Is Global Warming Real?

[Spendulus]

...
They can tell a lot of stuff, most importantly what you said: more watts in, less watts in. That's about it. Can he explain to me the impact that an increase or decrease in watts will have related to Earth's absorption capacity? Can he explain how much does increased sun activity measure compared to plants' and humans' production of energy? Can he explain the effects of an increased or decreased solar output in Earth considering N different endogen factors?

Besides, how exactly can you show me evidence the sun activity IS directly responsible for long-trend climactic changes, and that those changes aren't really of increased temperatures?

And lastly, even if climate change isn't real and whatnot, why would you still oppose climate change's utmost goals - the change for a more sustainable society? Because, regardless of "political/financial gains" a "hoax climate change campaign" might have, it is undeniable that its defining aspect is a call for sustainability & environmental friendliness. And I'm not talking about what you might perceive as "shiite environmentalism", I'm talking about structural changes for the better that are honestly long required, such as less usage of fossil fuels, more usage of nuclear energy, recycling, increase in green areas, stuff like that.

So we just toss out your initial argument as based on a poor choice of an example? No problem. In logic, you would be said to have set up a straw man argument, easily defeated. But the article doesn't support even your straw man argument, so I thought to bring that to your attention.

Obviously the primary mover of climate is the Sun. Astrophysicists vary in their work, but many certainly can and do talk about the Sun as it affects planetary atmospheres. Others may be concerned only with internal solar dynamics, etc. Still others focus on cosmic rays, solar wind, space weather, many things. Primary evidence of sun affecting climate is night and day, winter and summer, and the periodic ice ages and such.

There was a semi-political attempt starting maybe in the 1990s to minimize the effects of the sun on earth's climate, so that the effect of man's emissions could be brought into the forefront and seem more "alarming." For example, Al Gore's initial movies and presentation of the "hockey stick" did not show the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm period. This was an attempt to box in "natural climate variability" as fairly insignificant. That's pretty much debunked today. Although this is best expressed with phrases like "high or low uncertainty," rather than absolute certainty.

You can't go wrong being skeptical when someone is absolutely certain of something, particularly in a mathematically chaotic environment like climate.

Bolded above, isn't that a sort of rhetorical statement that assumes a stereotyped "enemy?" You don't know anything of what I oppose or not. But to respond, ambiguous, feel good phrases like "Sustainable society" really obscure the platform rather than explain it. Same with "environmental friendliness." Recycling is fine when it's not totally ridiculous, which isn't infrequent. Is Recycling an unqualified good? No, of course not. We're on the same page on the need for increases in productive nuclear energy.

[Luqueasaur]

...
They can tell a lot of stuff, most importantly what you said: more watts in, less watts in. That's about it. Can he explain to me the impact that an increase or decrease in watts will have related to Earth's absorption capacity? Can he explain how much does increased sun activity measure compared to plants' and humans' production of energy? Can he explain the effects of an increased or decreased solar output in Earth considering N different endogen factors?

Besides, how exactly can you show me evidence the sun activity IS directly responsible for long-trend climactic changes, and that those changes aren't really of increased temperatures?

And lastly, even if climate change isn't real and whatnot, why would you still oppose climate change's utmost goals - the change for a more sustainable society? Because, regardless of "political/financial gains" a "hoax climate change campaign" might have, it is undeniable that its defining aspect is a call for sustainability & environmental friendliness. And I'm not talking about what you might perceive as "shiite environmentalism", I'm talking about structural changes for the better that are honestly long required, such as less usage of fossil fuels, more usage of nuclear energy, recycling, increase in green areas, stuff like that.

So we just toss out your initial argument as based on a poor choice of an example? No problem. In logic, you would be said to have set up a straw man argument, easily defeated. But the article doesn't support even your straw man argument, so I thought to bring that to your attention.

Obviously the primary mover of climate is the Sun. Astrophysicists vary in their work, but many certainly can and do talk about the Sun as it affects planetary atmospheres. Others may be concerned only with internal solar dynamics, etc. Still others focus on cosmic rays, solar wind, space weather, many things. Primary evidence of sun affecting climate is night and day, winter and summer, and the periodic ice ages and such.

