Global Warming.
For: C02 is causeing the warming. I think we all know the details. Would have liked to find a link to An Inconvenient Truth but couldn't find it.....
Against: Its a myth and there is no actual evidence to back it up.
Discuss.
Printable View
Global Warming.
For: C02 is causeing the warming. I think we all know the details. Would have liked to find a link to An Inconvenient Truth but couldn't find it.....
Against: Its a myth and there is no actual evidence to back it up.
Discuss.
(Just as a rebuttal to the Against bit) Myth? How is a huge chunk of the Larson ice shelf breaking off because of melting not due to something out of the ordinary like Global Warming? One can argue its just variable solar output on the increase, or just the natural cycle of the Earth's climate... but things are just happening too quickly for it to be natural. You hardly see snow in the South of britain during winter, and when you do, it doesn't stay for long any more. Summers are getting hotter on average, weather patterns are changing or becoming more extreme... it just seems a bit ignorant not to think something's wrong.
But I reckon once scientists figure out how to fully harness the power of nuclear fusion and create a functioning reactor (not just some experimental one), then we will see a big change.
I really suggest watching the video in its entirety before posting like that in this thread. Every single issue you addressed is talked about in the film. For those of you who don;t have the time and simply want the meat/big arguments.. start watching at about 19/20 mins in.
Right now i'm sitting on the fence. Both sides have decent defense.
and remember.. the issue isn't that the temperatures are rising. In fact, Everybody agrees that they are rising. The issue is if its caused by man-made CO2 or other.
The other side of the argument...
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-scien...rming-consensus
When CO2 are at an all time high.... then, its obvious. Deforestation, Pollution, hell, its not just CO2, its methane as well (which is an even stronger greenhouse gas). There's tonnes and tonnes of methane locked within the tundra of the world, and if the world heats up a little more and causes the permafrost to melt, then we are in even bigger trouble, because then its not just deposits within the tundra, but also on the sea bed around the oceans.Quote:
Originally Posted by arby
The video does make a good argument, however, there's more to just Global Warming than just CO2. There's other greenhouse gases involved and not as much study has been done with them. The climate does change over time, however, at the moment, one can't say we are not at least having some influence in the way the world is changing.
EDIT: Meh... I'm not so sure anymore... smeg it... I'll just keep my hopes up for nuclear fusion (i would love to see a working reactor within my lifetime).
I'm still celebrating how we took care of that "global cooling" crisis of the 1970's. Maybe we will have another one in about 30 years.
http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm
Here is a history of the wishy washy back and forth on world temperature scares....
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp
Since no one is still absolutely certain about the precise relationship between CO2 and a change in temperature - so the relationship may be the opposite of what we think.
However, even if global warming is happening the way they say it is, I really don't think it's worth doing anything. Humans produce such a teeeeeny tiiiny percentage of carbon dioxide that it wouldn't be worth it. Plus, it's human nature to be selfish and not care about future generations. And lastly, with our fuel resources running out, hopefully we'll be using nuclear (and even more hopefully, fusion) power soon-ish, and it shouldn't be a 'problem' anymore. Let's be lazy people!
The thing that really bother me though...
Remember whats happened over the centuries? People get suduced into thniking one way then everything goes down the shit hole and war breaks out. WEllo, we've presumed that can't happen nowadays because theres so much communication and education.
But this proves it worng.
That scares me on so many levels.
I don't see how all of a sudden, CO2 in the atmosphere wouldn't directly relate to temperate (with a certain lag, yes). It has for the last millions of years, probably it will now.
The planet goes through changes. It doesn't stay the same all the time. If humans werent here it would be exactly the same. Remember the Colorado incident? Or maby the New york one. YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH Global warming= Shat
But which the cause and which is the effect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
But why take a chance?Quote:
Originally Posted by Elwood
Wake me up when we go back to the global cooling panic. By the way, did you know that scientists have discovered global warming on Mars?
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.h...5c7f723&k=0
Its southern ice cap is melting away. Damn that Bush!
