Does Global Warming exist?

If so, how has it been measured, observed, and proven?

I was hoping for something a little more substantial, like articles from a respected journal (like Nature) or society (like the IPCC).

You know, something like this (a picture is worth a thousand words):
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.18.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg
http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/05.16.jpg

Or any of these: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=global+warming&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=&as_publication=Nature+OR+Science+OR+Journal+of+Climate&as_ylo=2005&as_yhi=2006&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=

Yeah, and my grandfather has a graph of the temperature changes at  his house over the past sixty years.  Your point?

And I'm glad to see you're FINALLY posting something to prove your point.  It took you, oh, only a little cowing to do so.

It is real how can you question that?!!?

Yeah, and my grandfather has a graph of the temperature changes at  his house over the past sixty years.

So what?

And I'm glad to see you're FINALLY posting something to prove your point

Why should I need to prove my point to someone who has "read thousands of articles on global warming over the past 15 years"?

Hate to butt-in here, but who gives a rats ass about graphs?  Did these scientists also keep track, and include in their findings, every time their equipment broke?  Software upgrades and malfunctions?  Or every time they replaced one piece of equipment with another?  Or every time someone was too tired, too sick, or just forgot to record their findings?  What the variances are/margin of error?  How well the equipment worked each recorded and unrecorded day?  Scientist expectation of final results at onset?

That's why the comment about taking temerature measurements from nature awhile back is far and away more reliable.  Nature doesn't fuck-up.

>>44
Why do you feel the need to prove your point at all then?  If you can't even debate someone into considering your position, then why did you reply at all?  To read your own words and masturbate or something?  Go to /b/ for that, boy.

Hate to butt-in here, but who gives a rats ass about graphs?
Why shouldn't we? It's a nice graphical representation that can be easily grasped.

Did these scientists also keep track, and include in their findings, every time their equipment broke?  Software upgrades and malfunctions?  Or every time they replaced one piece of equipment with another?  Or every time someone was too tired, too sick, or just forgot to record their findings?  What the variances are/margin of error?  How well the equipment worked each recorded and unrecorded day?  Scientist expectation of final results at onset?
Ever heard of "confounding variable"? You do realise scientists are several steps ahead of you here?

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8305
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8319
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm
http://newton.nap.edu/html/climatechange/
http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-execsum.pdf
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/aasc/AASC-Policy-Statement-on-Climate.htm
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/template.cfm?name=Global_Warming_Essay


There are your links, thousand-article boy. It is a scientific consensus that global warming being caused primarily by humans. The articles that have been cited against it are a handful of scientists who disagree and who are very much the exception to the rule, much like the scientific consensus that evolution exists. Global warming exists and humans are the main cause, you morons.

>>47
And what are you doing about it personally?

>>47
Yet no-one agrees on the cause beyond industrialization (which is bad for 3rd world countries to try and break into while first-world countries reap in the rewards).  Yet no-one agrees on what will happen.  Yet no-one agrees on what to do about it.

Yawn.

Everyone in the thread is boing me.

Gawd I'm so bored I can't even type 'boring'.  You people really ARE pathetic.

>>49
>>50
How about this...

We might end up stuck on this planet for eternity because chemical rockets are the only practical way to get into space and once fossil fuels get scarce human civilisation may not have the stability or foresight to mine the moon etc..

In the next 800 million years the sun will begin to burn more and more fuel as it begins to die and the earth's surface will be too hot for life to survive. Whatever happened in that 800 million years, whatever humans evolved into and what civilisations and 800*1000*1000 years of history they had will be wiped off for eternity and if in the rest of the unimaginably huge universe an alien species is more succesful than us and slowly crawls across it to find our solar system they will never know that sentient life once lived here. Our legacy would be a what if.

Sure we're selfish, I'm selfish, I want to be rich, but the fact that quadrillions of lives may or may not exist due to our actions here today certainly gives a new perspective to those parts of my psyche which encourage me to be selfless (or whatever part of my psyche gives me emotional pleasure for being selfless).

>>51

Exactly.

Commonly, the "anti-Environemental anti-Global warming" are conservatives and neo-cons. On the most basic ideological level they don't believe in a "future". For the sake of their belief, it would be better if we did destroy the planet and us along with it. >>40, >>50 falls firmly into this category. And if not, your beliefs are still in the same vien as disregarding mankind's existential fate.

A hoax can be a hoax, but mankind should be slowly weening ourselves out of the "animalistic competition"/"fatalistic apocolypse" mindset and realize that ensuring the collective existence of our rare and diverse species is top priority and any cultural or social memes that go against that must be eliminated.

LALALALALA FUCK U

OP here, cutting-in before someone call someone a "poopie-head".  D'oy.

This thread turned out as I'd expected, sadly.  But it died bring up some interesting points and thoughts.  Here, though, are the facts:

No-One has been able to prove global warming exists.  No-One has been able to prove global warming doesn't exist.

The yes people like to cite increasing air temp. and melting glaciers over the past 100 years as proof of their stance.  The no people like to cite fuxuating and overall decreasing air temp. and growing glaciers over the past 3 milion years (from ice core samples, actually) as proof.

What is a reliable source?  Is it printed media in journals, magazines, etc?  Some say a source is only as reliable as those who author it, but that is incorrect.  A source is only as reliable as the audience it targets.  When readong from a source, who is the information you're gathering originally for?  For what purpose was it released?  Was it scientist-to-scientist?  Was it to politicians, who give out grants for research?  Was it to the public?  Was it free, or did the information have to be bought at some point?  If so, then ask yourself which sells better, "Everything is Okay, Read Why Inside", or "We are Doomed, Read Why Inside"?

