Even if 3/4 of our oxygen come from sea algey, we still need trees! Also, we pollute the water as much as we do the air! In general we need to start helping our enviroment and stop polluting it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
Printable View
Even if 3/4 of our oxygen come from sea algey, we still need trees! Also, we pollute the water as much as we do the air! In general we need to start helping our enviroment and stop polluting it!Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
yea, i know. I like everything about trees. Im pro-tree.
If we really are screwing the O-Zone, we might run out of oil before the damage can be done. If we keep using like we are, i heard by about 2060. But there is no real way of telling.
Holy shit, really? Wow, that's cool. *googles*Quote:
Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming
I can't speak from personal experience but here's a wikiQuote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_...970s_Awareness
Thanks for the reference, Blue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Out of the Blue
From this article, it sounds to me like scientists were NOT convinced there was a global cooling trend, which makes this very unlike the present situation. From that article:
(emphasis mine)Quote:
...it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood (for example see reference[5]). However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports.
The term "global cooling" did not become attached to concerns about an impending glacial period until after the term "global warming" was popularized. In the 1970s the compilation of records to produce hemispheric, or global, temperature records had just begun.
Reading this thread makes me realize why the world is so fucked up at the moment. Let's continue to argue about superficialities and details and ignore the actual problem.
Good job idiots.
Lose the tone jackass, you're no Einstein either. Of course the worry is about the annual decline.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neruo
My comment was a reply to the fact that the media keep showing emotive footage of huge lumps of ice falling into the sea, implying that such an event is actually news; which, of course, it isn't, considering it's happened every year for millenia.
And yes, there's an annual decline. This is because the Earth is getting warmer each year. I guess you're in the pro-CO2-causal-factor lobby, in which case I'll just make a brief mention of one of the many glaring errors of Gore's little movie:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.c...res/CO2-01.jpg
Two interesting things to note here. Firstly, as Gore smugly pointed out, there's a very strong correlation between temperature and CO2 levels.
Gore then said that this implies that CO2 rise is the causal factor in global warming, which is what we call a logical fallacy.
And in fact, upon closer examination, the reverse is proven, considering that the changes in CO2 levels take place rougly 1000 years after the changes in temperature.
But what complex process could cause such a thing!? Is it that the CO2 levels of the atmosphere increases the size of the layer of greenhouse gas which is trapping energy in our atmosphere, therefore causing a temperature increase 1000 years in the past?
Let's use Occam's Razor and some basic highschool science here:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.c...res/CO2-06.jpg
I think the fact that temperature rise significantly reduces the solubility of carbon dioxide in the stuff that 2/3 of the planet is covered with is a somewhat more plausible explanation to the correlation.
And the second thing to point out: notice how the temperature of our planet fluctuates up and down rapidly? And notice also that every 100,000 years, temperature rapidly increases before gradually falling? And that if you actually follow the trendline, what we'd expect to see happening at the moment is an increase in temperature, as has happened repeatedly over the last million years, when the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere by humans was 0, give or take about 0.
So why are we getting worried about it? I guess it must be the fact that nowadays we have eco-maniacs around who repeatedly tell us that industry is satanic, and assholes like Gore who have no scientific qualifications, yet a position in popular media to allow themselves to make great deals of money by spouting nonsense about a subject which they have very little grasp of.
wow. good stuff Xei, you know your stuff for sure. Why are we so worried about it? Armagedom scenarios gets peoples' blood pumping? From the amount of European trash-talkers i have met (in person), anti-Americanism? Fear? Here in America, because its "cool"?I still havent figured out why people think this little spike in temp. is the one that going to scorch the planet. So far it hasnt exceded the other spikes, i dont think.
I heard once that cows put out more CO2 last year than humans have in the last 120 years. Does anybody know if this is true?
Yeah, I've heard that too, but I don't know if that's true. Might just be one of those things people say. That sorta stuff happens on both sides of the argument. But I dunno.
I did not see this turning into a global warming debate. I am tired of of debating this after so many times.
People are going to believe what they believe. Any old or new data that develpoes the nonbelievers will discredit the information in some way. The advocates will exploit it.
One comment I would like to add is (probably not the best word for it, 'snowball") However When many different components come together, like the several different aspects of global warming, I think that a snowball effect might occur and the climate may change more rapidly than any of us are expecting... what ever that change may be.
We shall see. :bluesmile: <?> :microwave:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
My bad if i started another one, but this is my first. Sorry!