I just thought of something. Every time we kill an Iraqi insurgent, less CO2 will be produced.
Haha... I say we play along with "CO2 heats the earth" then when the global cooling copmes we all go and say "Not enoguh CO2, Build more!"
So 9/11 was a great event for the world? 3000 less people producing CO2! Yeah I see how that logic holds up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Since CO2 levels are Ahead of temperature (with the whole lag thing), I would say CO2 is the cause, temperature rising the effect :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal
Actually, Temperature leads CO2 by about 800 years....
It has to do with temperature and the solubility of CO2 into the oceans. REALLY basic stuff.
No, that wasn't really good enough. Since we have killed 400 trillion Iraqis (Is that the latest figure you like to use?) after having Bush torture them with a kinky whip, we have put a big dent in what a volcano will do in a day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
lol.
Besides that, I just read in Times magazine of (April 9th) about global warming. I was shocked, shocked with joy, to see not in any way all Americans are as stubborn and foolish as Universal Mind on this topic.
Some nice quotes:
"It is getting pretty hard to deny it."
"10 of the 11 hottest years on record were between 1996 and 2006." (records go back like some 400 years, if I am right).
Anyhow. What saddens me most is not just that you are denying the clear facts global warming is true, as much as religious fundamentalists are denying the facts about evolution, but that you (or the population as a whole) never Ever learns from such things. Just a few decades ago people argued for Years and Years weather cigarette smoke was really causing lung cancer, while studies proven it was multiple times. If you lives back then, UM, you would probably be one of those people that said "Nahhh it doesn't cause lung cancer" while happily smoking.
Such mass-denial syndromes happen quite a lot in society, quite fascinating actually.
-
Anyhow, CO2 levels are higher then they have been in 600.000 years (if measurements from arctic ice are correct, -but isn't it convenient to all of a sudden question such things?-). There really is no denying that mankind has a certain effect on the worlds climate and CO2 levels, causing either small or large changes. Just don't forget even a relatively small change might change the flow of a single sea-current, causing gigantic effects on specific locations.
Actually, what about before 400 years? If anything, I've read up about GW a lot since my last post here, and to be honest, the evidence is flaky. And the fact that GW is being used to try to stop developing countries from developing is just morally wrong. Besides, it isn't just CO2, its methane, solar output, levels of SO2 (which cool the atmosphere), and the worst greenhouse gas of them all... water vapour. There's too many points of weakness in the argument for Global Warming, and the fact that CO2 lags behind temperature rise by 800 years means its that temperature is the cause, and CO2 the effect... why? Because temperature directly effects the CO2 solubility in the world's oceans. The warmer the oceans become, the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere, and considering how huge the oceans are, I doubt even we could equal the CO2 output of the oceans if their temperatures rose by half a degree on average. Plus, solar output has a huge effect on the weather, and if anything, GW scientists fails to take into account how solar output is also at an all time high in 400 years...Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
GW is not a threat any more... its an enterprise... whoop-di-doo...
Wow. And EVERYONE at the UN missed what you read up in a weekend? Darn gosh! I bet it was those assholes communist, mislead everyone, since the Russian enterprise benefits from stricter laws on pollution because... it will cause them to get more... caviar?
:roll: ... okay... I'll just say this. The evidence behind Global Warming is flaky... very flaky, and now because it has become more of a political issue rather than a scientific one, people will naturally push scientists to bring out reports in favour on certain results all because of one thing... money. Yes, some economies will benefit from stricter laws on pollution control, whilst others won't. Russia is an industrialised nation, it can afford to make the commitments and still get something out of it. What about the majority of Africa though? Are we going to restrict them to only using solar and wind power for providing a whole infrastructure it's energy? Both forms of energy generation are unreliable, and should only be used to supplement an existing power grid, not form the backbone of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
Yes, the drive for energy efficiency is good, but if anything, only developed countries can afford to do so... developing nations don't have the necessary funds to do so, so why should we force them to hamstring their economies just so to keep a bunch of hippies happy? The world is warming, yes, but I doubt its us that are the sole cause behind it.
