Global warming...man-made or not?

[Amarisa]

Why does it matter? Its far more productive to be asking questions regarding solutions instead of pointing fingers and bit*hing about it like 4th graders.

+1

i don't understand why people cant state their opinions we are on a fan forum its not like our words is going to cause something to happen. maybe someone might change their opinion but its up to them to make up their mind.

[lavapockets]

Why does it matter? Its far more productive to be asking questions regarding solutions instead of pointing fingers

Because the title of this thread is whether or not you believe global warming is real, not how to fix it.

Amarisa, all you posted are pictures, no analysis other than your opinion on how it validates your point. You are not qualified to interpret those pictures. Sorry, but until you get a degree in physical science, climate science, etc. you have to get your information from someone who IS qualified to interpret the data. Alternatively, you can post someone else's analysis. Until you do either of those, your opinion is uninformed and ignorant.

This can be an SRO fan forum all it wants to be, but I will still point out the deficiency of your argument and continue to point you to sources you should value.

[Amarisa]

your pulling the i'm not qualified card? so i need a degree to figure out if i believe global warming is real or not? are you qualified to tell me that what i stated is wrong? show me some evidence that proves my statement wrong it doesn't matter if i'm qualified or not.

[lavapockets]

your pulling the i'm not qualified card? so i need a degree to figure out if i believe global warming is real or not? are you qualified to tell me that what i stated is wrong? show me some evidence that proves my statement wrong it doesn't matter if i'm qualified or not.

Did you even bother to read the 8 articles I linked?

And no, you're not qualified to interpret a graph on carbon levels. You have NO idea what it means in relation to the rest of the data which I'm sure you haven't looked at.

[Amarisa]

your pulling the i'm not qualified card? so i need a degree to figure out if i believe global warming is real or not? are you qualified to tell me that what i stated is wrong? show me some evidence that proves my statement wrong it doesn't matter if i'm qualified or not.

Did you even bother to read the 8 articles I linked?

yes i did but really all i see is people pointing there finger at CO2 its like this picture.



seems like it fits right? but anyone who has a brain and gone threw 8th grade knows this isn't true. from what i see the temperatures are not sky rocketing CO2 is but not our temperatures. the fact that polar bears are dying because there is less ice, storms getting larger, or even coral reefs suffering. it could be just part of a natural cycle that fixes itself every X years. like i said awhile back we haven't had technology long enough to know if its natural or human related.

[lavapockets]

your pulling the i'm not qualified card? so i need a degree to figure out if i believe global warming is real or not? are you qualified to tell me that what i stated is wrong? show me some evidence that proves my statement wrong it doesn't matter if i'm qualified or not.

Did you even bother to read the 8 articles I linked?

yes i did but really all i see is people pointing there finger at CO2 its like this picture.



seems like it fits right? but anyone who has a brain and gone threw 8th grade knows this isn't true. from what i see the temperatures are not sky rocketing CO2 is but not our temperatures. the fact that polar bears are dying because there is less ice, storms getting larger, or even coral reefs suffering. it could be just part of a natural cycle that fixes itself every X years. like i said awhile back we haven't had technology long enough to know if its natural or human related.

The good thing about the global warming scientists is that they've vetted their information, and they're saying with a 90% certainty that human pollution is causing global warming (and that's a number I picked up from the global warming myth article on new scientist, which if you had read it, you should know already). That graph you posted is what happens when you DON'T prove causality. You are arguing against your own point there.

[Amarisa]

The good thing about the global warming scientists is that they've vetted their information, and they're saying with a 90% certainty that human pollution is causing global warming (and that's a number I picked up from the global warming myth article on new scientist, which if you had read it, you should know already). That graph you posted is what happens when you DON'T prove causality. You are arguing against your own point there.

so what if 90% of the people think its human related there is you know 10% who don't think so if you know math. i'm not arguing against my own point the fact that there is less ice or what ever else i said does not mean there is a global warming. or that CO2 is even rising the temperature.

[McLovin1t]

Dude Amarisa gtfo. CO2 TRAPS HEAT. OF COURSE IT ISN'T AN INSTANT HUGE BUILDUP. Our peak is no where near the highest so seriously, just you are making me /facepalm so much. Where have you been for the past several years. Honestly. In hundreds of years, if CO2 keeps building up there will not be any more life, or anything so please stfu. Dude it's people like you who are like "omg it's nothing don't worry", and don't recycle or do anything and cause it to be an even bigger problem. The CO2 will heat up the ocean and cause more hurricanes, along with more destroyed animal species, so dude just listen to at least 5 well informed scientists (out of the thousands who know that it is 100% true), instead of the one insane person who showed you it doesn't exist.

did i say anything about all of that? i said CO2 is not the cause of global warming i never ONCE said cutting back on it wouldn't improve situations. we are having a discussion on a SRO FAN FORUM honestly i don't see why your getting upset on my opinions. its people like you that end up getting threads with honest discussions locked because you tell someone to "gtfo" for having an opinion.

