Theory of Global Warming

Attention!! This is a poll based on not whether or not the earth is warming, but the theory of global warming and that man's CO2 emitions are causing a massive increase in temperature that will cause a major climate change in the next 5-10 years.

Personally, i believe its a bunch or crap. All the hype over it is political fearmongering and to earn money. The earth would still be warming even if humans had never existed on earth (when looking at a scientifical point of view, not religious, for i wish to survive this backroom visit.) CO2 makes up what, less than 1% of our atmoshpere? Correct me if im wrong.

Plus, new studies show the ice that is, or in some places was, on Mars have been melting due to increasingly powerful sun rays. So why can't the same thing happen to earth? There are so many examples of scientific studies that show that a good majorities of places aren't warming at all. some are cooling.

Anyway, just wondering what you guys thought. If anyone starts yelling at me, id be happy to depend my postition.:beam:

Sigh

(1) is CO2 a greenhouse gas?

(2) have mankind's activities caused a rapid and substantial rise in CO2 levels since preindustrial times?

(3) if (1) and (2) are true, what is the most probable effect on the earth's temperature, all other things being equal?

I thenkyew.

Also, ice melts on Mars because Mars has these things called seasons. When it's summer at the poles, the ice melts. Ironically there have been suggestions that you could terraform Mars with some rather potent greenhouse gases too.

This question is far too black and white. That the climate of earth is undergoing a change, is almost unquestionable now, so is the fact that man has pumped *a lot* of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century or so.

That theory that emitting a greenhouse gas causes the temperature to rise seems sensible, however, climate changes have happenend in the past (the greenland ice samples prove that at least), so whether or not our CO2 emissions are the primary cause is at least a questionable assumption.

Personally I believe we should follow the principle that we should accept that there is at least a risk that we're causing it, and try to limit our impact accordingly. Better safe than sorry, as long as the measures are 'within reason', defining what is within reason is of course a very difficult issue on its own.

So Gah for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dacdac

Attention!! This is a poll based on not whether or not the earth is warming, but the theory of global warming and that man's CO2 emitions are causing a massive increase in temperature that will cause a major climate change in the next 5-10 years.

---

Change that to 50-100 years and we might talk again.
Point is, as CO2 stays for a long time it's an issue that adds with time. Doing nothing now makes the problem bigger in the future.

I voted for yes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Ironside
Doing nothing now makes the problem bigger in the future.

---

But, on the other hand, diong something now makes bigger problems now, and in the future. I think we should fully investigate the problem before any action takes place. There are so many counter examples to global warming that i dont think it is fair to say that it is a true global warming. Glaciers in Iceland are getting bigger and advancing, temperatures of thousands upon thousands of cities have cooled down over the past 150 years, etc. The fact that the whole mankind is putting out enough CO2 to cause a worldwide change is just the fearmongering tactics used so many times in the past that have proved to be false. Just b/c tons of politicians and celebrities and a couple of random skewed studies say something is true doesn't make it a fact.
Eugenics for example in the early 1900's had almost every newspaper and magazine full of how there was a stupid gene that could be passed through genererations and people who have mental disabilities, physical disabilities, or even jewish were deterred from having children. You had FDR, H.G. Wells, and magazines like Time spreading the idea of this Lamarkian theory.
The U.S. and Germany were the main leaders of eugenics, until in 1939, when the American people learned of Germans taking jews and mentally handicapped people into gas chambers and killing them. After, the war, eugenics had completely disappeared. Every politician who had supported it backed down or recanted. The celebs refused to say anything, and the newspapers stopped printing anything about it. This is the same situation. People making a general hypothesis gathered from a couple graphs they saw and everyone runs with it. The man who started the theory of global warming predicted the average U.S. temperature to be about 118 degrees farenheit by 2010. At the current rate, it seems the U.S.'s average temp will have only increased by .03 degrees farenheit in the last 20 years.