There was a semi-political attempt starting maybe in the 1990s to minimize the effects of the sun on earth's climate, so that the effect of man's emissions could be brought into the forefront and seem more "alarming." For example, Al Gore's initial movies and presentation of the "hockey stick" did not show the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm period. This was an attempt to box in "natural climate variability" as fairly insignificant. That's pretty much debunked today. Although this is best expressed with phrases like "high or low uncertainty," rather than absolute certainty.

You can't go wrong being skeptical when someone is absolutely certain of something, particularly in a mathematically chaotic environment like climate.

Bolded above, isn't that a sort of rhetorical statement that assumes a stereotyped "enemy?" You don't know anything of what I oppose or not. But to respond, ambiguous, feel good phrases like "Sustainable society" really obscure the platform rather than explain it. Same with "environmental friendliness." Recycling is fine when it's not totally ridiculous, which isn't infrequent. Is Recycling an unqualified good? No, of course not. We're on the same page on the need for increases in productive nuclear energy.

My point was: there are people who think global cooling exist AND they lack strong evidence to think that, instead opting to use the (in blunt words) stupidity of "We're in an ice age".

I presented evidence for both claims.

You retorted claiming I was wrong, pointing an article which DOES NOT BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID. Therefore, you came with a claim you did not have evidence for.

The point in the above paragraph is essentially what I said in my last post, plus a bit of a clickbaity question to see how you'd answer.

You responded again, implying my evidence isn't trustworthy because climate science is biased and providing essentially false information. You did not provide any evidence of that. Your example was Al Gore, which we can both agree is an alarmist and a doofus.

Are we on the same page here?

Besides, to elaborate on what I said, a sustainable society would be one that relies less on fossile fuels for well, fuel and energy, opting instead for renewable sources that cause the least environmental impact; governmental agencies to incentivize sustainable measures by companies & heavily monitor and punish activities that are detrimental to the environment; more robust measures to increase natural vegetation & other type of measures considered by studies to be beneficial for achieving a human-ecosystem relationship; immediate measures to mitigate climate change impacts in society (for instance, more robust catastrophe systems, overhaul in cities to be prepared for droughts, incentive for walking/biking/public transportation over personal vehicles); companies gradually changing to less wasteful products & bottles, etc. This type of stuff are the measures usually proposed to mitigate climate change, and I think regardless whether or not you think it doesn't exist you'd be willing to back them up.

Honestly, whether or not you believe or not in modern science is disregardable, as long as you support such a more "eco friendly" lifestyle

[Spendulus]

...

My point was: there are people who think global cooling exist AND they lack strong evidence to think that, instead opting to use the (in blunt words) stupidity of "We're in an ice age".

I presented evidence for both claims.

You retorted claiming I was wrong, pointing an article which DOES NOT BACK UP WHAT YOU SAID. Therefore, you came with a claim you did not have evidence for.....

Are we on the same page here?
...

No, I am not aware of any people that claim we are in an ice age. (looking outside) Does not look that way around here.

As for the "article I pointed to", I pointed to the logical fallacy of your argument, based on YOUR ARTICLE.

As for "global cooling," of course it can exist, and does exist historically. It is no more than another term in any simplified linear equation of climate. It may be a weak or a strong term, with high or low uncertainty, still, the summation of the equation rules. (I'm simplifying a bit here, but likely you get it). For example, the Earth has radiative input factors, but also radiative output. Generally, that would mean outflow of watts from the lower stratosphere outwards. A global cooling factor, obviously.

You responded again, implying my evidence isn't trustworthy because climate science is biased and providing essentially false information. You did not provide any evidence of that. Your example was Al Gore, which we can both agree is an alarmist and a doofus.

Not exactly. Gore worked with Dr. James Hansen, and used Michael Mann's "hockey stick." Those are / were well published and known researchers. He did not come up with his alarmist ideas by himself. Well, maybe the idea of using the scissors lift was his. And maybe the idea of breaking the AC system in August 1988 when Hansen did his seminal report to the Senate, insuring they were all unbearably hot while the subject of the presentation was "global warming..." maybe that was Gore's work.

So Gore presented alarmist concepts but he wasn't the origin of them.

Also, you have closed with a variation of this, several times, so it deserves a reply.

