Global Warming? Today was colder than yesterday.

Coincidence? I think not. Might I draw your attention to this link showing undisputable proof of the fiasco that is global warming:

http://www.theweathernetwork.com/index.php?product=obs24h&placecode=cabc0308&ref=qlink_obs_last24

In the last 24 hours, max temperature has gone from 13 degrees to 10 degrees. Global Warming implies that the Earth is constantly getting warmer, therefore the fact that today is colder than yesterday completely disproves this. If global warming existed, the temperature would be rising every day, not falling. I would ask for you to try to disprove this, but it is obvious that the evidence is undeniable. Global warming is a sham, everyone start burning tires now.

Haha:lol: *drum roll.......*

i think global warming is a joke people trying to get rich off books and other stuff its just sad.

i think global warming is a joke people trying to get rich off books and other stuff its just sad.

rook2rook

Oh none of that really matters as the moon is constantly moving away from the earth anyways and it's the only thing keeping the earth from wobbling on its axis which will cause all manner of crazy weather and violent tempature changes when it does. So really it's only a matter of time anyways until there aren't anymore issues of the Fantastic Four being made and then where will I be?

[QUOTE="rook2rook"]

i think global warming is a joke people trying to get rich off books and other stuff its just sad.

BumFluff122

:lol:

Awesome.

Oh none of that really matters as the moon is constantly moving away from the earth anyways and it's the only thing keeping the earth from wobbling on its axis which will cause all manner of crazy weather and violent tempature changes when it does. So really it's only a matter of time anyways until there aren't anymore issues of the Fantastic Four being made and then where will I be?

Lord_Daemon

since when does the earth as a planet have its own temperature? enlighten me. i have noticed it getting colder here too though and here is almost the peak of summer so there could be truth in what you have said.zarkon9

Uhhh. Why wouldn't the earth have its own temperature???

since when does the earth as a planet have its own temperature? enlighten me. i have noticed it getting colder here too though and here is almost the peak of summer so there could be truth in what you have said.zarkon9

[QUOTE="Lord_Daemon"]

Oh none of that really matters as the moon is constantly moving away from the earth anyways and it's the only thing keeping the earth from wobbling on its axis which will cause all manner of crazy weather and violent tempature changes when it does. So really it's only a matter of time anyways until there aren't anymore issues of the Fantastic Four being made and then where will I be?

BumFluff122

TC doesnt make sense. Global Warming shows an increase in the AVERAGES of the temperatures. Usually the average of an entire year which are increasing. You are comparing summer to winter saying that since winter is coolder global warming does not exist. Global warming is true, just not in the ways that many believe. The world is still coming out of an ice age. The last one that we had was in the medieval ages. The world goes in cycles of warm and cold. Humans have done nothing to upset that change AT ALL. Its just human arrogance that we think that we can affect the going of nature that much.Iantheone

When fossil fuels, such as methane (CH4) are burned and the remnants of that burnign become oxidized they form different molecules (CH4 + oxidation = CO2 + 2H2O). Both CO2 and water vapour are greenhouse gases. However water vapour can only stay within the atmosphere for 2 weeks at most. CO2 on the other hand can stay in the air for 2 centuries until it gets re absorbed by the ocean or by other means, if it does at all. The Suns ray arive on the Earth in a short wavelength. When those rays hit a surface some of the rays are absorbed and re-radiated back into space but in a longer wavelength. Certain molecules, known as greenhouse gases, are effected by this radiative wavelength. When the longer wavelength radiation hits one of these molecules the bonds vibrate gaining kinetic energy in the process. This kinetic energy is transmitted to other particles in the atmosphere thereby heating the Earth.

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Lord_Daemon"]

Oh none of that really matters as the moon is constantly moving away from the earth anyways and it's the only thing keeping the earth from wobbling on its axis which will cause all manner of crazy weather and violent tempature changes when it does. So really it's only a matter of time anyways until there aren't anymore issues of the Fantastic Four being made and then where will I be?

rook2rook

Compare how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere to the rest of history. Especially the Jurassic period. CO2 makes up a very small part of the greenhouse gasses there are in our atmosphere right now. Close to ALL of the greenhouse gasses is water vapour.

Compare how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere to the rest of history. Especially the Jurassic period. CO2 makes up a very small part of the greenhouse gasses there are in our atmosphere right now. Close to ALL of the greenhouse gasses is water vapour.