I cant wait until the documentary disproving almost everything said in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" comes out. All the top professors at the Ivy League Schools are making it conjunction with some of the top scientists in climatoligists, meteorology, and biologist and chemist to disprove the theory of global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dacdac

CO2 makes up what, less than 1% of our atmoshpere? Correct me if im wrong.

---

In a glass containing a lethal dose of cyanide mixed with water, the cyanide makes up less than 1%, possibly less than 0.001%, of the volume.

There is a parable that is even more closely related to the subject of global warming: methane. Methane constitutes a lot less of the atmosphere than the CO2, but accounts for maybe 50% of the global warming effect IIRC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dacdac

There are so many examples of scientific studies that show that a good majorities of places aren't warming at all. some are cooling.

---

Global average temperature increase has already been proven. Just watch the graphs and compare the rate of change today with the rate of change during the Medieval warm period. We have a 3 times as high peak as the peak during the Medieval warm period was, and that peak built up in 300 years during the Medieval warm period while out peak has built up in no more than 50 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dacdac

But, on the other hand, diong something now makes bigger problems now, and in the future. I think we should fully investigate the problem before any action takes place. There are so many counter examples to global warming that i dont think it is fair to say that it is a true global warming.

---

Name one counter-example to increasing global average temperature. AFAIK there are none. People who quote single examples of colder temperature haven't understood what global warming is, it makes about as much sense speaking of 5 cold places on earth or 5 cold winter days at your place as it does to state that the fact that there's 250 degrees centigrade in my oven would be a proof of global warming.

Those who say Global Warming is nonsense is right in the sense that we will probably not see any significant threat to our civilization within a couple of decade, but global warming isn't something that you could stop overnight, even if the human civilization stop emitting all greenhouse gases right now, it would still take us around half a century to counteract what we have been emitting. By the time global warming becomes too obvious to ignore, it would be too late and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

This question is far too black and white. That the climate of earth is undergoing a change, is almost unquestionable now, so is the fact that man has pumped *a lot* of CO2 in the atmosphere over the last century or so.

That theory that emitting a greenhouse gas causes the temperature to rise seems sensible, however, climate changes have happenend in the past (the greenland ice samples prove that at least), so whether or not our CO2 emissions are the primary cause is at least a questionable assumption.

Personally I believe we should follow the principle that we should accept that their is at elast a risk that we're causing it, and try to limit our impact accordingly. Better safe than sorry, as long as the measures are 'within reason', defining what is within reason is of course a very difficult issue on its own.

So Gah for me.

---

:yes: I agree.

All of this depends on the idea there is some base climate the earth must maintain for life untrue. The climate has been hotter colder there has even and correct me if i am wrong but a time when the air was of a lower or higher oxygen content etc etc. Greenies want to scare you into believing that the world will end in some kind of soylant green/blade runner industrial wasteland. Yes the earth is getting warmer are we causing it I would say yes. Is it terminal for humans if it gets even more warm I would say no. Will the oceans rise storms occur more often yes yes yes. However unlike that film the day after tommorow its unlikely to affect the europe or the usa. Insofar as these countries have both the financial and hunam resources to overcome the obstacles thrown up. Now we have a question do we care enough about the people in say africa to say help them to overcome encroaching desert deforestation etc etc. Answer NO:help:

May I remind you that Manhattan lies on an island and should there be a major Hurricane there, there will undoubtedly be record losses in money and human lives. What is more likely is that Katrinas will keep on occuring more frequently resulting is huge insurance hikes or just refusal of coverage in those areas causing masive financial problems for many who live close to the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, droughts may occur that could easily cause food prices to spike throughout the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

May I remind you that Manhattan lies on an island and should there be a major Hurricane there, there will undoubtedly be record losses in money and human lives. What is more likely is that Katrinas will keep on occuring more frequently resulting is huge insurance hikes or just refusal of coverage in those areas causing masive financial problems for many who live close to the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore, droughts may occur that could easily cause food prices to spike throughout the US.