(A)Besides, to elaborate on what I said, a sustainable society would be one that relies less on fossile fuels for well, fuel and energy, opting instead for renewable sources that cause the least environmental impact; governmental agencies to incentivize sustainable measures by companies & heavily monitor and punish activities that are detrimental to the environment; more robust measures to increase natural vegetation & other type of measures considered by studies to be beneficial for achieving a human-ecosystem relationship; immediate measures to mitigate climate change impacts in society (for instance, more robust catastrophe systems, overhaul in cities to be prepared for droughts, incentive for walking/biking/public transportation over personal vehicles); companies gradually changing to less wasteful products & bottles, etc. This type of stuff are the measures usually proposed to mitigate climate change, and I think regardless whether or not you think it doesn't exist you'd be willing to back them up.

Honestly, whether or not you believe or not in modern science is disregardable, as long as you support such a more "eco friendly" lifestyle

Let's just call (A) Beliefs, for a moment.

The argument now becomes "Agree with Beliefs," and you "Are a good person." I'll point out the fallacies in that.

The propagator of the argument is free to modify "Beliefs", while those subscribing to them still must adhere to the Dogma. This is pseudo-religion and has no scientific basis and no basis in any rational mode of life. Each of those sub-arguments in list (A) should be considered on it's merits or lack of. Essentially this is a power play, an attempt to gain control of people through word arguments and propaganda tactics.

Oh, and if you want to learn about eco-friendly habits, take a look at Singapore.

[Luqueasaur]

No, I am not aware of any people that claim we are in an ice age. (looking outside) Does not look that way around here.

I (honestly) can't tell if you're being sarcastic. If you are disregard this paragraph, but if you're not, then this becomes a bit concerning to me, because that was supposedly fundamental knowledge: we are in an "ice age", but on an interglacial period. We've been in an "ice age" for quite a while now. We're just not in the glacial period per se. And the wide majority of people who talk about climate knows that. If they don't, that just points a lack of fundamental knowledge.

My original arguments were: (A) there are people who use the thought of "we're in an Ice Age" to "debunk" global warming and (B) the concept of global cooling isn't a thing (for our current environment; I'm not talking about it never happened in Earth's 4.5 billion years of age).

As for the "article I pointed to", I pointed to the logical fallacy of your argument, based on YOUR ARTICLE.

I still don't get what is the "logical fallacy" of your argument that I haven't addressed. Besides, both articles you mention (the one you pointed to & the one I linked) I have already debunked. So, if they're supposed to somehow counter what I said, they're already off the table.

Plus, it seems a bit interesting how you're overall avoiding touching on the "sun activity is important in our current climate" part of the debate, which has been the largest target of my counter arguments - and something you've been a bit adamant in defending.

As for "global cooling," of course it can exist, and does exist historically. It is no more than another term in any simplified linear equation of climate. It may be a weak or a strong term, with high or low uncertainty, still, the summation of the equation rules. (I'm simplifying a bit here, but likely you get it). For example, the Earth has radiative input factors, but also radiative output. Generally, that would mean outflow of watts from the lower stratosphere outwards. A global cooling factor, obviously.

I didn't understand what you said, but "global cooling" implies the average Earth temperature is decreasing. (Is this what you were referring to?)

And if that's what you're arguing is happening right now, that is not what the majority of scientists who research and look at scientific data tend on agreeing.

A discussion among many scientists regarding this topic.

Physicists calling out global cooling a bit thoroughly.

And the icing of the cake, A more thorough explanation on how most measures point global warming is happening right now.

Not exactly. Gore worked with Dr. James Hansen, and used Michael Mann's "hockey stick." Those are / were well published and known researchers. He did not come up with his alarmist ideas by himself. Well, maybe the idea of using the scissors lift was his. And maybe the idea of breaking the AC system in August 1988 when Hansen did his seminal report to the Senate, insuring they were all unbearably hot while the subject of the presentation was "global warming..." maybe that was Gore's work.

I'm not debating whether Hansen or Mann's concepts are trustworthy or not, I'm saying that Al Gore and his awareness campaign was alarmist. Similarly to, for instance, someone who reports on US-Iran conflicts and then points to an alarmist prediction of a Third World War.

And once again, no evidences of a climatic conspiracy worldwide.

Let's just call (A) Beliefs, for a moment.