Iantheone

[QUOTE="rook2rook"]

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Lord_Daemon"]

Oh none of that really matters as the moon is constantly moving away from the earth anyways and it's the only thing keeping the earth from wobbling on its axis which will cause all manner of crazy weather and violent tempature changes when it does. So really it's only a matter of time anyways until there aren't anymore issues of the Fantastic Four being made and then where will I be?

BumFluff122

[/QU hmm i dint get that for dude.

[QUOTE="Iantheone"]

Compare how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere to the rest of history. Especially the Jurassic period. CO2 makes up a very small part of the greenhouse gasses there are in our atmosphere right now. Close to ALL of the greenhouse gasses is water vapour.

BumFluff122

hmm i dint get that for dude.

rook2rook

I never said that it changed the temperature. CO2 has very little if any affect on the changing temperature of the earth.Iantheone

if that is true and it makes global warming "a sham" then this country made one big mistake by spending one billion dollars signing to something called the kyoto protocol. that money could have gone somewhere else... such as health and education but only given that there is no such thing as global warming. just given that global warming is a generation of the media, for instance.zarkon9

Stop claiming that its the media making things up. Have you ever bothered to research any of the scientific EVIDENCE?

[QUOTE="rook2rook"]

hmm i dint get that for dude.

BumFluff122

Apparently he didn't mistake what you said for a guy...? Nope, I'm as lost as you are... :?

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="rook2rook"]

hmm i dint get that for dude.

black_cat19

Apparently he didn't mistake what you said for a guy...? Nope, I'm as lost as you are... :?

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] I never said that it changed the temperature. CO2 has very little if any affect on the changing temperature of the earth.BumFluff122

[QUOTE="zarkon9"]if that is true and it makes global warming "a sham" then this country made one big mistake by spending one billion dollars signing to something called the kyoto protocol. that money could have gone somewhere else... such as health and education but only given that there is no such thing as global warming. just given that global warming is a generation of the media, for instance.honkyjoe

Stop claiming that its the media making things up. Have you ever bothered to research any of the scientific EVIDENCE?

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] I never said that it changed the temperature. CO2 has very little if any affect on the changing temperature of the earth.BumFluff122

CO2 was nearly 20x higher than it is today during late Cambrian Period, Earth's temperature was substantially colder, if I remember correctly, it was the coldest in Earth's known climate history, only extends to late pre-Cambrian ~500m years ago, or at least, I've never seen any data older than ~500m years. And just before (stable for millions of years..) Earth's temperature was vastly hotter than today... and the CO2 levels were HIGHER than during late Cambrian =) odd... I wish I didn't delete my computer, had all the math done/sources for everything =(

Much of 'global warming's (is generally called 'climate change' now.. aka weather) arguments seem to be based on relatively short periods of time, such as 50-3k years, and the general 70-110k warming and cooling cycles Earth has is ignored...

Oh, and the only time temperature and CO2(as low as) levels were similar to what they are today, was the Permian Period.. (you know.. that great extinction)

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

[QUOTE="Iantheone"] I never said that it changed the temperature. CO2 has very little if any affect on the changing temperature of the earth.Iantheone

Um, does the melting of polar ice caps because of higher temperatures ring any bells? You know, the whole sea levels rising, shorelines extending deeper into continents, and whole cities being flooded and lost underwater scenario? Any of that sound dangerous to you?

Whatever, im changing my argument. Regardless of how much CO2 we are putting into the atmosphere nothing is going to happen. Like i said before the Jurassic period had FAR more CO2 in the atmosphere than we do now. And guess what? There was still life on this planet. Humans would be able to survive that temperature. The whole "Global warming is dangerous" is just wrong, its not. Nothing will happen to us. Iantheone

[QUOTE="honkyjoe"]

[QUOTE="zarkon9"]if that is true and it makes global warming "a sham" then this country made one big mistake by spending one billion dollars signing to something called the kyoto protocol. that money could have gone somewhere else... such as health and education but only given that there is no such thing as global warming. just given that global warming is a generation of the media, for instance.rook2rook

Stop claiming that its the media making things up. Have you ever bothered to research any of the scientific EVIDENCE?