But you're right. No matter how much arguing and how many points made, only another 100 years will tell the truth.
Honestly, i think it is just another form of political drama. It is just something for them to fight about.
To the OP:
Some areas of Antarctica are covered with an ice sheet 3 miles thick. That is a lot of potential water. Greenland as well holds an ice sheet similar. And Artic ice is floating on the ocean, though I don't know if this would cause and increase in water level.
well, i assume those 3 miles extend underwater, right? All that water should be displaced, or is there some concept i dont understand? Even the ice above sea level should still contribute to the displacement.Quote:
Originally Posted by blade5x
By far the main factor in sea rise is temperature rise causing water to become less dense. The effects of ice melt are minimal.
good. atleast that makes scientific sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Another area that has to be taken into account is the rapid melting of the glaciers, which are already on land.
This would add directly to the sea levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
yea dude, but think how big and deep the oceans are. I wonder how many trillions of gallons of water it would take to raise the sea level 1 inch.
Those critical of Global Warming make my heart break. I want to cry when I look at all the ignorance floating around. We're completely fucked if people keep thinking like this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomedOne
careful. You might be just as ignorant as i am. You're no scientist
Checking out numerous web sites, as there are many, I found this one a little interesting.'
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html
I call it, educated guesstimating.
It's over, folks - the Silver Surfer has arrived...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19353905/
Yeah, the globe's fraction-of-a-degree warming has caused a 100 metre deep lake to dissappear. ._o
I'm probably missing the Silver Surfer joke, but eh... just in case there isn't one, the article makes no mention of warming, but thankfully opts for relatively saner explanations, such as tectonic activity opening cavities and such.
To show disdain for doubting and testing a theory is to show a complete lack of understanding for scientific method. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it goes.Quote:
Those critical of Global Warming make my heart break. I want to cry when I look at all the ignorance floating around. We're completely fucked if people keep thinking like this.
Note that I've got no agenda for denying it. I already limit my carbon dioxide emissions for far more important reasons (the fact that oil's running out being the main one), so whether or not CO2 emissions do indeed cause warming are pretty much irrelevant to my lifestyle.
But when does healthy criticism become a force in this country invested in masking the truth?
No, I'm not a scientist, but neither is one single person who has written an article critical of global warming. Every single (100%) scholarly article published in the entire world says not only is it real, but its mostly our fault.
There is a lot of money to be made by tearing up the environment, very little to be made in keeping it safe. The greed in this nation has influenced the popular media to present a wash to people. That means their spending millions of dollars creating doubt, because if there's doubt people are less likely to freak out about it and there won't be enough of a defensive movement to real make change. And so contrary to your opininion yes the ice caps shrink and grow but there's still a lot more shrinking and a lot less growing these days, and the entire scientific community is unanimous that it is our fault.
So my point still stands, you fucking break my heart.
Thank you, Doomed... this is a point I've made on this very thread... so before we get the tired old "Gore is making lots of money talking about Global warming" tripe, let's nip that in the bud a bit:Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomedOne
1. Gore can make as much money as he wants traveling around the world giving talks about anything... so why pick Global Warming? He's been talking about it for many years... since long before he was vice president, and probably before many of you were born. The reason: he wants to help the environment. I'm not sure why that's hard to understand.
2. Gore is only one of thousands of people talking about this, yet he seems to be the only target of criticism for some reason. If you think he has some other motives, try applying that to all the scientists, and your arguments fall apart. To put it another way, if the argument is "Gore is not a scientist," then why are you not putting your efforts towards discrediting the scientists?
3. Gore could make billions more by shutting up. Exxon/Mobile would be happy to give him a fat salary for a meaningless title that would keep him from talking. Save him a lot of running around, too... he'd have time to work on his golf swing or something.
I think its about just time that I wade in here.
Even if there isn't an article against the Greenhouse effect (which I highly doubt. It would be a massacre of the scientific process) There are plenty of articles that state that the warming is coming from other sources such as the sun. Stop taking the choice wording from inconvenient truth and open your frigging eyes to the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by DoomedOne
NO NO NO NO NOQuote:
and the entire scientific community is unanimous that it is our fault.
There are plenty who oppose increased warming by CO2 emissions. EVEN THE CO-FOUNDER OF GREENPEACE, Patrick Moore speaks up against it.
I'm sick of people who watch Inconvenient Truth (a biased film) and think they know everything about the issue. Here is its counterpart. It is also a biased film obviously but will shed major light on how people are doubting global warming.