Global warming, myth or reality?

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

proIsrael-nonIsraeli

Legendary Member
That's not how science works! Researchers care about finding the truth, not about being alone! Feel free to follow the money though and see where there's more money to be gained, is it anthropogenic climate change denial or the other way around.
"That's not how science works!" - it is not how science is supposed to work, but not every who claims to be scientist actually is or is good scientist.

If I am scientist I need money for research and for my living expenses while I am doing the research - as a scientist where do you get the money for that and what do you have to do/promise to get it?
 
  • Advertisement
  • Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    If you think about it the answer "could be mix of both" actually means "man cannot stop it even if man will cease to exist tomorrow", whih bring us to next fact - global warming begun about 20,000 years ago and at that time Homo Sapiens did not even exist at all.

    Now, to answer you other question - "you got do the research".

    I quickly ran this query @ Google "global warming is it man made or natural" and got practically equal number pros and cons.

    Granted, in many cases they were the reprints/references of each other, but it still means that there are 2 different opinions and we are far from consensus.
    It is not a matter of opinion once again! I dare you to find a single accredited scientific source supporting your argument of anthropogenic climate change not being real!
    Literally all arguments against this position have been refuted time and time again!
     
    Indie

    Indie

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    If you think about it the answer "could be mix of both" actually means "man cannot stop it even if man will cease to exist tomorrow", whih bring us to next fact - global warming begun about 20,000 years ago and at that time Homo Sapiens did not even exist at all.
    "It could be a mix of both" is just one possibility out of many. I didn't say it's definitely a mix of both.

    Now, to answer you other question - "you got do the research".

    I quickly ran this query @ Google "global warming is it man made or natural" and got practically equal number pros and cons.

    Granted, in many cases they were the reprints/references of each other, but it still means that there are 2 different opinions and we are far from consensus.
    That's another forumer, not me.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Considering CO2 levels were five times higher during the dinosaur age, millions of years before man, I think all signs points to global warming being a natural, not a man-made, phenomenon.
    I am not ready to answer this just yet.

    In 70s-80s scientists were promising nuclear winter due to high levels of CO2, today they promise greenhouse effect for the same reasons.

    To me it means that they do not know squat and most of the time claims are politicized rather than being scientific.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    "It could be a mix of both" is just one possibility out of many. I didn't say it's definitely a mix of both.
    I understand that, but it still means that if you should not actively fight global warming, but wait for better results instead of jumping the gun.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    You should've stopped writing at "yes" ?



    4,200 years ago, there was a brutal and swift period of global warming, this period of aridity saw the collapse of the Akkadian Empire, the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC). This is known as the "4.2 kiloyear event". Here's a map showing the areas affected by drought (in black) and the areas affected by flooding (grey):



    So we have three options:

    1/ Greenhouse effect (which you described).

    2/ The Akkadians, the Egyptians and the Indians used too many humvees.

    3/ We don't really understand the processes through which abrupt aridification and cooling come about.

    Considering the reliability of "scientific consensus" and the short time span covered by the temperature record, I'll go for the 3rd option.

    I could also mention the 5.9 and the 8.2 kiloyear events, I could also put this in the context of the Saharan pump theory and start talking about how Arabia and the Sahara were green and lush places or how the Gulf was a large oasis during the pleistocene. There's no shortage of similar events that show how little we really know of the way climate works.
    Your options are flawed, and the very existence of this event is debatable

    Massive drought or myth? Scientists spar over an ancient climate event behind our new geological age
     
    True Palestinian

    True Palestinian

    New Member
    In reality, the 4.2 kya event is observable in archeogenetics, for example:

    We next sought to estimate the time when the Iran_ChL-related ancestry penetrated the Levant. Our results support genetic continuity since the Bronze Age and thus our large dataset of present-day Lebanese provided an opportunity to explore the admixture time using admixture-induced linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay. Using ALDER50 (with mindis: 0.005), we set the Lebanese as the admixed test population and Natufians, Levant_N, Sidon_BA, Iran_N, and Iran_ChL as reference populations. To account for the small number of individuals in the reference populations and the limited number of SNPs in the dataset, we took a lenient minimum Z-score = 2 to be suggestive of admixture. The most significant result was for mixture of Levant_N and Iran_ChL (p = 0.013) around 181 ± 54 generations ago, or ∼5,000 ± 1,500 ya assuming a generation time of 28 years (Figure S13A). This admixture time, based entirely on genetic data, fits the known ages of the samples based on archaeological data since it falls between the dates of Sidon_BA (3,650–3,750 ya) and Iran_ChL (6,500–5,500 ya). The admixture time also overlaps with the rise and fall of the Akkadian Empire which controlled the region from Iran to the Levant between ∼4.4 and 4.2 kya. The Akkadian collapse is argued to have been the result of a widespread aridification event around 4,200 ya.51, 52 Archaeological evidence in this period documents large-scale influxes of refugees from Northern Mesopotamia toward the south, where cities and villages became overpopulated. 53Our confidence intervals for the admixture dates are wide and therefore the historical links suggested here should be considered with caution. Future sampling of ancient DNA from northern Syria and Iraq will reveal whether these populations carried the Iran_ChL-related ancestry and also provide a better understanding of the origin of the eastern migrants and the time when they arrived in the Levant.

    Source: https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8

    ^^I could give half a dozen similar examples. Try harder :cigar:
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    In reality, the 4.2 kya event is observable in archeogenetics, for example:

    We next sought to estimate the time when the Iran_ChL-related ancestry penetrated the Levant. Our results support genetic continuity since the Bronze Age and thus our large dataset of present-day Lebanese provided an opportunity to explore the admixture time using admixture-induced linkage disequilibrium (LD) decay. Using ALDER50 (with mindis: 0.005), we set the Lebanese as the admixed test population and Natufians, Levant_N, Sidon_BA, Iran_N, and Iran_ChL as reference populations. To account for the small number of individuals in the reference populations and the limited number of SNPs in the dataset, we took a lenient minimum Z-score = 2 to be suggestive of admixture. The most significant result was for mixture of Levant_N and Iran_ChL (p = 0.013) around 181 ± 54 generations ago, or ∼5,000 ± 1,500 ya assuming a generation time of 28 years (Figure S13A). This admixture time, based entirely on genetic data, fits the known ages of the samples based on archaeological data since it falls between the dates of Sidon_BA (3,650–3,750 ya) and Iran_ChL (6,500–5,500 ya). The admixture time also overlaps with the rise and fall of the Akkadian Empire which controlled the region from Iran to the Levant between ∼4.4 and 4.2 kya. The Akkadian collapse is argued to have been the result of a widespread aridification event around 4,200 ya.51, 52 Archaeological evidence in this period documents large-scale influxes of refugees from Northern Mesopotamia toward the south, where cities and villages became overpopulated. 53Our confidence intervals for the admixture dates are wide and therefore the historical links suggested here should be considered with caution. Future sampling of ancient DNA from northern Syria and Iraq will reveal whether these populations carried the Iran_ChL-related ancestry and also provide a better understanding of the origin of the eastern migrants and the time when they arrived in the Levant.

    Source: https://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(17)30276-8

    ^^I could give half a dozen similar examples. Try harder :cigar:
    Let me explain why your options are flawed in simple terms: the earth doesn't just all of a sudden decide to get hotter without cause, global warming has always had a trigger. It's usually greenhouse emissions. This event in particular whose very existence is debatable is hypothesised to have been caused by an asteroid.

    Anthropogenic climate change skeptics like to point to oscillations in global temperatures to describe a cyclical climate, an appeal to magic argument, that has no natural causes. That is simply not true! While there has been multiple oscillations between global warming and global cooling throughout the earth's history, there was always a cause behind these events. The current greenhouse emissions will absolutely trigger a global warming in our future, we're on our way anyway! This basic fact is observable by measuring global temperatures, greenhouse emissions, and the fact that additional co2 levels in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere. There is no shortage of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change, there is however a shortage of evidence supporting this particular event.