Being that science is about what we can test, repeat, and observe I would take issue that scientific evidence is flawed. Science is here to learn about our world and scientists do that by collecting mounds of research and publishing it in peer review journals. Other scientists may therefore disprove or build upon a theory after it is concieved through research. Good theories are the ones which have been around for a long time without being disproven; evolution for example. To say that scientific evidence is flawed is displaying ignorance of the highest degree.

Um, does the melting of polar ice caps because of higher temperatures ring any bells? You know, the whole sea levels rising, shorelines extending deeper into continents, and whole cities being flooded and lost underwater scenario? Any of that sound dangerous to you?

black_cat19

Smartest post in this thread.

CO2 was nearly 20x higher than it is today during late Cambrian Period, Earth's temperature was substantially colder, if I remember correctly, it was the coldest in Earth's known climate history, only extends to late pre-Cambrian ~500m years ago, or at least, I've never seen any data older than ~500m years. And just before (stable for millions of years..) Earth's temperature was vastly hotter than today... and the CO2 levels were HIGHER than during late Cambrian =) odd... I wish I didn't delete my computer, had all the math done/sources for everything =(

Much of 'global warming's (is generally called 'climate change' now.. aka weather) arguments seem to be based on relatively short periods of time, such as 50-3k years, and the general 70-110k warming and cooling cycles Earth has is ignored...

Oh, and the only time temperature and CO2(as low as) levels were similar to what they are today, was the Permian Period.. (you know.. that great extinction)

Inconsistancy

Also, where do you get that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is low today? The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently at roughly 377 parts per million. IT's risen by 90 parts per million just in the last 200 years with the start of the industrial revolution. It has not been as high as this for millions of years.

[QUOTE="black_cat19"]

Um, does the melting of polar ice caps because of higher temperatures ring any bells? You know, the whole sea levels rising, shorelines extending deeper into continents, and whole cities being flooded and lost underwater scenario? Any of that sound dangerous to you?

Gundamforce

Smartest post in this thread.

Thanks dude, but BumFluff is posting in this thread, so there's just no way my posts can be the smartest here. :P

I hope you are aware that global warming is not based on temperatures of the past. It's based on chemistry and physics. We know what happens to CO2 when it is released into the atmosphere. I've already posted this. There are other factors that can cause temperature on Earth to fluctuate as well. Changing ocean current. El Nino and La Nino effects, air pressure, and many more. Even the amount of radiation striking the Earth has some effect. You can post all the links you want and I'm sure I'll be able to speak on them in depth and tell you what you think is wrong. As I stated before in either this thread or another thread. it is a fallacy bring temperatures of the past up and CO2 concentration fo the past up and stating "Well it was higher in the past so therefor man-made global warming is a sham"

Also, where do you get that the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is low today? The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is currently at roughly 377 parts per million. IT's risen by 90 parts per million just in the last 200 years with the start of the industrial revolution. It has not been as high as this for millions of years.

BumFluff122

Well, okay, lets ignore all data that conflicts... good science. =)

Well, tell me what I'm getting wrong about this link! http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Also, I don't feel like looking around the whole internets again to find any conflicting data.. I don't recall finding any when I last searched for supporting/conflicting data for this graph..., if you want you can go ahead and find me the data that I've always wated to have... never could find the actual composition of Earth's atmosphere in the periods of time that this graph has... like how much oxygen, nitrogen... ect.. =)

Ohh, edit.. my memory fails me, I meant it was coldest during the Ordovician... not Cambrian period =), in fact, ignore all Cambrian refrences I've made, my point lies with Ordovician, it supports me ~cuddles with ordovician~

[QUOTE="zarkon9"]if that is true and it makes global warming "a sham" then this country made one big mistake by spending one billion dollars signing to something called the kyoto protocol. that money could have gone somewhere else... such as health and education but only given that there is no such thing as global warming. just given that global warming is a generation of the media, for instance.honkyjoe

Stop claiming that its the media making things up. Have you ever bothered to research any of the scientific EVIDENCE?