The argument now becomes "Agree with Beliefs," and you "Are a good person." I'll point out the fallacies in that.

The propagator of the argument is free to modify "Beliefs", while those subscribing to them still must adhere to the Dogma. This is pseudo-religion and has no scientific basis and no basis in any rational mode of life. Each of those sub-arguments in list (A) should be considered on it's merits or lack of. Essentially this is a power play, an attempt to gain control of people through word arguments and propaganda tactics.

Oh, and if you want to learn about eco-friendly habits, take a look at Singapore.

You're missing my point. My personal admiration or loathing for climate skeptics/agree-ers is disregardable. And in honesty that piece serves no purpose, so let's just scratch it and leave it as misargumentation of my part.

[Spendulus]

...
You're missing my point. ...

If I'm missing a point, it's because you are now spewing them in about eighteen different directions. This whole thing is very simple.

What I did was simply correct your mistake, using your link. Actually the scientific link in the popular article. I assume that's okay right? You said this...

This is the (incorrect) hypothesis called global cooling, the concept the globe's actually cooling (I assume you believe the Earth is a globe at the very least, right?). Essentially, people misusing the geological time scale and large-period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscilation.

THEN I POINTED OUT
And you were wrong. The article and the article it linked to didn't say that.

AND YOU SAID.
I think I now get your point here.

It doesn't matter if you got the point. You were wrong. You said "people misuse the geological time scale and large-0period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscillation."

Your words, your problem. If I'm wrong, please just point to the paragraph where they "misuse the geological time scale."

No more goal shifting please. Why not do this. Restate the primary thesis (One concept, not fourteen), and back that with one or two decent links?

[Luqueasaur]

If I'm missing a point, it's because you are now spewing them in about eighteen different directions. This whole thing is very simple.

Oh, man. At this point I feel like you're just picking faults at everything I said.

I openly stated: "And in honesty that piece serves no purpose, so let's just scratch it and leave it as misargumentation of my part."

Yes, I realize I wasn't able to express myself clearly. Can we move rather than beating this dead dog?

It doesn't matter if you got the point. You were wrong. You said "people misuse the geological time scale and large-0period climatic oscillations to justify beliefs for a short-term climatic oscillation."

In regards to that, it's mostly anecdotal. As far as my research pointed, hardly any larger press wouldn't use that type of misinterpretation. But if I ever get into a global warming skepticism group in Facebook I'll be sure to printscreen you the images.

In fact, what larger presses DO use as a global cooling "argument" is the idea that sun activity is paramount to Earth's climate and thus if sun activity increases global warming happens and if it decreases global cooling happens. Which I have pointed out a few posts behind is not scientifically accurate.

You're right, solar activity is dwindling. But that has happened for over 35 years already, and for over 35 years temperature's been rising, therefore, the highs we experienced are not directly caused by the sun.

Here's an image that pictures that: Picture.
(Sources are NASA GISS, Krivova et al. (2007) and PMOD).

Maybe in the past the sun was more significant, but studies have pointed out this has changed. Here's another picture: Picture. The sources for this study are: Meehl et al. (2004), Stone et al. (2007), Lean & Rind (2008) and Huber & Knutti (2011).

There are, at the very least, 19 studies that point how the sun's influence in global warming is minimal. You can check them here.

Also, what's your scientific and falseable source that global cooling is a thing? Because quite a lot of studies converge into the idea there is none.

If you don't agree with the notion that sun activity is directly causing global cooling, then I guess we're done.

[BADecker]

We're getting a lot more volcano activity, which is spewing loads more dust into the air than chemtrails. This will block the warmth of the sun, and we will get an ice-age shortly.

[Luqueasaur]

We're getting a lot more volcano activity, which is spewing loads more dust into the air than chemtrails. This will block the warmth of the sun, and we will get an ice-age shortly.

You can't possibly be serious right now. Are you a troll akin to notbatman?

[Spendulus]

....
In fact, what larger presses DO use as a global cooling "argument" is the idea that sun activity is paramount to Earth's climate and thus if sun activity increases global warming happens and if it decreases global cooling happens. Which I have pointed out a few posts behind is not scientifically accurate.
...