---

True on all counts but US/EU and can react better to a catastrophe than say Algeria. And before it's brought up New Orleans was terrible and yes it was not sorted properly but it was still only one city and geography is against it anyway. The world will not collapse overnight because I cant get insurance for my house or business. The US/EU can use it's vast land area to basically move to somewhere safer insurance wise. Food will go up only if supply is interupted since wheat is a large part of the diet and depends on specific conditions there will be years that food increases in price. However again the only people likely to starve will be in the third world. In case people did not realise many food staples have increased in price anyway due to increased energy prices. My real point if I even have a point I suppose is what can we do about it anyway. We cannot no matter how smart we are manage the weather if you start reading stuff about removing C02 from the atmospere or managing the climate then compost said article straight away. The best we can do is slightly reduce the amount we pump up there but we will have to live with a certain amount up there. My main problem with the Global warming idea is not that I dont believe it but I feel someone is pulling me along on some religous quest for utopia. Here is one for ye all just came to me I think it is classic Food miles are supposed to be bad ok yet greenie groups still want me to buy fairtrade coffee and tea hello food miles what happened to ye do they only count for multinationals or what.
By the way this is not attack on you Xdeathfire I am just sounding off like father jack in the corner of craggy island.

But you do know that Us/Eu is horribly dependent on underdeveloped countries right? If there was a sever labor shortage in China due to labor shortage, you will see a difference with 100$ t-shirts and 500$ sneakers since most of all common US consumer goods come from labor in underdeveloped countries.

Quote:

---

Those who say Global Warming is nonsense is right in the sense that we will probably not see any significant threat to our civilization within a couple of decade, but global warming isn't something that you could stop overnight, even if the human civilization stop emitting all greenhouse gases right now, it would still take us around half a century to counteract what we have been emitting. By the time global warming becomes too obvious to ignore, it would be too late and we wouldn't be able to do anything about it.

---

I could say the same for those who deny the existance of god. It wont affect you while your alive but it will be only too obvious when your dead so you better start praying now. Of course I have no more proof of the existence of god than you do of man made global warming but think of the consequences if your wrong. Its the same scare tactic.

True but they depend on us to buy the goods too and as long as there are poor people there will always be a ready supply of labour for T-shirt companies.

Quote:

---

But, on the other hand, diong something now makes bigger problems now, and in the future. I think we should fully investigate the problem before any action takes place.

---

What problems will be caused because we decide to not wait for proof that mankind is affecting global warming and do something about stopping what is believed to be our contribution to it. Some companies will have to spend some money to cut down on emissions. We will probably end up with a new fuel source.

Do you have insurance? Its the same idea.

Quote:

---

I could say the same for those who deny the existance of god. It wont affect you while your alive but it will be only too obvious when your dead so you better start praying now. Of course I have no more proof of the existence of god than you do of man made global warming but think of the consequences if your wrong. Its the same scare tactic.

---

1) There is scientific evidence for man made global warming. It is not definitive but its more than there is for God.
2) God is a personal choice. At the end of the day it only affects you because I don't believe you don't go to hell. But if you don't believe in global warming and pollute like crazy, I get roasted by the sun.

Well lets proceed with caution on any thing to do with climate change. Not so long ago asbestos was supposed to be great for use in buildings now we pay hazmat people to remove it safely.

Quote:

---

What problems will be caused because we decide to not wait for proof that mankind is affecting global warming and do something about stopping what is believed to be our contribution to it. Some companies will have to spend some money to cut down on emissions. We will probably end up with a new fuel source.

---

The biggest mistake most who support the global warming theory I see is that we should concentrate on how to adapt to changing climate, not on how to control it. The earth has been far hotter in the past and we are still here. The only thing constant about our climate is that its constantly changing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

The biggest mistake most who support the global warming theory I see is that we should concentrate on how to adapt to changing climate, not on how to control it. The earth has been far hotter in the past and we are still here. The only thing constant about our climate is that its constantly changing.