    I will link you to a previous post I had about cyclical climate change and why it doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    breaking out the bold red colour to make a straw man, nice! What I said was a hoax was your charlatan's data, credentials and his stupid chart :)



    We actually do happen to be at the end of one of the warmer cycles, however it's not a 1 century cycle, it's an 11700 years warmer period that is supposed to end by an ice age, an ice age that will probably be pushed back due to global warming!


    The earth is not really getting colder and colder though, that's what climate skeptics and charlatan climatologists (speaking of which, I think you should notice that even this chart you posted negates that guy's "data" :p) with made up data say to try to invalidate the argument behind anthropogenic climate change, they fail miserably! While it is true that the average anomaly was higher in 2016 than 2017 (which was actually the warmest non el-nino year on record) , or 2018, the same can be said for 2011, 2012 and 2013 compared to previous and following years and it's still close to +1 and should actually be alarming! Actually the 10 warmest years on record have occured since 1998!

    The earth doesn't just decide to get warmer because "it's at the end of a cycle"... The earth gets warmer because something forces it to! And the observed warmer slope we are on can only be explained by adding greenhouse gases and anthropogenic radiative forcings. There are no natural forcings that have occurred in the past 150 years this is literally the only explanation! Actually even if you eliminate the measured temperatures out of the equation you still come by greenhouse emissions through other means, for example the fact that the troposphere is warming but the levels above (from stratosphere up) are cooling up as fewer radiation is escaping into space.




    I'm really not! The idiot you posted manipulated his data and it was pretty easy for me to show you why they're wrong! I'm not the one "mixing two signals of different frequencies" he, on the other hand was in his chart with no y axis! It's actually fairly easy to tell the direction of the slope we are on, it's going up, not down!



    Yes I know that's why you're going through all the trouble of talking about cycles and oscillations, you just want to argue against anthropogenic climate change, but like all the charlatan climatologists before you, your arguments won't hold up to scrutiny! See in the example you gave masalan, the warming in the Holocene period was very localised in the northern hemisphere and the average temperatures did not exceed those of recent years by much, if at all!

    And as I explained previously, the change today is only explainable through increased greenhouse emissions, it would literally not have happened otherwise! So no it's not "normal and could have still occurred etc." Actually for it to be natural a century of physics would have to be proven wrong! But then again, I'm sure your charlatan climatologists knows better ?!



    DID YOU REALLY JUST POST A CHART FROM AN ASTROLOGIST?? why not post Mike fghali's predictions while you're at it? Heyde not to mention that the temperatures are limited to the northern hemisphere, and the data used is from 1986! You were actually better off with your charlatan climatologist!



    previously tackled and explained



    I FULLY AGREE WITH THE ABOVE! it is quite sad for someone to claim knowledge regarding a particular subject when their sources are charlatan climatologists and astrologists, dismissing actual evidence being given to them from accredited sources such as NASA! You really should research your subject before subscribing to conspiracy theories! The only one making meaningless arguments out of ignorance is you actually! Science, facts and observation in general are on my side, and for someone so fond of the truth you sure ignore it often! Your regression is quite sad to witness, such a shame!
    Once again I'm not the one claiming anthropogenic global warming, the entire scientific community is doing so based on data and observation, that was all explained to you with evidence and sources backing it up which you conveniently ignored to keep claiming this "natural" cyclical narrative!

    You are wrong in your assertions and your conclusions! The only explanation to the rise in measured temperature anomalies in recent years is manmade and not natural and that is backed up by evidence! Global warming will actually be pushing the next ice age :
    We’re Due For Another Ice Age But Climate Change May Push It Back Another 100,000 Years, Researchers Say | The Weather Channel

    You're really not bringing anything new to the table citing climate cycles, if not studied in school it was a pretty popular set of movies called ice age! What you are subscribing to however is a particularly dangerous brand of climate skeptics that base their theories somewhat on the truth and keep espousing idiotic jargon! The sources backing you up are basically idiots and charlatans which is why you avoided defending them and have stuck to flinging random insults around!

    You are not only being ignorant about the scientific facts, but you are doing so in a dangerous fashion! Someone with no scientific knowledge is prone to believing your garbage and this is exactly how conspiracy theories spread, through idiots who think they're smarter than what they actually are!