Well, I can't say I've heard that argument made, either. But then, you may be using these terms "global warming" and "global cooling" somewhat differently than I would, or you may be tossing them around without really understanding them, somehow taking it for granted that "everyone understands what they mean."

Of course, if "sun activity" was limited or set arbitrarily equal to a measure of illumination such as TSI, then the basic equations here would show a corresponding swing in temperatures. Well, except that actually, there would be a change in heat content, which might or might not be reflected immediately in temperature. But realistically, say the increase in temperature from 6AM to 1PM would show a variation that was measurable and replicatable, and which moved with the TSI.

That is of course, an incomplete view. Numerous other output products from the Sun influence our climate, directly and indirectly. The solar wind, and cosmic rays affect climate.

But why don't you define what you mean by these two terms, global cooling, and global warming, so that we are not just talking about different things but thinking they are the same. To me, there are cooling influences and warming influences on climate, and they sum each day to net effects. Thus it is nonsensical to deny one, or the other. But these influences would have to be against some standard, since "cooling" and "warming" are relative to something, right?

What, then, is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?

[BADecker]

We're getting a lot more volcano activity, which is spewing loads more dust into the air than chemtrails. This will block the warmth of the sun, and we will get an ice-age shortly.

You can't possibly be serious right now. Are you a troll akin to notbatman?

See the "Global climate" section of "1883 eruption of Krakatoa" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Global_climate). There are more global cooling writings about times before Krakatoa... back as much as a thousand years. Do your own research.

[Luqueasaur]

Well, I can't say I've heard that argument made, either.

Not only such argument was used in this thread (by BADdecker, but by now I've learnt to take what he says with a grain of salt) but also on the sites I originally linked.

But why don't you define what you mean by these two terms, global cooling, and global warming, so that we are not just talking about different things but thinking they are the same. To me, there are cooling influences and warming influences on climate, and they sum each day to net effects. Thus it is nonsensical to deny one, or the other. But these influences would have to be against some standard, since "cooling" and "warming" are relative to something, right?

In here lies most of our misunderstandings, I'd reckon.

Global warming & cooling to me climatic trends, which indicate whether the average world temperature is rising or decreasing, and therefore to claim global cooling exists is essentially to argue the world's temperatures in the long term are decreasing.

Naturally there are cooling & warming influences, but these are factors that feed the pattern and not the pattern itself.

What, then, is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?

That question is more complex than it seems. What would equilibrium temperature mean? Which sphere of the Earth System is being accounted (I'm assuming only the atmosphere)? In which time scale? And, lastly, I don't see how knowing that would contribute to the conclusion there is/isn't global warming/cooling.

See the "Global climate" section of "1883 eruption of Krakatoa" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Global_climate). There are more global cooling writings about times before Krakatoa... back as much as a thousand years. Do your own research.

A punctual event is irrelevant. That's the equivalent of me pointing at Australia and saying "See, global warming's so bad that it has exponentially empowered natural/artificial forest fires! Do your research ". Sure, one is a product of the other, but it's one out-of-the-curve catastrophic anomaly rather than the norm. Besides, can you point studies that sign current or future volcanic activity is so high there is a chance of global cooling?

[BADecker]

See the "Global climate" section of "1883 eruption of Krakatoa" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1883_eruption_of_Krakatoa#Global_climate). There are more global cooling writings about times before Krakatoa... back as much as a thousand years. Do your own research.

A punctual event is irrelevant. That's the equivalent of me pointing at Australia and saying "See, global warming's so bad that it has exponentially empowered natural/artificial forest fires! Do your research ". Sure, one is a product of the other, but it's one out-of-the-curve catastrophic anomaly rather than the norm. Besides, can you point studies that sign current or future volcanic activity is so high there is a chance of global cooling?

Sounds great to me. But you seemed a little bit on your high horse when you first suggested that I was a troll for talking about global cooling from volcanoes and their ash.

I guess we all know that Wikipedia allows trolls to place info into their pages. So, maybe GC from volcanoes isn't true. And maybe other sites that say similar things in more detail got their info from Wikipedia. But the same for global warming. I mean, if you can't tell the difference between fake news and real news, how do you determine anything when it is this huge of a topic?

[Spendulus]

Well, I can't say I've heard that argument made, either.

Not only such argument was used in this thread (by BADdecker, but by now I've learnt to take what he says with a grain of salt) but also on the sites I originally linked.