QQ. It's not an opinion. Your opinion is 100% wrong, global warming is a 100% fact. If CO2 is not an influence, why would cutting back on it reduce global warming. You are contradicting yourself and you make no sense. You think this is a discussion, but it's not. Not one person agrees with you, you are 100% wrong. BTW, when you said we have no effect on earth, I lold. How about a nuclear war, what would that do? How about keeping up the CO2 levels, what would that do. And yes I am telling you to gtfo because you don't make any sense at all, and surprises me that people still act like this in the year 2009.

[lavapockets]

The good thing about the global warming scientists is that they've vetted their information, and they're saying with a 90% certainty that human pollution is causing global warming (and that's a number I picked up from the global warming myth article on new scientist, which if you had read it, you should know already). That graph you posted is what happens when you DON'T prove causality. You are arguing against your own point there.

so what if 90% of the people think its human related there is you know 10% who don't think so if you know math. i'm not arguing against my own point the fact that there is less ice or what ever else i said does not mean there is a global warming. or that CO2 is even rising the temperature.

No, that's not what that means. It doesn't mean that 90% of scientists believe in global warming, and the other 10% of people can have some ignorant opinion. It means that based on the data and the modeling, (we're talking statistically here) scientists are comfortable saying that there is a 90% chance that global warming is man-made. You never get within 100% certainty in complex systems, and I'd be dumbfounded if they could get it into 96% with the sheer number of variables they have (look up Z scores and standard distributions please, I'm not explaining it). This is where people who have NEVER done modeling or advanced statistics cannot grasp the information and insert some opinion they believe makes sense, and one which conforms with their worldview. And now we're back to you being unqualified to assess the data and unable to accept information that doesn't fit into your worldview, which was the point I made earlier.

[Amarisa]

If CO2 is not an influence, why would cutting back on it reduce global warming.
to much of anything is bad? plus it could cause some unknown harm

Not one person agrees with you,
o rly?

you are 100% wrong.
glad to hear your opinion

BTW, when you said we have no effect on earth, I lold. How about a nuclear war, what would that do?
took it outa context there when i said "mans footprint of this earth is like an ant on the sun (size comparison)" (as i'm sure you know because you did put it in your sig) i meant they have barely any effect in a non war condition. plus i never said no effect.

How about keeping up the CO2 levels, what would that do.
no one knows hence why i said it would be nice to bring them down

And yes I am telling you to gtfo because you don't make any sense at all, and surprises me that people still act like this in the year 2009.
oh i'm glad my english skills suck enough that it is annoying to you sadly my care cup is empty

@lavapockets guess i misread that but i sware it was like 90% of scientists and nations agreed Humans were likely the causes of global warming. scientists say there is a 90% CHANCE its man made. but still where is it that global warming is even real? i honestly don't see it.... how is the rise of CO2 levels global warming or the ice caps melting? where is the PHYSICAL evidence that the temperatures are rising and will continue to rise?

[McLovin1t]

If CO2 is not an influence, why would cutting back on it reduce global warming.
to much of anything is bad? plus it could cause some unknown harm

Not one person agrees with you,
o rly?

you are 100% wrong.
glad to hear your opinion

BTW, when you said we have no effect on earth, I lold. How about a nuclear war, what would that do?
took it outa context there when i said "mans footprint of this earth is like an ant on the sun (size comparison)" (as i'm sure you know because you did put it in your sig) i meant they have barely any effect in a non war condition. plus i never said no effect.

How about keeping up the CO2 levels, what would that do.
hence why i said it would be nice to bring them down

And yes I am telling you to gtfo because you don't make any sense at all, and surprises me that people still act like this in the year 2009.
oh i'm glad my english skills suck enough that it is annoying to you sadly my care cup is empty

@lavapockets guess i misread that but i sware it was like 90% of scientists and nations agreed Humans were likely the causes of global warming. scientists say there is a 90% CHANCE its man made. but still where is it that global warming is even real? i honestly don't see it.... how is the rise of CO2 levels global warming or the ice caps melting? where is the PHYSICAL evidence that the temperatures are rising and will continue to rise?