Those words you replied back at me have just reinforced the fact that is issue has become too political. The whole Global Warming thing has become an enterprise in which people are making money out of it, and since there is investment potential in it, people will do anything to prevent people thinking otherwise. If the world suddenly starts cooling again, what will happen then? Do we declare victory? Most won't, because they will lose their investment, and with it, loads of jobs.
lol you actually took the whole Russia stuff seriously, I just picked a random country. Also, the UN or NATO or something, or the Kyoto stuff or something: They set a certain CO2 a country is allowed to produce, based on population. Poor countries could actually make money off it, selling the CO2 rights they don't use. You don't actually think people's plan against global warming is shooting everyone that burns fossil fuels?
Anyhow, America, with it's overheated economy, sodomized the Kyoto agreements because they want money now. In the long run, it will just rape them back in the ass. Being economic, preserving fossil fuels and such, actually pays of economically in the long run.
The political issue with global warming is mostly people that are buying the 'oh my god saving the environment will be bad for our economy'-hype.
Sure, there can be an economy still be sustained and allowed to developed around CO<sub>2</sub> trading, without really digging into its long term development, but it still builds on the assumption that we are the sole cause of Global Warming, in which we actually aren't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
I think its an issue that needs to be debated, instead of being accepted as a fact. There's too many ifs and buts in the argument for Global Warming (at least when its concerning our influence in it), because in the end of the day, nature dwarfs us in the production of CO<sub>2</sub>. I doubt all the factories in the world can even equal the amount of CO<sub>2</sub> production when compared to the amount still stored within the world's oceans. And again, the Kyoto agreement doesn't take into account other gases that have an effect on the world's climate, such as Sulphur Dioxide, Methane, and Water Vapour, simple gaseous H<sub>2</sub>O.
If anything, its not a reliable investment. But as long as we can preserve fossil fuels and try to get to more abundant alternative fuels, then maybe...
I posted an article about the history of the back and forth. Do you deny its truth? Do you deny that there was a "global cooling" crisis of the 70's and that there have been other ones in the past 100 years? It's a fact. Liberalism is a hysterical religion rooted in creating problems and acting like nut cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
The temperature of Earth is always changing. If things are a tiny bit warmer now than they were a hundred years ago, why is that such a big shock? You fundamentalist liberals are not going to be happy until we can invent a supermachine that makes temperature in every city stay exactly the same always. Maybe you're the person who should invent that. Let me know how it works out.
The thing about global warming. Its not just an "issue" anymore. Our moral system has become based upon it now. CO2 is now almost treated as the "sinner's gas"
"I'm made of CO2, you're made of CO2. We're all made of CO2. Its terrible that we're thinking of it as a pollutant"
People will pick up immoral morals really quickly if its the popular thing... Jeez, try to make your own values!
I do not believe in global warming.
The temperature of the earth is always changing but it has never had to deal to humans like it has to now.
I don't see why people need concrete evidence for a possible issue as serious as this. The hints alone should be enough to start taking some measures.
We wouldn't need concrete evidence for it if we didn't have concrete evidence against it....Quote:
Originally Posted by blade5x
EDIT: I found some graphs for you people who are too lazy or ignorant to watch the video.
CO2 vs temperature.
http://zfacts.com/metaPage/lib/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif
Hmm.... that looks like its quite similar....
But, not quite matching
Sunspot vs. Temp
http://www.global-warming-myths.com/...t_Activity.jpg
Woah! one seems to be leading the other...
Published today by the New Scientist
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
"26 most common climate myths and misconceptions"
US 'opposes' G8 climate proposals
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6694227.stm
*edit*
btw, I'm not sure if I should be worried or relieved that there's been no comments after the New Scientist article, here....
Hey, great article, thanks for posting that. Goes in my favorites folder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
This "war on science" lately is really saddening, how a bunch of idiots can spew out pseudo-scientific crap, and people believe it and start reinforcing the mudslide of crap and lies. : /
Not something new, but lately I see it a lot in both anti-global-warming and in anti-evolution camps. Just outright false statements passed on as facts. <=/
Neruo, check out this mudslide...
