Yakkstr

The Global Warming Hoax-Part 1

So what is Global warming? In order to look into this I went to the bastion of liberal leaning knowledge wikipedia to answer this question. We must answer this question in order to answer the thesis question(s) of this post: Is our planet warming, is this warming caused by man, and will this warming be detrimental enough to invest vast amounts of money?

Definition of Global warming according to wiki is-rising average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.

Is our planet warming? Wiki makes this claim:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

So lets begin with wiki's first link which says 2009 ends the warmest decade on record and makes this case. Scroll down and we have this quote:

Although 2008 was the coolest year of the decade, due to strong cooling of the tropical Pacific Ocean, 2009 saw a return to near-record global temperatures, despite an unseasonably cool December in much of North America, Europe, and Asia. The year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years—1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007—as the second warmest year since modern record keeping began in 1880. In the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year on record.

First question as a sceptic: Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities are warming our planet and yet we have a mixture of hottest years on record with coolest years on record all in the same decade, is this not a contradiction?

The ridiculous statement made above by wiki is backed up by 4 different links. The first link is the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which says this:

Climate change in IPCC usage refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g. using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. It refers to any change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity. This usage differs from that in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), where climate change refers to a change of climate that is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and that is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.

Then right below that is say this:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.

The second link says this:

Unless otherwise stated, numerical ranges given in square brackets in this report indicate 90% uncertainty intervals (i.e. there is an estimated 5% likelihood that the value could be above the range given in square brackets and 5% likelihood that the value could be below that range). Uncertainty intervals are not necessarily symmetric around the best estimate.

Second question: The quote above by wiki says more than 90% certain when the actual link is less than 90% uncertainty in a range of >95% to >90% to >66% to >50%. How is less than 90% unequivocal (leaving no doubt)?

The third and fourth links do nothing to substantiate the bogus statement that the warming is unequivocal and is caused by deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.

So what about the IPCC? In this whole debate (just like evolution) there are credible people who have become not at all credible because they have mixed politics with science. A panel put forth to review the IPCC said:

The Working Group II Summary for Policy Makers has been criticized for various errors and for emphasizing the negative impacts of climate change. These problems derive partly from a failure to adhere to IPCC’s uncertainty guidance for the fourth assessment and partly from shortcomings in the guidance itself. Authors were urged to consider the amount of evidence and level of agreement about all conclusions and to apply subjective probabilities of confidence to conclusions when there was high agreement and much evidence. However, authors reported high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence

On top of this it is not hard to find serious flaws with some IPCC claims.

So far in debunking the whole Global Warming/Climate Change fiasco that says humans are going to warm this planet to the point it will be catastrophic I have shown: Wikipedia plays very loose with the facts, the IPCC has lost credibility, and while anyone can say our planet is warming it is not warming the way they said it would be. Since Al started this bullshit the planet according to him should be: 1998 hottest year on record, 1999 breaks record, 2000 breaks record, and so on. Plus this nonsense of a less than 90% uncertainty is just ridiculous because we are talking about global AVERAGE temperatures. Data that is based on averages can be seriously inaccurate and favor either side and this is especially highlighted by the fact the DRASTIC increase in average global temperatures according to the Global Warming people in only a few degrees.

It is also worth mentioning that a new NASA report states that our planet is releasing more heat into space than was first thought. The whole Global Warming premise lies on the fact that green house gases get trapped into our atomosphere and cause the planet to heat up more and faster than normal. Everyday the Global Warming hysteria crowd is losing credibility and watch in the next decade our battle will be Global Cooling.

report |
reckoner said over 2 years ago ...

" I went to the bastion of liberal leaning knowledge wikipedia"

yes, facts have a known liberal bias. LOL

The rest of your post is just an attempt to muddy the waters and confuse people. Here's a graph of global temperatures since 1980

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

That's not Global Warming as you guys put it. You cannot make the case that the entire planet is warming to the point of planetary destruction and site a graph that shows a minor fluctuation in temperatures. This is like saying Romney is soundly beating Obama in the polls and showing a poll that has Romney at 45 and Obama at 40. There is a huge margin of error when we are measuring average global temperatures.

Wiki says: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and scientists are more than 90% certain that most of it is caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels."