---

I totally agree we cant cotrol it and we shouldnt even try to. If as I believe we are causing global warming and yet we still can put up loads of counter arguments that tells me we would only mess up trying to control climate change. We should just roll with the punches so to speak and accept certain losses.

Why do you guys make me do this? Here is a list of credible sources you can look up for yourself to see if i quoted it wrong. Since i have a climatologist in my family with a doctor's degree in climatology, and since he's the one who gave me some of these sources, there is no way you can deny them.
He works for NASA and says there is not a single co worker he has that actually believes in global warming b/c of their research.

He's even tried to be on the news, CNN to be exact, but they wouldn't have him for they felt he was wrong and was using skewed data tables.

Here are a couple graphs from random spots in Antarctica, where over 80% of the glaciers are growing and advancing. All the graphs you see from Antarctica are from the Antarctic Peninsula which makes up less than 5% of all of the continent. That Peninsula has been warming, but only by .4 degrees celcius in the past 50 years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...um_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...um_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...um_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...um_neighbors=1

And this one from the middle of Greenland shows less than a 1 degree celcius change in the past 110 years! Of course some places are still warming ever since we got out of the LIA, or little ice age, or the medieval period that lasted for a couple hundred years.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...um_neighbors=1


one from the capital of Iceland. Again, about a .4 change in over a 100 years where man was putting out the most greenhouse gasses:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gi...um_neighbors=1

But wait, there's more! Take a look at these for now and i'll get back to you with more later.

Quote:

---

He works for NASA and says there is not a single co worker he has that actually believes in global warming b/c of their research.

---

Yet they always quote NASA as confirming global warming. Its the same with the IPCC report. Its not wriiten by the scientists but by the politicians who paid for the study.

Its a well known fact that the Vikings when they lived in greenland experienced a differant climate to the one today eventually it got too cold and they either left or died out. But the problem is that was a natural thing but there is nothing natural about industrial smog and C02 and the like. Is it having an affect of course it is you dont get something for nothing. Is global warming real we really cant tell only people who look back if they are around will be able to tell.

Quote:

---

What problems will be caused because we decide to not wait for proof that mankind is affecting global warming and do something about stopping what is believed to be our contribution to it. Some companies will have to spend some money to cut down on emissions. We will probably end up with a new fuel source.

---

The problem with all of you who argue that point is you never think of the after effects. Every good action has a bad reaction to it. you can not do god without causing some bad. It's ying and yang in these situations

So, companies spend more money cutting down CO2 emmissions has no bad effects? We went through this in civics and economics class.

Looking through the eyes of an American Industrial business

Okay, Industry A, now abiding to the laws of cutting down CO2 and other greenhouse gas emmissions, has to pay more to be able to do that.
Well, to compensate for that increase in price, they either 1, charge more for their products, or 2. go over seas for cheap labor.
Now, let's say they go with 1.
now that their things cost more, you have to pay more to purchase it and a higher inflation rate occurs. This higher price on pretty much every thing you can think of buying except some foods puts even more people into poverty than previously. The value of our currency goes down. People lose jobs and homes and cars as they can't afford anything as most stuff is made in industrial businesses. Any business who uses paper has to pay more as paper mills have to pay more to cut down emmissions and sel it for more to gain a profit. Everything you buy goes up in price to keep items priced at an equal ratio and to keep up competition.

now, if 2 happens, then more and more companies go over seas to places like China and India where labor is cheap. Jobs are lost all over America, and fewer and fewer products are made here, making everything more expensive as it now has to be shipped over and exported back to America.

So, if you think that we should do something about a theory based on loose information with thousands and thousands of scientists screaming thier heads off trying to show that they have proof that it is wrong, then go ahead.
I know your kind of people, and you dont think of the consequences of your actions. Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions

Everyone talks about these greenhouse gases, but limit it to evil man, without paying attention to to the actual Greenhouse Effect. If somebody else wishes to research the truth of what has the biggest impact toward the actual greenhouse effect rather than me just spewing it out to have it ignored. Maybe if these man made doom experts actually participated in finding rather than only exercising sham reasoning in the blind supporting of an issue based on rhetoric and incomplete science, we'd get the real picture.