    Do yourself and everyone else a favour and educate yourself on the subject of anthropogenic climate change!
    @True Palestinian
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Let me explain why your options are flawed in simple terms: the earth doesn't just all of a sudden decide to get hotter without cause, global warming has always had a trigger. It's usually greenhouse emissions. This event in particular whose very existence is debatable is hypothesised to have been caused by an asteroid.

    Anthropogenic climate change skeptics like to point to oscillations in global temperatures to describe a cyclical climate, an appeal to magic argument, that has no natural causes. That is simply not true! While there has been multiple oscillations between global warming and global cooling throughout the earth's history, there was always a cause behind these events. The current greenhouse emissions will absolutely trigger a global warming in our future, we're on our way anyway! This basic fact is observable by measuring global temperatures, greenhouse emissions, and the fact that additional co2 levels in the atmosphere have resulted in the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere. There is no shortage of evidence supporting anthropogenic climate change, there is however a shortage of evidence supporting this particular event.

    I will link you to a previous post I had about cyclical climate change and why it doesn't deny anthropogenic climate change.
    "global warming has always had a trigger. It's usually greenhouse emissions" - what has triggered greenhouse emissions 20,000 years ago?
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    "global warming has always had a trigger. It's usually greenhouse emissions" - what has triggered greenhouse emissions 20,000 years ago?
    Global warming events in the earth's history have been caused by the sun, volcanic eruptions, and most notable co2 emissions from volcanoes, organic rich sediments and underwater methane deposits. All of which do not explain our current situation.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Global warming events in the earth's history have been caused by the sun, volcanic eruptions, and most notable co2 emissions from volcanoes, organic rich sediments and underwater methane deposits. All of which do not explain our current situation.
    No, but once global warming has started 20,000 years ago it still continues and it will continue until next global cooling will come ... or never.
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    No, but once global warming has started 20,000 years ago it still continues and it will continue until next global cooling will come ... or never.
    Our current cycle has started around 11000 years ago, and our current levels of CO2 emissions have pushed back the next global cooling which was supposed to happen 1500 years from now to 100000-500000 years from now. So the effects of global warming will be felt on earth for a long, long time.

    The earth's temperatures have been steadily rising over the past 150 years and they have been the highest on record consistently, all of that has already been discussed at length in this thread, feel free to go to the first page and read a bit.

    In regards to your previous reply, I asked you for an accredited scientific source denying anthropogenic climate change, you failed to provide one and instead talked about a Google search with a premaid conclusion! I'm actually certain most of the sources you found that denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change are blog posts, forum posts, or opinion pieces in right wing newspapers, not a single accredited scientist among them.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Our current cycle has started around 11000 years ago, and our current levels of CO2 emissions have pushed back the next global cooling which was supposed to happen 1500 years from now to 100000-500000 years from now. So the effects of global warming will be felt on earth for a long, long time.

    The earth's temperatures have been steadily rising over the past 150 years and they have been the highest on record consistently, all of that has already been discussed at length in this thread, feel free to go to the first page and read a bit.

    In regards to your previous reply, I asked you for an accredited scientific source denying anthropogenic climate change, you failed to provide one and instead talked about a Google search with a premaid conclusion! I'm actually certain most of the sources you found that denied the existence of anthropogenic climate change are blog posts, forum posts, or opinion pieces in right wing newspapers, not a single accredited scientist among them.
    I cannot reply now and I do not know if I will be able to do it over the weekend, but I will try to remember that I owe you the reply.
     
    Jorje

    Jorje

    Legendary Member
    Lmfao! your hobby is population genetics? That makes you totally qualified to disagree with 97% of scientists ?

    Yes science is not a democracy, when all observable evidence points to a theory being true, it's held as true! Take the same advice I gave others in this thread and educate yourself!
    His hobby is population genetics and he knows how to run a PCA on his home computer and publishes his findings in the Oroom Journal, of course after getting peer-reviewed by experts like Muki and Ice Tea and with the help of Paint to draw his graphs. This is all a real story, btw - I'm not making that up.

    Know your audience Isabella. :lol:
     
    Top