This deliberate misrepresentation and it is glaring this was written by someone by someone biased. Why didn't they highlight the flaws in the 2007 IPCC report?

reckoner said over 2 years ago ...

The graph speaks for itself. The globe is warming. Do you dispute that?

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

This is a more accurate graph that shows every two years up to present time. Doesn't have the same effect but is far more an accurate description. These temperature fluctuations that show a minor rise are not Global Warming as you people push it as being something to be alarmed at.

source

reckoner said over 2 years ago ...

Why do you believe it is more accurate? Because you've already decided that conclusion you want?

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

No because your graph is spaced out in 20 year increments whereas mine is 2 year increments. Mine is current and yours in obsolete. How does the global lower atomosphere temp show -12 dec C. when the planet is suppose to be consistantly warming?

sean_renaud said over 2 years ago ...

Actually his graph is in 10 year increments. :-p

The planet isn't consistently warming either. It's trending upward. You know like the stock market. Does the crash 2008 prove that the amount of wealth in the world isn't constantly increasing?

reckoner said over 2 years ago ...

It never ceases to surprise me that people don't know how to read graphs. Mine is just as current as yours. Yours shows a warming trend with a slight cooking the past few years.

You don't seem to understand either of these graphs.

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

It is 10 year increments, my bad, but it does end in 2010. It doesn't matter, either graph you use, your graph you are just looking at the upward spiral. How many degrees are we talking about here of a rise in temperatures? And these are average global temperatures. This could very easily be explained away with (1) a rebound from the mini ice age and (2) natural upswings in our normal environment.

But the main question here is shouldn't we be breaking records every month if the premise of global warming is correct?

reckoner said over 2 years ago ...

"shouldn't we be breaking records every month if the premise of global warming is correct?"

No, and I don't see how anyone with a basic understanding of statistics and chaotic systems would think such a thing. Do you really believe that every single month should be hotter than the same month in the previous year if global warming is real? Really?

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

Correct me if I am wrong. The premise of global warming is that green house gases are being trapped in our atomosphere and causing the planet to heat up (yes it is far more complex than that). One of the greenhouse gases is Co2 and this is a bi-product burning fossil fuels. The record temps so far are no cause for alarm because we have never been hotter during certain times in the past so the real alarm is the temps continuing to rise and rise until they eventually break all records followed by all the horrible things that have been predicted from glaciers to the poor polar bears. How am I wrong?

reckoner said over 2 years ago ...

"The premise of global warming is that green house gases are being trapped in our atomosphere and causing the planet to heat up. One of the greenhouse gases is Co2 and this is a bi-product burning fossil fuels."

Yes

"the real alarm is the temps continuing to rise and rise until they eventually break all records followed by all the horrible things that have been predicted from glaciers to the poor polar bears."

Sort of, but not exactly. Here's a more concrete example. With the temperatures we have now, glaciers are melting. Rising temps will cause them to melt faster, but the current melting is alarming by itself. This will cause rising sea levels which will cause all kinds of problems. This is one of many problems we are facing, and will face in the future.

Both graphs, yours and mine, show a clear warming trend. Your graph is only satellite measured temperatures. It doesn't include other temperature measurements. My graph is all of the temperatures we measure.

outlander said over 2 years ago ...

"Sort of, but not exactly. Here's a more concrete example. With the temperatures we have now, glaciers are melting. Rising temps will cause them to melt faster, but the current melting is alarming by itself. This will cause rising sea levels which will cause all kinds of problems. This is one of many problems we are facing, and will face in the future."

I am sure like everyone has heard the Himalayans as predicted their glaciers are not melting and recent discoveries have shown that is may not be climate change that causes the glaciers to melt. The same glacier in that link is both thinning and advancing:

"Or in other words the glacier would have shown the same acceleration and thinning it has shown since the 1990s with or without climate change, perhaps accounting for its very rapid melting and the local contrast with the general picture of increased Antarctic sea ice."

On top of this, nearly every pro-global warming website I read the IPCC reports are used to back up the science behind what I call overblown assumptions. Nils-Axel Morner, a former reviewer for the IPCC did comparisons of observed data versus the IPCC climate models and found the latter to be vastly overstated. source

"Both graphs, yours and mine, show a clear warming trend. Your graph is only satellite measured temperatures. It doesn't include other temperature measurements. My graph is all of the temperatures we measure."