If you believe global warming is real, then what do you do at home to stop it?  Many world industries have begun to clean-up their acts, so to speak, at great costs.  Many industries are only able to use, due to limited scientific knowledge, certain replacement technologies for what has been shown to cause global warming.  Technologies when have proven to cause cancer, are poisons, etc.

If global warming isn't real, then why is so much time and energy being spent on the subject, rather than on ending social prejudice, interplanetary colonization, ending disease and hunger, new forms of stable and renewable energy, etc.?  Why release statements to the public without any/with little background information, whose only purpose is to make people afraid?

When does mankind typically make their greatest achievements: When content with everything, or when terrified of something? 

I'm touching on several subjects here that could use a little expansion...

We are all going to die!! You go first.

How much has the CO2 content of the atmosphere increased?

what do plants thrive on?

>>51
We might end up stuck on this planet for eternity because chemical rockets are the only practical way to get into space and once fossil fuels get scarce human civilization may not have the stability or foresight to mine the moon etc..

Eh?? Where'd you get that idea? Even now there are ideas popping up on ways to get into space without chemical rockets, and trying to predict the future of science is impossible. 200 years ago cars and planes were unimaginable. Who knows what other methods of energy will develop in even the next 50? Maybe dark matter will end up being a source of energy, maybe (probably) cold fusion will eventually work, there are a million maybes. We will get off this planet, although we may not be quick enough (See: Steven Hawking). So we should definitely try to save the environment in the meantime.


>>48
Off the top of my head: I walk, I bike, I take public transportation, I use a front-loading washing machine, I use a push lawn mower, I set my AC and heat +/- a few degrees respectively, I plan on buying a hybrid car, I recycle, I plant trees in my yard. I know I can always do more, everyone can do more, but it's a start.

>>56
I highlighted your sentence and googled it:
The latest data, as of March 2006, shows CO2 levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm) — 100ppm above the pre-industrial average.[3]

Percentage wise, that is a very significant increase. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, yes, but nature is delicate and an increase like that causes lots of detrimental effects. If the oxygen level were to decrease in that same ratio, about 50%,  you can bet it would be very bad.

>>57
Water, nitrogen and potassium fertilizers. Depends on what they have enough of and what they don't have enough of.

>>59
don't forget sunligt, lolol

>>60
farms provide the largest amount of sunlight they can get by eliminating competing flora

farms however cannot for instance flood the fields and expect their crops the grow more because different species only need a certain amount of water

>>61

anonymous is farmer!! :OOOO

>>59 might co2 be one of the answers?

Holy . . . shit.

>>63
Experiments have shown that plants already have more than enough CO2, plants need to be hydroponically grown with as much water, warmth and nutrients as they use before increasing CO2 has an effect. Commercially hydroponics is only profitable for plants which cannot grow in the climate the demand for it is in and transportation either reduces it's value and is costly enough for hydroponics to be profitable.

>>65
I take it your providing the fertilizer.

>>66
I smell what you did there.

>>66
No, but if I were I would be a fool to sit here and explain everything to you and not supply my brand name since I would simply be advertising every other fertilizer provider on the market.

>>36
>>But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.

>>Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.

I'm going to put forth a suggestion that maybe you had not considered yet: Macro is much easier to predict accurately than Micro.

Case in point, lot's of people could have told you quite accurately in the early 80's that in a decade personal computers would be common-place in many homes. That was evident from current trends.  But nobody could have told you with any great degree of certainty that Microsoft would be the producer of the dominant operating system.

In the same vein, we can predict approximate numbers for how the newest video game systems will sell this Christmas season, but we can't predict accurately which homes will get a system.  Yeah, they'll sell strongly, but at a certain depth level of analysis you have to just say, "I may not be able to predict where every snowflake will land, but I can see that there will be a blizzard."

>>36
>>The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.

You can't be serious.  If you're suggesting that allowing tropical conditions to exist at the north pole would be perfectly acceptable to you, then you really are a fuckwit; and therefore I can assume that there's not one consequence in the world that could convince you this could be a problem.

When you speak in the hypothetical like that, keep in mind what the temperature in the rest of the would be if the north pole were tropical!

And I wish people would dispense with all this "It's a natural course of nature." talk.  It isn't, and even if it were, I wouldn't give a shit.

You talk like we can just rebuilt cities in a day, someplace else and adapt.  If God himself came down and through an asteroid at our planet, I know at least two movies that basicly illustrate the correct human response: stop it from happening, regardless of whether or not it's natural, because it will destroy a lot of our stuff.

Stop with this, "Mankind will adapt to a changing environment."
That's what WE're trying to do!  We just want to adapt without letting the changing environment wipe out large chunks of our treasure.

Supposing our current global warming experience were a part of a natural cycle and not man created, would that make it any less of a threat to our coastlines?

>>69
>>70
troll'd

>>71
Actually, 69/70 doesn't realize he's talking to a copypasta.

I am personnally covinced that algore is a major contributor to rising co2 levels. He's also a major producer of fertilizer.
What is truth?

>>73
So are Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Rodman, and Dan Quale.

I wonder why no-one has tried to answer the question: "
Why this is in Politics?"

>>75
Bear Pig Man

As odd as it may sound I no longer see butterfly's where I live. Ive researched the species that come here and they dont have any long-term migrationroutes and lifecycles. 1 Degree might seem small, and so might the fact I nolonger see a butterfly in the midst of spring or summer, in fact it may seem stupid, but it still makes me sad.

>>77
Go outdoors more.

>>78
GTFO

no