Well, okay, lets ignore all data that conflicts... good science. =)

Well, tell me what I'm getting wrong about this link! http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Also, I don't feel like looking around the whole internets again to find any conflicting data.. I don't recall finding any when I last searched for supporting/conflicting data for this graph..., if you want you can go ahead and find me the data that I've always wated to have... never could find the actual composition of Earth's atmosphere in the periods of time that this graph has... like how much oxygen, nitrogen... ect.. =)

Inconsistancy

Did you not read what I last posted? Stating the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past or the temperature of the past, which is what this webpage you gave speaks about, is a fallacious argument against man-made global warming of today. They have absolutely nothing to do with oen another. The creatures alive today are adapted to living in the climate of today. The creatures that were alive during the carboniferous period were adapted to life in the climate of then. An example showing this is somethign I've already posted, that being the example of coral bleaching and what can occur with a slight variation of temperature. I'll say it again, the compositoion or temperature of the atmosphere of a million years ago does nothing in an argument concernign man-made global warming via fossil fuel use of today. The data does nto conflict and I'm nto ignoring it. It just has nothing to do with it. But reagardless, read this -url-

BumFluff122

Huh, That article says "The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity." It doesn't say that the past is irrelevant, and that's why I'd like to have more data on the Earth's atmosphere, such as Nitrogen, Oxygen... ECT we're back to me needing more data, of which is not being provided, and the graph that's on that page, displays essentially the same CO2 vs temp, with the only variations being when they use different methods of finding out the CO2 levels, which don't extend as far back as the 'geological model' which is clearly what 'my' graph was based entirely on, however the biggest deviations occurre from ~320mya, and 160mya between the different methods...

So not only is there insuficcient data, the data isn't very accurate!

Maybe I'm really stupid, but it does seem like you're completely dismissing the natural variation part, in favor of it all being human activity, I didn't say we have nothing to do with the climate! But imo, it looks like, from the data (as innaccurate as it is) provided, that CO2 levels aren't very relevant to temperature, they sometimes follow the same path, but other times, they go the complete opposite way, and these aren't over 100s of years... but millions! =) And due to the time-scales, you can't always tell if CO2 is preciding temperature or trailing it. The data sucks, but to say it has Nothing to do with it... is madness, those climates happened on Earth, not Mars... We need better, and more data and over very long periods of time.

Silly me, misread it, tired... stfu...

At anyrate it in no way seems to support it as potentially natural varaition then, in which case.. it's pretty much saying the case is closed, it must be human, very one sided... considering all the data that makes no sense and conflicts with it,.. I'm sayign it Shouldn't be dissmissed, as it could be potentially 'natural variation'.. and really, it shouldn't.. since when is it okay to dismiss something just cause the data is crap, work harder finding better data then imo, I'm no scientist, it's not my job to find all the proper data, nor am I capable of doing so. =) I lack equipments...

[QUOTE="BumFluff122"]

Did you not read what I last posted? Stating the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past or the temperature of the past, which is what this webpage you gave speaks about, is a fallacious argument against man-made global warming of today. They have absolutely nothing to do with oen another. The creatures alive today are adapted to living in the climate of today. The creatures that were alive during the carboniferous period were adapted to life in the climate of then. An example showing this is somethign I've already posted, that being the example of coral bleaching and what can occur with a slight variation of temperature. I'll say it again, the compositoion or temperature of the atmosphere of a million years ago does nothing in an argument concernign man-made global warming via fossil fuel use of today. The data does nto conflict and I'm nto ignoring it. It just has nothing to do with it. But reagardless, read this -url-

Inconsistancy

Huh, That article says "The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity." It doesn't say that the past is irrelevant, and that's why I'd like to have more data on the Earth's atmosphere, such as Nitrogen, Oxygen... ECT we're back to me needing more data, of which is not being provided, and the graph that's on that page, displays essentially the same CO2 vs temp, with the only variations being when they use different methods of finding out the CO2 levels, which don't extend as far back as the 'geological model' which is clearly what 'my' graph was based entirely on, however the biggest deviations occurre from ~320mya, and 160mya between the different methods...

So not only is there insuficcient data, the data isn't very accurate!

Maybe I'm really stupid, but it does seem like you're completely dismissing the natural variation part, in favor of it all being human activity, I didn't say we have nothing to do with the climate! But imo, it looks like, from the data (as innaccurate as it is) provided, that CO2 levels aren't very relevant to temperature, they sometimes follow the same path, but other times, they go the complete opposite way, and these aren't over 100s of years... but millions! =) And due to the time-scales, you can't always tell if CO2 is preciding temperature or trailing it. The data sucks, but to say it has Nothing to do with it... is madness, those climates happened on Earth, not Mars... We need better, and more data and over very long periods of time.