Well, consider for a second, petroleum geologists. They work with oil, eg fossil fuels, the GREAT SATAN, some would say. But they known the history of dirt and rock, so might be considered an "intelligent adversary."

They are not going to claim such things.

But why don't you define what you mean by these two terms, global cooling, and global warming, so that we are not just talking about different things but thinking they are the same. To me, there are cooling influences and warming influences on climate, and they sum each day to net effects. Thus it is nonsensical to deny one, or the other. But these influences would have to be against some standard, since "cooling" and "warming" are relative to something, right?

In here lies most of our misunderstandings, I'd reckon.

Global warming & cooling to me climatic trends, which indicate whether the average world temperature is rising or decreasing, and therefore to claim global cooling exists is essentially to argue the world's temperatures in the long term are decreasing.

Naturally there are cooling & warming influences, but these are factors that feed the pattern and not the pattern itself.

Phrasing such as "influences..." ..."feed the pattern but not the pattern..." are not scientific. I assume the "pattern itself" is what, a world temperature? What is that?

What, then, is the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?

That question is more complex than it seems. What would equilibrium temperature mean? Which sphere of the Earth System is being accounted (I'm assuming only the atmosphere)? In which time scale? And, lastly, I don't see how knowing that would contribute to the conclusion there is/isn't global warming/cooling....

Let's just say thermodynamic equilibrium, which if reached would present a temperature measurable like on a gray body radiator. What you'd be seeking is that temperature upon which you'd superimpose say, man's co2 emissions, then noting their effects, or superimposing solar flare and solar wind effects, therefore measuring their effects.

Otherwise, how could one make any intelligent assessment? But you don't have a baseline temperature?

[Subbir]

Some people believe that global warming is just the conspiracy to control the development of industrial country. Sometime, I think so. What about you?  

Everyone knows that global warming exists. But no one knows what it is.

Even if nobody knows the precise details i feel heating helps us balance the environment Disasters are getting more prevalent thanks to the cutting of trees. heating is already signaling that they can't be cured as new industries are being developed.

[Luqueasaur]

Sounds great to me. But you seemed a little bit on your high horse when you first suggested that I was a troll for talking about global cooling from volcanoes and their ash.

Your outlandish claim (i.e. extraordinary without any substantial evidence backing it up) made me feel you were just teasing or not taking discussions seriously, but I agree I could've been a bit less aggressive when pointing that aspect. I'm a bit cynical with non-bitcoin discussion in this forum after seeing notbatman. So my bad if I was aggressive.

I guess we all know that Wikipedia allows trolls to place info into their pages.

English Wikipedia is well moderated especially for more scientific articles so I'd argue they are trustworthy as long as they link their sources, which happened on the section you mentioned. I wouldn't think there are lies in there.

So, maybe GC from volcanoes isn't true.

I feel this claim is a product of two misunderstandings.

The first is that when we're talking about global cooling, i.e. a trend of decreasing temperature, a punctual event isn't useful. It may affect weather (short term) conditions, but as the years elapse its effects will be slowly reserved. Volcanic-related global cooling has already happened on Earth's history (a geology paper that backs my claim but uses a lot of jargon).

The second is that our current geological setting does not indicate widespread volcanic activity (the last moment such was the case was the breakthrough of Pangea, some 180 million years ago.. In general we can say the tectonic plates shift between moments of intense volcanism and moments of intense mountain-building and we're kinda somewhere in between those.

And maybe other sites that say similar things in more detail got their info from Wikipedia. But the same for global warming. I mean, if you can't tell the difference between fake news and real news, how do you determine anything when it is this huge of a topic?

That's an excellent question. My answer for that would be: the consensual explanation of specialists who back their claim on scientific evidence. And if that isn't enough, then I'd go and skim through the scientific articles myself. And if that is not enough either, I'd go and read their methodologies & results while ignoring their conclusions. But that third step is mostly reserved for academic purposes. What about you?

Well, consider for a second, petroleum geologists. They work with oil, eg fossil fuels, the GREAT SATAN, some would say. But they known the history of dirt and rock, so might be considered an "intelligent adversary."

They are not going to claim such things.