Lol. You missed all of my main points!! You said CO2 won't cause anything, but it will decrease the effects of global warming anyway if it is decreased . An ant on the sun would cause no effect not barely an effect, so with that analogy I assume you mean we have no effect as well... Wow lol, CO2 could cause some unknown harm. No that harm has been known for 20 years to a vast majority of informed people and scientists, the world will get hotter and our ice cream will melt . And yes CO2 traps heat, in case you weren't aware and with trapping heat, we will slowly get hotter. And I don't understand how you know we are at our peak, it doesn't make any sense to me at all. Average temperature can go down one year, but if you look at the larger scale, which you clearly have not, we are going on a trend of exponential growth, as CO2 levels raise, the earth gets hotter.

It is rather obvious, see look at a 40 year trend. The last segment of data is much higher than the segment at the beginning, but because it's not at peak we are getting colder

[Amarisa]

If CO2 is not an influence, why would cutting back on it reduce global warming.
to much of anything is bad? plus it could cause some unknown harm

Not one person agrees with you,
o rly?

you are 100% wrong.
glad to hear your opinion

BTW, when you said we have no effect on earth, I lold. How about a nuclear war, what would that do?
took it outa context there when i said "mans footprint of this earth is like an ant on the sun (size comparison)" (as i'm sure you know because you did put it in your sig) i meant they have barely any effect in a non war condition. plus i never said no effect.

How about keeping up the CO2 levels, what would that do.
hence why i said it would be nice to bring them down

And yes I am telling you to gtfo because you don't make any sense at all, and surprises me that people still act like this in the year 2009.
oh i'm glad my english skills suck enough that it is annoying to you sadly my care cup is empty

@lavapockets guess i misread that but i sware it was like 90% of scientists and nations agreed Humans were likely the causes of global warming. scientists say there is a 90% CHANCE its man made. but still where is it that global warming is even real? i honestly don't see it.... how is the rise of CO2 levels global warming or the ice caps melting? where is the PHYSICAL evidence that the temperatures are rising and will continue to rise?

Lol. You missed all of my main points!! You said CO2 won't cause anything, but it will decrease the effects of global warming anyway if it is decreased . An ant on the sun would cause no effect not barely an effect, so with that analogy I assume you mean we have no effect as well... Wow lol, CO2 could cause some unknown harm. No that harm has been known for 20 years to a vast majority of informed people and scientists, the world will get hotter and our ice cream will melt . And yes CO2 traps heat, in case you weren't aware and with trapping heat, we will slowly get hotter. And I don't understand how you know we are at our peak, it doesn't make any sense to me at all. Average temperature can go down one year, but if you look at the larger scale, which you clearly have not, we are going on a trend of exponential growth, as CO2 levels raise, the earth gets hotter.

It is rather obvious, see look at a 40 year trend. The last segment of data is much higher than the segment at the beginning, but because it's not at peak we are getting colder

40 years is not a long enough time period to know anything.

Spoiler!

Code: Select all
Code: Select all
Code: Select all
Code: Select all

There's my argument against the CO2 people.

[McLovin1t]

Lol. See you just proved me right, I also never said it's the only cause of global warming, but it does raise the temperature quite a bit. And in my 40 year graph it does show an upward trend does it not (it obviously does). And it is an exponential growth, if you don't know what that means, it means the rate of growth increases as time goes on. And in 40 years it grows a little bit, at this rate, in 400 years it will grow a lot correct? Do not say that the huge upward growth of CO2 along with the raise in temperature is a coincidence.

[Amarisa]

Lol. See you just proved me right, I also never said it's the only cause of global warming, but it does raise the temperature quite a bit. And in my 40 year graph it does show an upward trend does it not (it obviously does). And it is an exponential growth, if you don't know what that means, it means the rate of growth increases as time goes on. And in 40 years it grows a little bit, at this rate, in 400 years it will grow a lot correct? Do not say that the huge upward growth of CO2 along with the raise in temperature is a coincidence.

a growth in 40 years yes but dose it mean it will continue no. prove you right how? i never gave evidence within 40 year time frame.

[McLovin1t]

Of course it will continue. I just won the argument right here. You never disputed the fact that CO2 and temperature are related so your argument falls. And I win because I proved that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing temperature. It will continue because there will be more CO2 in the atmosphere as shown by many scientists recording observations daily. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing exponentially with temperature.