I'll even give you two words that you'll never see in the New York Times or CNN, or even Fox (the oppose the argument but likewise fail to represent the science).

Sun Cycles (actually the term cycles is a bit misleading as it doesn't really mean a predictable cycle, read further at your own peril. In fact, just read up on the sun and its radiation in general.)
Water Vapor


Now run...run and find....dare you....



Coincidentally the mention of Vikings in Greenland bears merit. They were largely the victim of another such event of the sun and the resulting atmosphere here on earth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dacdac

The problem with all of you who argue that point is you never think of the after effects. Every good action has a bad reaction to it. you can not do god without causing some bad. It's ying and yang in these situations

So, companies spend more money cutting down CO2 emmissions has no bad effects? We went through this in civics and economics class.

Looking through the eyes of an American Industrial business

Okay, Industry A, now abiding to the laws of cutting down CO2 and other greenhouse gas emmissions, has to pay more to be able to do that.
Well, to compensate for that increase in price, they either 1, charge more for their products, or 2. go over seas for cheap labor.
Now, let's say they go with 1.
now that their things cost more, you have to pay more to purchase it and a higher inflation rate occurs. This higher price on pretty much every thing you can think of buying except some foods puts even more people into poverty than previously. The value of our currency goes down. People lose jobs and homes and cars as they can't afford anything as most stuff is made in industrial businesses. Any business who uses paper has to pay more as paper mills have to pay more to cut down emmissions and sel it for more to gain a profit. Everything you buy goes up in price to keep items priced at an equal ratio and to keep up competition.

now, if 2 happens, then more and more companies go over seas to places like China and India where labor is cheap. Jobs are lost all over America, and fewer and fewer products are made here, making everything more expensive as it now has to be shipped over and exported back to America.

So, if you think that we should do something about a theory based on loose information with thousands and thousands of scientists screaming thier heads off trying to show that they have proof that it is wrong, then go ahead.
I know your kind of people, and you dont think of the consequences of your actions. Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions

---

Broadly in agreement with you on this one man actions have consequences.
like I said earlier it seem to be more an article of faith and dogma really.
Global warming has morphed from an enviromental concern to a mortal sin
Food miles are bad if I am Tesco but not if I am a farmer selling fairtrade coffee.
Apparently my dad is helping to warm the planet by farming cattle but we come from Ireland our climate is perfect for a grass based animal grazing.
If I buy meat from my dad it has low food mile ergo it should balence out.

Quote:

---

but there is nothing natural about industrial smog and C02

---

Nothing natural about CO2. Ill have to rememeber that :laugh4:

They even got to you Cowboy :yes:

All this talk of treating CO2 like its a poison. Tell you what. Try living without it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Nothing natural about CO2. Ill have to rememeber that :laugh4:

They even got to you Cowboy :yes:

All this talk of treating CO2 like its a poison. Tell you what. Try living without it.

---

Or try calculating the real contribution of Co2 to the global warming effect, its even more entertaining.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Nothing natural about CO2. Ill have to rememeber that :laugh4:

They even got to you Cowboy :yes:

All this talk of treating CO2 like its a poison. Tell you what. Try living without it.

---

:oops:

Sorry I meant the levels industry are pumping up into the atmosphere obviously.
Thanks for correcting me I didnt realise they had infected me the bloody :furious3:
I was just about to buy a fairtrade coffee put on a hemp shirt and vote labour in our elections this summer here in ireland :laugh4: NOT
We will have to live with a certain amount of it pumped out and there is no two ways around it we just gotta live with fullstop.
Anyone ever notice how its all about changing lifestyle apparently like its some kind of diet. The one thing they never say is if we have to cut back because it killig us then poor people have to stay where they are in the third world. We cant cut levels back and then hand those levels to others that changes nothing.