Silly me, misread it, tired... stfu...

At anyrate it in no way seems to support it as potentially natural varaition then, in which case.. it's pretty much saying the case is closed, it must be human, very one sided... considering all the data that makes no sense and conflicts with it,.. I'm sayign it Shouldn't be dissmissed, as it could be potentially 'natural variation'.. and really, it shouldn't.. since when is it okay to dismiss something just cause the data is crap, work harder finding better data then imo, I'm no scientist, it's not my job to find all the proper data, nor am I capable of doing so. =) I lack equipments...

Scientists, and everyone related to this, are well aware that warming has occurred in the past. They are also well aware that the CO2 levels of the atmosphere are a result of natural variation. However, they are also aware that the human burning of fossil fuels, adding more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, is effecting that atmosphere. Why do you deny this? If an amount of carbon has been out of the atmosphere for millenia and we add it back into that atmosphere that atmosphere will be effected by the increase. I didn't state it was all human activity. However some of it is due to human activity as evidenced by the chemical reactions fossil fuels go through when combustion occurs. And CO2 is a greenhouse gas that assists in the warming of the planet. This is evidenced by the fact that at certain wavelengths certain types of gasses absorb those wavelengths. This is how these scientists know of the composition of other stars or planets, when EM radiation passes through certain types of gasses absorption of certain frequencies occur.

Carbon Doxide has an absorption spectrum with peaks around 2.6 and 4 microns and a complete blockout beyond 13 microns. Some of the radiation re-radiated back from the Earths surface is within these frequencies. Carbon Dioxide molecules in the air absorb this radiation, excite the bonds gaining kinetic energy and that kinetic energy is transmitted to other gasses. Water vapour, of course, also has this effect on a much wider level. the higher you go in the atmosphere the colder it will get, until you reach a certain point. That being where the ozone layer is. At this point in the atmosphere the temperatures are much the same as the temperatures on the surface of the planet. This is because this effect is occuring with the ozone layer keeping the more deadly radiation from striking our planet. As you increase the gases in the atmosphere this effect will increase as well, either trapping or expelling certain frequencies of radiation in or from the atmosphere. Water vapour is the major contributer to the greenhouse effect. However, as you increase certain other gasses faster than those gasses can be taken out of the atmosphere naturally there will be a buildup. If those gasses block certain wavelengths of light from entering or exiting the atmosphere those effects will be felt. In the case of CO2 it absorbs the longer wavelength radiation that is re-radiated from the Earth. The greater the amount of kinetic energy that is formed by this result the farther the increase of temperature will occur, which results in an increase of moisture the atmosphere is able to hold and a greater evaporation rate. That is why water vapour is listed as positive feedback with regards to CO2.

http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_account/greenhouse_gases_and_water_vapor_when_positive_feedback_is_a_bad_thing

Growing up I remember all the talk about Global Warming and how it's getting hotter because of it and that's why we had such mild winters.
Then when we had a cool summer and vicious winters, the same people were saying it's colder because of global warming.

So if it gets warmer it's because of global warming. If its colder its because of global warming.
I kind of stopped taking it serious right there.

While the exact scope of global warming may be somewhat exaggerated, I certainly believe in it. Simply saying, "it's cold today therefore global warming does not exist", doesn't really prove much.

Growing up I remember all the talk about Global Warming and how it's getting hotter because of it and that's why we had such mild winters.
Then when we had a cool summer and vicious winters, the same people were saying it's colder because of global warming.

So if it gets warmer it's because of global warming. If its colder its because of global warming.
I kind of stopped taking it serious right there.

flazzle

[QUOTE="zarkon9"]since when does the earth as a planet have its own temperature? enlighten me. i have noticed it getting colder here too though and here is almost the peak of summer so there could be truth in what you have said.honkyjoe

Uhhh. Why wouldn't the earth have its own temperature???

cause it's a rock flying through space, the earth was fine when it was much hotter and was fine when it was covered in ice. Brainkiller05

I thought it was a fact that global temperatures have been rising? However, I don't believe that it is man caused.

I"m willing to bet that supporters of global warming will change the name to "Climate Change" to cover their asses.clubsammich91

Also, I believe that global warm is about an average trend to warmer temperatures. On any given day, the temp may vary widely, but we are looking at the bigger picture.