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of...ming-consensus
Read the credentials. Those are not exactly fruit salads the police found talking to walls in the French Quarter.
Barely. There are a few good scientist opposing far-fetched theories about global warming. What you fail to see is that people criticizing some flaws in the bullcrap out there about global warming, doesn't mean those people don't realize we, mankind, actually do have an increasingly growing impact on nature and climate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
At least to me, this man doesn't sound like he doesn't believe in the same global warming I suspect is real:
"The increase in the CO2 content of the atmosphere is an observed fact and mankind is most certainly responsible. In the long term, this increase will without doubt become harmful, but its exact role in the climate is less clear. Various parameters appear more important than CO2. Consider the water cycle and formation of various types of clouds, and the complex effects of industrial or agricultural dust. Or fluctuations of the intensity of the solar radiation on annual and century scale, which seem better correlated with heating effects than the variations of CO2 content."
What this "answers.com" page does, is put a few random quotes of a few scientists together, what just proves that not everything that is said is true. It by no length means that all of global warming is made up.
Besides that, I don't see any form of refusal about the new pole caps expectations. As in: The shit (ice) is melting badly, and despite the reason, we (lol the Netherlands) are getting pretty Wet in the near future, like in 50 years I read in some article.
Just because a few scientists disagree on a few points on the global warming theory, you call it all bogus. Can't you see the thousands of scientists that Do see a certain risk in global warming? What you are doing is like what creationists are doing, saying evolution is nonsense because a certain part of it is argued upon by 'respected' scientists.
Still, not wasting oil, gas and other natural resources, and not burning and polluting the shit out of everything Has no down sides. Not on economical (in the medium-/long-run), not on public health, not on anything. I don't see your reasons for having such a hostile stance, a "Oh No, I heard to was bullcrap so we shouldn't pay attention to it at all"-attitude towards such a serious topic. Do you really need that SUV to finish your ego or something?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...ng+documentary
i found this documentary interesting.
Neruo, I didn't call anything bogus. This is an issue where I don't have my mind made up because I admittedly don't know enough about it to take a side. I am just pointing out important things to consider, such as the fact that "global cooling" was the big panic of the 1970's and the list I posted of lots of scientists from major universities who specifically came forward together to say that humans are not causing global warming. I do believe that too many people are acting hysterical about global warming because it is, in many cases, just one more way to have fun dressing up and playing liberal. I really wish those people would take the world more seriously than they do.
What really, REALLY annoys me, is this. You don't believe in global warming, not because you looked at the facts, or not because you just have that feeling, you don't believe in global warming because someone told you it is a strictly liberal thing, and oh my, you can't but hate those silly hippies. (at least you certainly bring it forward like that).Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Global warming has Nothing to do with liberals, liberals talk more about it.
-
It doesn't really change anything. Lets look at 3 cases:
A) We are fucking up the environment with pollution, and meanwhile we somewhat contribute to global warming, something that is certainly going to screw us in the ass with climate changes that will cause a lot of death and problems (especially to shit-poor Africa, some of ociania and as one of the few western countries: the Netherlands).
B) We are fucking up the environment with pollution, and meanwhile we completely, 100% caused global warming, something that is certainly going to screw us in the ass with climate changes that will cause a lot of death and problems (especially to shit-poor Africa, some of ociania and as one of the few western countries: the Netherlands).
C) We are fucking up the environment with pollution, and meanwhile, completely, 100% unrelated, though natural (extremely-long term) fluxuations there is this thing called global warming, some thing is certainly going to screw us in the ass with climate changes that will cause a lot of death and problems (especially to shit-poor Africa, some of ociania and as one of the few western countries: the Netherlands :)).
I think it is A. You say you do to. You however, like sadly enough the Bush administration and such act like it is D.
D) Pollution? Nahhh. Nothing wrong with what we are doing now, so we keep on doing it.
-
Anyhow.
