 AM.


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed on this website are solely those of their respective authors.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42