I mean, the oil industry isn't exclusively related to fossil fuels, neither is the only type of fuel that is "unsustainable", so I wouldn't say they're Great Satan. And while I do recognize environmentalists think so, I wouldn't say such an opinion is directed to the researchers but to the companies & their exploratory techniques (often bypassing procedures to guarantee minimal environmental impact) & their overall long-term goals.

With that said, I didn't get your point.

Phrasing such as "influences..." ..."feed the pattern but not the pattern..." are not scientific. I assume the "pattern itself" is what, a world temperature? What is that?

Of course they're not scientific, this is not a symposium and using jargon is not important. What matters is expressing one's point, and I'll restate mine in case it wasn't clear:

Global warming is the long-term trend of increase in average global temperatures;
Global cooling is the long-term trend of decrease in average global temperatures.

Let's just say thermodynamic equilibrium, which if reached would present a temperature measurable like on a gray body radiator. What you'd be seeking is that temperature upon which you'd superimpose say, man's co2 emissions, then noting their effects, or superimposing solar flare and solar wind effects, therefore measuring their effects.

Otherwise, how could one make any intelligent assessment? But you don't have a baseline temperature?

Since the Earth is in an open system, there's no thermodynamic equilibrium. There might be models of Earth as a closed system, but I'm not aware of that. But the lack of evidence does not point the lack of existence, so this might be a widespread tool used in Atmospheric sciences, who know. You'd have to ask a climatologist about that.

Nonetheless, I still think that the indirect evidences of anthropogenic actions & global warming suffices to cause a correlation. Firstly, men impacted the Ozone layer with CFC and was able to revert the damages, secondly, temperatures show a trend of unnatural increase since the Industrial Revolution which can't really be tracked to any other long-term influence other than, well, men (once again). And given our destructive impact on the biosphere it's not far-fetched to think we could also impact yet another (vulnerable) sphere of the Earth system.

[Spendulus]

Phrasing such as "influences..." ..."feed the pattern but not the pattern..." are not scientific. I assume the "pattern itself" is what, a world temperature? What is that?

Of course they're not scientific, this is not a symposium and using jargon is not important. What matters is expressing one's point, and I'll restate mine in case it wasn't clear:
Global warming is the long-term trend of increase in average global temperatures;
Global cooling is the long-term trend of decrease in average global temperatures.

How about this(wikipedia). Climate = "The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. "
Global warming = an increase in average global temperatures for one or more successive 30 year periods, global cooling = a decrease.

Since the Earth is in an open system, there's no thermodynamic equilibrium.

But in the absence of thermo equilibrium, how can you ascribe or impute a flatline secular temperature on which to make a claim that "warming" or "cooling"? Seems to me you would have to use long term climate averaging, then ascribe a shorter term averaging and look at the difference in variances between periods of time. This implies if not accurate, at least reasonable believable calculations of "world temperature." Both current, recent historical, and that of past millennia or longer.

A world temperature? What is that?

[BADecker]

Sounds great to me. But you seemed a little bit on your high horse when you first suggested that I was a troll for talking about global cooling from volcanoes and their ash.

Your outlandish claim (i.e. extraordinary without any substantial evidence backing it up) made me feel you were just teasing or not taking discussions seriously, but I agree I could've been a bit less aggressive when pointing that aspect. I'm a bit cynical with non-bitcoin discussion in this forum after seeing notbatman. So my bad if I was aggressive.

I guess we all know that Wikipedia allows trolls to place info into their pages.

English Wikipedia is well moderated especially for more scientific articles so I'd argue they are trustworthy as long as they link their sources, which happened on the section you mentioned. I wouldn't think there are lies in there.

So, maybe GC from volcanoes isn't true.

I feel this claim is a product of two misunderstandings.

The first is that when we're talking about global cooling, i.e. a trend of decreasing temperature, a punctual event isn't useful. It may affect weather (short term) conditions, but as the years elapse its effects will be slowly reserved. Volcanic-related global cooling has already happened on Earth's history (a geology paper that backs my claim but uses a lot of jargon).

The second is that our current geological setting does not indicate widespread volcanic activity (the last moment such was the case was the breakthrough of Pangea, some 180 million years ago.. In general we can say the tectonic plates shift between moments of intense volcanism and moments of intense mountain-building and we're kinda somewhere in between those.