Doesn't really matter what you think. The only thing I hope is that pollution -and Climate change- will be dangerous to the economy before it is extremely dangerous to the world, because that is the Only way people will get their head out of their ass. Mone-y Mone-y Mone-y..
Quite.
-
Besides that.
What do you think of these claims I heard about certain oil/coal/stufflikethat companies that pay scientists to oppose global warming? It wouldn't be something surprising, or New for that matter.
Neruo, I think you need to read my post again. I have done a lot of looking at both sides, and I still don't know enough to make up my mind. There are experts and more experts on both sides. What I said about dressing up and playing liberal is that too many people are in it for that. I never said that all people who believe in global warming are doing that. I don't believe in global warming, but I also don't believe in the nonexistence of global warming. I am undecided. If I acted decided, I would be lying. The fact that it is possible to pollute the air in a city does not prove that we have the ability to substantially pollute the entire atmosphere of Earth.
The average temperature is always slowly changing, but that has been going on since the very beginning of Earth. That alone definitely does not prove that humans are causing global warming, and if you will see my link about the history of wishy washiness of the left regarding world temperature change, you will see why I am skeptical and why I think too many people are in this world debate without sincerity.
Neruo, you forgot point E
E) We do contribute to global warming but not enough for it to screw us in the ass with climate changes that will cause a lot of death and problems (especially to shit-poor Africa, some of ociania and as one of the few western countries: the Netherlands).
CO2 is natural. Theres alot more natural CO2 being produced then "man made" CO2...'
EDIT: And I just thought of another thing, theres been those huge spikes of CO2 over the centuries. No matter if temperature leads CO2 or CO2 leads temperatures... CO2 in the atmosphere increases and decreases naturally. Humans don't have to be part of this equation. Don't flatter yourself.
i dont believe in global warming.
sorry im on a late train here, i didnt read the whole thread, but MYTH?
i dunno about the usa but in our schools here in finland, we are taught alot about the Greenhouse effect, and yeah, im really worried if most of the americans dont know about it, (sry about the next bit but its true) since you guys are causing it the most!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebit...s/g_ee_e_4.gif
p.s. say buh byes for these fellas
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/s...eOnTheWind.jpg
.... >.<Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooze
In other words, screw the arguments, heres some heartbreaking pictures?
P.S, the ice melts every year. Its likely those pictures aren't caused by the warming.
http://img367.imageshack.us/img367/6...2348325pr6.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by arby
Doesn't matter. Bears are dieing!
I'm not getting too deep into this because I'll end up killing some one here. But I will point out two important details concerning the issue:
1) There is no such thing as "scientific consensus". If it's "consensus" then - by definition - it's NOT science, it's opinion.
And 2):
Uh, you do know that polar bears can SWIM, don't you. Just because that bear happens to be lounging on that chunk of ice doesn't mean it's trapped there. Odds are it SWIMMED there. It's far from stranded there, as the bleeding hearts would have you think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
its cute though
I'll give you that. It is a beautiful picture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snooze
Can it swim that far?
"Polar bears are strong swimmers; they swim across bays or wide leads without hesitation. They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.) (Stirling, 1988 )."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
source: http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Po...aptations.html
You know there was this thing on Tv the other day that says that all the polution that we have caused as most likely only played 1% to the causes in the chage of climate.
These scientists said that the world has naturally changed like this because it goes through climate changes every once so often. The facts and figures actually backed up this theory really well and shut the green people up.
sigh, i cant wait to make a "I told you so" thread in 20 years
How far is "that far"? The photo doesn't show the whole story. For all we know, land is right out of view. And yes, they can swim quite some distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Exactly. That's why there's the eras known as "Ice ages" and "the little ice age".Quote:
Originally Posted by NeAvO
What always makes me laugh is the knowledge that - in the early seventies - there was a bunch of do-gooders holding "Global Cooling" rallies. They had the signs, the rhetoric, the hate, the whole nine yards. The world was going to plummet into the frozen abyss within only a few short years and it's all our fault.