[lavapockets]

@lavapockets guess i misread that but i sware it was like 90% of scientists and nations agreed Humans were likely the causes of global warming. scientists say there is a 90% CHANCE its man made. but still where is it that global warming is even real? i honestly don't see it.... how is the rise of CO2 levels global warming or the ice caps melting? where is the PHYSICAL evidence that the temperatures are rising and will continue to rise?

Well the ice sheets melting and temperatures rising are part of the physical evidence of global warming, as are sea level increases, storm severity, droughts, floods, etc. There are a lot of things happening which present physical evidence of global warming. There is natural variation in climate, and there are overall trends. You have to look at hundreds of years of data to be able to see the trends (sometimes thousands of years), which is why the climate models are so complex. Natural variations occur in climate, but you have to be able to distinguish natural variations from anomolous activity, which is another reason why climate models are so complex. But the data point to a rapid acceleration in both warming and carbon levels following the industrial revolution, and accelerating further mid-twentieth century to now. The fact that the ice shelves and glaciers all over the world are receding and they haven't done so for thousands of years is possibly the best way to "eyeball" global warming. But the earth isn't just going to light up one day and say "Global Warming is real, please stop now." If we get to the point that we so severely disrupt the Earth's natural system it may become extremely difficult to maintain life here. Biodiversity is already suffering due to pressures of rapid human expansion, and it will continue to decline.

If you need more proof:
scientific american
nature
the UN
IPCC
BBC
look stuff up

[McLovin1t]

@lavapockets guess i misread that but i sware it was like 90% of scientists and nations agreed Humans were likely the causes of global warming. scientists say there is a 90% CHANCE its man made. but still where is it that global warming is even real? i honestly don't see it.... how is the rise of CO2 levels global warming or the ice caps melting? where is the PHYSICAL evidence that the temperatures are rising and will continue to rise?

Well the ice sheets melting and temperatures rising are part of the physical evidence of global warming, as are sea level increases, storm severity, droughts, floods, etc. There are a lot of things happening which present physical evidence of global warming. There is natural variation in climate, and there are overall trends. You have to look at hundreds of years of data to be able to see the trends (sometimes thousands of years), which is why the climate models are so complex. Natural variations occur in climate, but you have to be able to distinguish natural variations from anomolous activity, which is another reason why climate models are so complex. But the data point to a rapid acceleration in both warming and carbon levels following the industrial revolution, and accelerating further mid-twentieth century to now. The fact that the ice shelves and glaciers all over the world are receding and they haven't done so for thousands of years is possibly the best way to "eyeball" global warming. But the earth isn't just going to light up one day and say "Global Warming is real, please stop now." If we get to the point that we so severely disrupt the Earth's natural system it may become extremely difficult to maintain life here. Biodiversity is already suffering due to pressures of rapid human expansion, and it will continue to decline.

If you need more proof:
scientific american
nature
the UN
IPCC
BBC
look stuff up

+1

[Amarisa]

Of course it will continue. I just won the argument right here. You never disputed the fact that CO2 and temperature are related so your argument falls. And I win because I proved that CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing temperature. It will continue because there will be more CO2 in the atmosphere as shown by many scientists recording observations daily. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing exponentially with temperature.

you could at least watch the first video no?

[McLovin1t]

No, I'd rather not watch the only video about how CO2 isn't related to temperature, which it is proven to do, and have you watch all of the hundreds of thousands of videos proving global warming to exist.

[Amarisa]

No, I'd rather not watch the only video about how CO2 isn't related to temperature, which it is proven to do, and have you watch all of the hundreds of thousands of videos proving global warming to exist.

then you no longer "win"

[William-CL]

The ozone hole was made by humans,thus made the ultra-violet rayons to pass and those rayons are hotter and dangerous to humans

Google Is mans best friend, no?

No,brainless ppl use Google,or use Wikipedia wich they think its the most trustable source wich prooves their fools and idiots,sorry im not like those ppl that will google every shit instead of make their brains work a little bit.

So then the Information is already in our brains and we have to search for it? Weird, I wish i knew that sh1t years ago. Then i wouldn't have spent so much time learning new things...

[Mr.Ganji]

Why does it matter? Its far more productive to be asking questions regarding solutions instead of pointing fingers

Because the title of this thread is whether or not you believe global warming is real, not how to fix it.

So, a mere title of one thread of one forum on the infinite Internet dictates whats right and wrong?

We may not be our nation's lawmakers or leading scientists, but this thread and argument are as pointless as those more-often-than-note religious flamefests on SRF.

I suggest we lock this thread and prevent any more braincells from being wasted on a stupid question while the world, regardless of whether it was created by man or not, is slowly shriveling up from global warming and its effects.