And maybe other sites that say similar things in more detail got their info from Wikipedia. But the same for global warming. I mean, if you can't tell the difference between fake news and real news, how do you determine anything when it is this huge of a topic?

That's an excellent question. My answer for that would be: the consensual explanation of specialists who back their claim on scientific evidence. And if that isn't enough, then I'd go and skim through the scientific articles myself. And if that is not enough either, I'd go and read their methodologies & results while ignoring their conclusions. But that third step is mostly reserved for academic purposes. What about you?

I see loads of your opinions in there^^. But since you like picking on someone for simply stating what an article of the popular Wikipedia encyclopedia says, this is a good way to get some posts in. Talk all day long about if there is any fake news around or not, re-define all kinds of stuff we are talking about, and make it all sound like you are saying something. More words. More posts. Great. That's what we are here for. A forum, right?

[KrisAlex18]

I believe that Global warming does exist also it has irrefutable proof. WRT to the fact that some people believe otherwise even so, there are Flat-Earthers too.

On a very serious note, we need to explore Sustainable energy resources.

For me it is not about for the development of the industrial country, it happens because of the greenhouse effect caused by increasing of carbon dioxide that we inhale as human, and also because of the pollutant made by the human. So I can say that global warming is not a natural phenomenon because it happens because of the action of the human, they are the cause of increasing of pollutant in this world—the more people in this world the more carbon dioxide we will need. Global warming is a terrible thing when it reaches its limit. It can be caused by rising sea levels, dying of cloud forests, and the worst the wildlife is being affected on that, they scramble to keep pace.

I think, this Global Warming is scientifically proven. If someone thinks that's not real; I would like to ask those sceptics why do they think snow deposit in the mountain and icebergs has reduced constantly and sea level raised? Which of the phenomena that could be affected by temperature rise has not affected today?

Indeed, why there are still some people who think that global warming is not real, how could they explain the changes in our world such as, the temperature of the earth and the disasters. We are all responsible for those things because our actions have a bearing on climate change or global warming, by the way, climate change and global warming are considered as synonyms by scientists.

[BADecker]

I believe that Global warming does exist also it has irrefutable proof. WRT to the fact that some people believe otherwise even so, there are Flat-Earthers too.

On a very serious note, we need to explore Sustainable energy resources.

For me it is not about for the development of the industrial country, it happens because of the greenhouse effect caused by increasing of carbon dioxide that we inhale as human, and also because of the pollutant made by the human. So I can say that global warming is not a natural phenomenon because it happens because of the action of the human, they are the cause of increasing of pollutant in this world—the more people in this world the more carbon dioxide we will need. Global warming is a terrible thing when it reaches its limit. It can be caused by rising sea levels, dying of cloud forests, and the worst the wildlife is being affected on that, they scramble to keep pace.

I think, this Global Warming is scientifically proven. If someone thinks that's not real; I would like to ask those sceptics why do they think snow deposit in the mountain and icebergs has reduced constantly and sea level raised? Which of the phenomena that could be affected by temperature rise has not affected today?

Indeed, why there are still some people who think that global warming is not real, how could they explain the changes in our world such as, the temperature of the earth and the disasters. We are all responsible for those things because our actions have a bearing on climate change or global warming, by the way, climate change and global warming are considered as synonyms by scientists.

Of course global warming is real. But it has been reducing in the amount it increases yearly... for the last 20 years. It is also insignificant regarding any danger. In addition, people barely have any effect on increasing it or reducing it. The politics of it are way more dangerous than it is. Soon we will be entering global cooling, and maybe an ice-age.

[Spendulus]

I believe that Global warming does exist also it has irrefutable proof. WRT to the fact that some people believe otherwise even so, there are Flat-Earthers too.

On a very serious note, we need to explore Sustainable energy resources.

For me it is not about for the development of the industrial country, it happens because of the greenhouse effect caused by increasing of carbon dioxide that we inhale as human, and also because of the pollutant made by the human. So I can say that global warming is not a natural phenomenon because it happens because of the action of the human, they are the cause of increasing of pollutant in this world....

Pollutants, correctly defined, have a cooling effect on climate.

"Greenhouse gases" are not "pollutants". Pollutants are things like smoke, factory output, etc.