Again, look at the temperature variations. Two important things: (1) a 13 degree temp variation from coldest to hottest. (2) we've been hotter before. The fact that 13 degrees is not that much and we were hotter in the distant past tells me it is not necassary to spend billions of dollars "fighting" climate change.

The important question here is shouldn't we be seeing ALL glaciers worldwide melting and not advancing along with a steady increasing uptick in sealevels all over the world if the thesis of Global Warming is correct?

reckoner said over 2 years ago ...

"The important question here is shouldn't we be seeing ALL glaciers worldwide melting "

Not necessarily. Temperatures in local areas have a lot to do with jet streams and ocean currents. If global warming changes some of these then it's possible for some small local area to get cooler if it finds itself under a cool jet stream that used to not pass over it.

As always, you aren't being very clear. It hasn't been "hotter before". Please give real data. When do you think it was hotter, and hotter than what?

  • we are putting more CO2 into the air
  • CO2 is a greenhouse gase
  • the earth is measurably warming
  • this has serious consequences

These are all true, and you haven't made it clear what you think is wrong about them.

Join our friendly Yakkstr community in 1 Easy Step
  • Meet Like Minded People
  • Share your thoughts with others who share your interests
  • No assholes to deal with, we keep them out
Join Now by writing your first comment below


Related Posts
Global Warming Waste
I was reading this article in the Mail that says no global warming in 15 years! "Bas
7 comments
last by rollingc over 1 year ago
Obama's Keystone Political Mess
Will Obama play the Keystone pipeline card when he is in trouble? I can understand a need to delay such a project based on environmental concerns. My problem is why can't there be a middle ground where the environment can be protected and we can still
20 comments Last Page
last by d6fer almost 3 years ago

Remember me

New? Sign up here.
outlander commented 11 days ago on
Will Republicans Govern
Very well said read the rest
outlander commented 11 days ago on
Suppressing legitimate voters just as planned
No it didn't, it enabled lazy people to cry and give you people a sound-bite. SEVEN different ways to prove your identity, these people were not disenfranchised they were read the rest
outlander commented 11 days ago on
Lets Get To Work!
Reck if didn't spend the fucking trillions on wars how much would we spend on damage control. How much did 9/11 cost? How much did Saddams invasion of Kuwait cost the world? If your motivation was saving money you'd be for the wars and you'd read the rest
outlander commented 11 days ago on
Lets Get To Work!
Reck-how can republicans pass any immigration laws? Obama doesn't enforce the ones we have now? He is threatening executive actions, why one anyone work with him when they know regardless of what is passed Obama is just going to go his own way. read the rest
outlander commented 14 days ago on
Lets Get To Work!
We never speak in absolutes so cut the crap. Look at Israel, they are surrounded by enemies and have managed to close their borders and keep unwanted people out. Do you agree that we have to secure the border before we can deal with immigration? read the rest
outlander commented 15 days ago on
Will Republicans Govern
Secure the border. No one gives a shit about amnesty and sucking Mexican ass WE JUST WANT THE BORDER SECURE. Democrats will not agree to shutting down that border so we are just waiting for smarter Democrats or when the people who want to kill us start read the rest
outlander commented 15 days ago on
Will Republicans Govern
"deport them all party" How in the fuck is any single thing going to change or improve if garbage like this is smeared across a blog post by someone I know wants to be taken seriously? Maybe I should just call the Democratic party the party of baby read the rest
outlander commented 22 days ago on
Cowardly Leftwingers Can't Admit They Fucked Up
So you admit Saddam didn't destroy his weapons? You didn't read the New York times article did you? Why did we go to war with read the rest
outlander commented 22 days ago on
Suppressing legitimate voters just as planned
The law doesn't prevent anyone from voting. The red tape in NY is specifically designed to prevent people from owning read the rest
outlander commented 22 days ago on
Why scientists are (almost) certain that climate change is man-made
Uh!!!! Then why the fuck isn't it happening?! Co2 continues to rise and the temps are not going in the same direction. Is this one of those keep repeating a lie over and over and eventually it will become read the rest