But, what has really happened is that those same protesters are the ones crying "global warming". They always jump to conclusions based on short-term trends and completely ignore long-term cycles and the fact that all of this has happened before: repeatedly. And without any Human intervention whatsoever.
What I've learned is that facts and common sense play no part in the rants of those with political motives or their blind followers. After all, "We only want to save the world". "How can such good intentions be so misguided?"
Well you're right. But I thought the distance from where it was to that piece of land in the background. I didn't want to estimate, because I'd fail .Ofcourse there could be land right behind the photographer, but I assumed there wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
Same =PQuote:
Originally Posted by Snooze
But i remember back a few years there were estimates the "immense flooding will have happened by 2010...
Has it even started?? >.<
I was talking to my bro about global warming today and he said he read an article about how the UK could go into a deep freeze. I'll explain, many of you in the UK may have noticed slight increase in temperature in the summers and the winters are starting to show less snow in some areas, so your probably saying "how the hell can we go into a deep freeze with all this hot weather?" well first off if you were to put a ruler across the world map so it went through the UK and all the upper parts of the world like Russia and North Canada you will see that Russia and North Canada contain alot of snow whilst we in the UK remain at a fairly normal temperature, well apparantly we get our warm air from the Gulf Stream which provides a flow of warm water which warms the air and surrounds most the UK, however apparantly if say Greenland was to melt very quickly there would be a supple of colder water covering the Gulf Stream which will cool the flow of air and basically after a while shut the Gulf Stream down which would leave only cold air coming towards the UK thus giving us snow. This seems understandable and to be honest i think i'd prefer snow and cold to overpowering heat, and i could go snowboarding. Interesting stuff though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker
Medieval warm period.
Whether the whole global warming thing is caused by man or not (or even happening) isn't even the point, to me. I think ANY excuse to get the world to cut down on pollution is worth the controvercy - whether backed up scientifically or total BS.
i bet the picture was taken from land
Totally agree. The only problem however, is that how do you define "pollution"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado Joe
Hell, if we were to crack down on all greenhouse gases we'd have to consider water a pollutant.
Yeah, I see what you mean. It's a bit of the "chicken and the egg" scenario. Will the water be less polluted if we concentrate on cleaning the air(acid rain falling into lakes, rivers)? Or will the air clean up if we concentrate on cleaning up the water (water evaporating into clouds)?Quote:
Hell, if we were to crack down on all greenhouse gases we'd have to consider water a pollutant.
I dunno - but we got some pretty fuckin smart people out there with great ideas, though. It's a matter of whether they can keep them big oil and car industries from buying them out and locking all their inventions in a vault somewhere to keep profiting from crude energy. :?
I'm not sure I can find a link this moment but, I've heard from plenty of credible media sources - with FACTS - over the span of the past few years that: The mean (average) global temperature of the Earth has risen 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years.
I don't know about you guys but, a 0.7 degree Celsius change over a century doesn't sound unusual, unexpected, unnatural, or alarming. That sounds like no reason for panic - at all.
When you put things in perspective you start to realize that the whole "global warming" scare is just that: a scare. It's a political movement, not an honest scientific endeavor.
EX: The Sun has more effect on our temperature trends than anything we've ever done or could do. Every single solar storm effects our magnetosphere which, in turn, effects short-term weather patterns.
Actually it is very alarming, especially considering the projections for further increase. A tiny temperature change can have a huge impact, and there is every reason to believe the change will be progressively less tiny in the coming years. There is a very well put together explaination of the effects here: Effects of Global Warming. Yes, I know it's just Wikipedia, but it's well written, and has 106 independant references to external data and reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
There is much to be gained politically and financially from denying the existence or importance of global warming, but I can't think of anything to be gained by trying to stop it except a healthier planet.
