Global warming-fact or fiction and how do you propose we tackle it?

[Final-Fan]

Sqrl said:

Final-Fan said:
I'm not saying that there are no individuals disputing that humans are the prime cause of global warming in recent decades, but your anecdotes do nothing to refute that there is a general consensus in the scientific community that we are, and that no major scientific organization (AFAIK) is an exception to this consensus.

Different altitudes in the atmosphere have different natural temperatures. What is the natural temperature for each of these levels and are they on the rise?

The water vapor vs. CO2 issue has already been raised and answered in some detail. If you think there is more to the story then go for it, but you do need to address what has already been said.

As for the medieval warming period, (A) no doubt it did benefit regions such as Europe that could benefit from the longer growing season, etc.; but did other regions have adverse effects? (B) What makes you think that the rate of pollution would not produce far too much warming?
(Actually, a little research indicates that the MWP was in fact regional warming and not global warming at all.)
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/medieval-warm-period-was-just-as-warm.html

I greatly respect you Sqrl but you have not brought anything significant to this debate.

You have missed the point, I don't give 2 shits if there is a consensus among a bunch of organizations. And I will continue not caring until real scientists with real research that they can present before me are supported by other real scientists who have tested that research, which most certainly has not happened here. I am not a stupid person and I have no problem sitting down to a 5,000 page report and reading the entire thing. I have already read large portions of several IPCC reports and for a time I was someone who thoroughly believed in the "consensus" ideas and the theory of global warming. But it has come to a point where the real science behind it is in bad shape and its days as this unreproachable juggernaut are numbered.

My examples were real scientists with real research which is precisely why they are a thousand times more valid than any cries of "consesus omg consensus!".

The water vapor vs C02 issue was run over by someone who sounded like they knew what they were talking about and nothing more. The fact is that water vapor is still the single largest net contributer to warming via the greenhouse effect despite its ability to regulate itself.

But really that only sidesteps the point. The research being done by the NASA team I mentioned before is showing that warming at the surface is much faster in ALL regions of the world than its respective troposphere which is precisely where the greenhouse effect takes place and its also precisely where the warming should be happening the fastest..yet its not.

More over, the last 8 years have seen temperatures go flat and the "warming" has stopped. This is according to NASAs own corrected data (the corrections were from human error in setting up the sampling stations). This does not fit into the greenhouse theory and it most certainly does not fit into the idea of anthropogenic warming.

Who cares what happened to other regions? You don't seem to get this. This is nature...climate changes WILL HAPPEN..do you understand? Good, now understand that when the climate changes some regions will be effected positively and some negatively. The species that live there must adapt to survive as a part of life. Humans like things comfy and always the same it seems but thats not how the earth works.

Really in the end this whole thing is mankinds continuing ego problem where everything revolves around him and is decided by him. Sorry folks, its not true.

As for your closing, if you truly had respect you wouldn't have added such a disrespectful comment. The fact is that you didn't grasp what was being said and allowed previous posters whose positions you agreed with automatically rule out my argument without allowing me a chance to rebutt thus allowing yourself to prematurely call victory.


If we are to believe that humans are the major or even minor driving force behind this how did all of the (far faster and more significant) warming happen in the past? Are we to believe that despite the fact that the current rates of temperature change are well within normal levels that this is somehow out of the ordinary and rather than being the normal processes of the earth its something that manking has caused? If we know just by temperature records of thousand, hundreds of thousands, and millions of years ago that these variations are normal and well within the normal rates of change why then do we ignore the already well documented driving forces of climate and instead choose ourselves as the cause? I say its arrogance, but before you pursue your point further you might want to familiar yourself with this.

Edit: Just to summarize that last paragraph: Why should we ignore all of the previous drivers of climate change that have been responsible in the past and now believe that this is somehow different and things have changed?

Your quote from that article is precisely the type of thing that should make someone question these morons. Major drivers exist, and without explaining why all of a sudden the greenhouse effect is the new major driver we are just supposed to accept it? Feel free to take that point on faith, but I am a bit more skeptical it appears.

All right, I was wrong to say you didn't bring anything new to the debate, as the satellite data was not something previously discussed. I don't have an immediate rebuttal but I will try to find out more and get back to it.

The water vapor issue, though, I have to say I think I understand and disagree with you on. Whatever its total share of contribution to the overall greenhouse effect, it sounds as if its atmospheric levels advance and retreat in lockstep with atmospheric temperature. Therefore, other greenhouse gases -- such as CO2 -- that are not completely tied to atmospheric temperature can exert upward (or, by their lack, downward) influence on the overall greenhouse effect that water vapor by its nature cannot. I really would like your response to this, as I want to know how I am wrong here if I am.

"Who cares what happened to other regions?" I don't understand what you mean. If the medieval warm period was good for Europe, that doesn't mean that such an abnormally warm period would be good for humans as a whole. If the net outcome is bad then maybe we ought to think about whether we can make the outcome not so bad.

I do admit that I lumped your water vapor argument, which I believed I understood and considered bogus, in with your troposphere argument, which I have no solid reason to dimiss. I'm sorry about that.

I have been given to understand that the most recent warming period is actually the most abrupt that we know of. What other periods have seen "far faster" temperature increase? More importantly, is the current rate of temperature change really so common as to be no cause for alarm? I want to see the info that brought you to this conclusion.