Actually, there is FAR more to be gained from the scare tactics being employed. And there's no denying that a temperature is taking place. The argument is the cause. And I will not accept the Al Gore "An Inconvenient Truth" BS. That's politics and nothing more. I'll read your link later.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
This is temperature increases of the earth
not atmospheric changes
The human body has a core temperature of 37ºC (± 0.5ºC)
Hypothermia (cold) sets in when the core temperature decreases below 35ºC
Hyperthermia (hot) sets in when the core temperature increases above 38ºC
An increase of 0.7ºC in the earths surface temperature is a significant change
Bear in mind that soil below a metre keeps a fairly constant temperature
(one reason why building foundations have a minimum recommended depth - as this prevents water freezing around the pads)
Anyway, I suggest you have a read through the link I posted earlier
as this does give an insight into a lot of the questions you're asking
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
I love the way whenever someone posts something supporting the claims of global warming, the thread dies....
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Alright, here's a few examples of the benefits that the GW activists are banking on:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
First of all, keep in mind that it's a liberal, left-wing movement. That explains a lot right there but I'll point out a few things they hope to achieve with this whole "let us save the world-fest". The left gains their power from creating a "culture of dependence", whereby every one is expected to come running to the government for salvation: It's about power.
They profit hugely in the form of fees, taxes and fines: It's about money.
It's a rally to try to bring movements like the animal rights and environmentalist to the forefront. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against "doing the right thing" but tear-jerking and guilt-placement doesn't solve anything. It only raises money for misguided foundations: It's about liberal political causes.
As I said earlier, it's yet another way to increase the size and stranglehold of government: It's about the advancement of socialism.
Politicians run on these types of platforms to give the impression of compassion and "good intentions": It's about personal political advancement.
The two things it's NOT about? Common sense and REAL science.
Because you don't understand how politics works.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
I find this staggering, I really do
This is worse than the anti-evolution people
(at least they have the excuse of being impressionable young'uns in sunday school)
This isn't a "safe the world" issue
the world will be fine, and has gone through a lot more in it's time than this
ultimately, it's a "safe us" issue
(whether that be our existence, or our standard of living, depends on how effectively we deal with the issues)
We (and, indeed, other life we depend on) are a lot more fragile than the earth
Honestly, there are so many missteps of logic in your post, it's hard to know if it's worth getting into details. I will focus on one in particular, however:
Who exactly IS doing real science in your opinion?? Please name one respected scientific organization whose opinion is that global warming is not real. I can't think of any, but perhaps you can. Make you a deal, though... for every one you name, I will name twenty who say it is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
No, this is nowhere close to that bad.. Here both sides have "scientific backing". Exept one side doesn't and is just making stuff up >.<Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
So it comes down to: who's facts do you trust?
I choose to follow the anti-global warming because of this: higher temperature causes the oceans to release C02 due to basic solubility principles. This is the only fact that I can personally confirm or refute and I'm sticking with it =O
This carbon/temperature cycle is natural (as can be seen by the graphs) and I don't think human-made carbon dioxide has that big of an effect on the climate.
I'm quite relieved that there's so many people who've questioned global warming, actually...
By the way, can those in the pro-GW lobby please stop chanting mindless mantras such as 'open your eyes' and the like, we're trying to have a serious discussion here.
As far as I can tell, warming precedes major CO2 increase. Well yes, I think virtually all statistics show that in fact. Therefore, it is temperature which is the causal factor, and solar output in turn determines temperature.
You know the guy who realised the incredibly strong correlation between solar output and climate behaviour? I believe he repeatedly out predicted the MET office, and made some nice wagers, too.
It's pretty obvious that there's a huge economic drive for the warming theory. The press make a fortune from each new fear story, there's hundreds of people employed for the panel on Climate Change etcetera (who, take note, would all be redundant if they were to say that there is in fact no evidence for us causing the warming, so it's pretty stupid to use them as an unbiased source of information), and I think also the fact that our governments can tell us that we're cutting our oil use to help save the planet instead of telling us that we have 25 years of life with oil left, which would cause mass panic, also plays a significant part.
On a similar note, I think all of these 50 years reduction plans are ridiculous. Of course we'll have lowered our CO2 output by 2060; there'll be nothing left to burn. :|