AGH Global Warming

[Strike For The South]

Its Septmber 29 (I Think) and for the past week in my hometown 5 of the 7 days we have hit triple digits yesterday we reached 106 IN SEPTEMBER Im going to melt

[Sjakihata]

tripple digits!??!?!?!?! You must be BOILING hot then

[Ser Clegane]

tripple digits!??!?!?!?! You must be BOILING hot then

I guess it's in Fahrenheit

[Azi Tohak]

Ha! Here in Kansas we had a high, with sunshine, of 68F yesterday.

Yeah! I nearly froze last night with my window open.

...Wait, was this a contest?

Azi

[Red Harvest]

Most people don't know that Kansas is also one of the few states that can hit 120 F, although it is exceedingly rare. The Plains all the way up to South Dakota can get incredibly hot at times.

The weather has been abnormally hot for this time of year through Texas (15 to 20 degrees above normal), and is just now cooling off. Lots of new highs were set.

Sustained patterns like this are actually one of the global warming predictions I saw some years ago (mid 90's.) Global warming is expected to weaken the jet stream making weather patterns "loopier" setting up sustained rain or drought, etc. rather than normal variation. At the time there were some real unusual weather patterns producing months of drought in some areas, and months of rain in others that normally don't get that. Can't remember if this was back in the string of 37 days of 100+ temps we were having in East Texas or not.

[Kraxis]

In the late 70s and early 80s we had a series of really hard winter in Denmark (and I take it around the world), something that is very unusual due to our coastal climat. Back then people were screaming "ICE AGE!!!!"

But the truth is that the temperature is slightly on the rise, and it has been so since we began to measure it. Why? Because when we began to do that it was the coldest ever in 8000 years. Core samples from both Antartica and Greenland has confirmed that. No wonder we are seeing gletchers receede and termperatures rise.
How much of it is our own fault? Don't know... Should we fear it? Yes! Sicne we don't know if we are the cause of it we should be afraid. We simply don't know if we can control if it we go down to the basics of it.
But rest the fears for a while, the temperatures in the first 6000 years of the samples were marked higher than now. At the given rate we will only hit the same temperature in about 400 years.

[Efrem]

Is it just me or does this whole we must stop carbon emitions in a hope and prayer it may effect global warming when there is no evidence that it will remind you of the ancients sacraficing children to avoid volcanoes errupting?

You'd think by now we would realise that we don't control nature.

[Red Harvest]

Is it just me or does this whole we must stop carbon emitions in a hope and prayer it may effect global warming when there is no evidence that it will remind you of the ancients sacraficing children to avoid volcanoes errupting?

You'd think by now we would realise that we don't control nature.

No, we actually know without any doubt that CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) will trap more heat. The question is in the overall effect.

And we do have some control over nature. Afterall, it is life that transformed the atmosphere in the first place.

If you don't think we can effect nature, do a review of what happened on Easter Island. It is the ultimate example of man destroying a very hospitable environment. Other things to consider: the Dustbowl days...poor agricultural practices combine with weather to drive a disaster.

And of course the Ozone layer. For years many scoffed at the ozone claims, called them junk science etc. However, we were doing an excellent job of destroying the ozone layer without trying to, until some scientists stumbled onto the CFC problem unexpectedly.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

You'd think by now we would realise that we don't control nature.

Yeah, you're right. Cutting down entire forests, killing of species of animals, has absolutely nothing to with us.

[Efrem]

We can affect nature, but we can't control it anymore than people back then.

[_Martyr_]

So we should pump more CO2 into the atmosphere?

[Efrem]

ummm...

Not believe we affect global temperatures means I believe in pumping chemicals into the skies for no apparant reason how?


Perhaps you should think things through before you type...

[_Martyr_]

Perhaps you should think before you type.

CO2 is a gass that traps an enormous amount of heat energy for its volume. This is undisputable science. It is refered to as a greenhouse gas because in an atmosphere it has the effect of a greenhouse, trapping heat when supplied with solar radiation. Increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere increases this effect. The more CO2, the greater this warming effect. Note, nothing disputable at all to this point. Burning fossil fuels releases formerly trapped CO2 (and a host of other nasty things) into the atmosphere. Indisputeable. Thus, as buring fossil fuels releases extra CO2 into the atmosphere, and extra CO2 in the atmosphere increases the greenhouse effect, burning fossil fuels increases the temperature of the atmosphere. Can you dispute this? The question is to how much fossil fuel CO2 effects temperature, not if it effects temperature. The conservationist and environmentalist argument is that as we know it effects temperature in the region of from just a little bit, to, a whole lot, and due to the fact that the continuing survival of the human race and the planetary eco-system as we know it are pretty important on our priority list, we should cut down on carbon emmisions before we do irreperable damage to our childrens' planetary inheritance.

[Efrem]

You say its indistputible yet a good percentage of scientists disbute it.

We don't know anything about the atmosphere and temperature works, what your going on isn't fact it is guess work.

Hell, by lowering the Co 2 emmissions we lower the level of global dimming which cools us down.

And how my friend do you explain the last 7 ice ages we weren't around to cause?

Your logic is flawed.

[_Martyr_]

You say its indistputible yet a good percentage of scientists disbute it.

Which part are you talking about? The fact that CO2 traps heat is very easily verifyable if you want to try it out. This doesnt change from micro to macro, we are still talking abot the same CO2 molecules. A good percentage dispute the degree of the effect, not the existance of the effect. Big difference.

We don't know anything about the atmosphere and temperature works, what your going on isn't fact it is guess work.

No, what we are going on is scientific theory based on empirical evidence. Kind of like aerodynamics or relativity.

Hell, by lowering the Co 2 emmissions we lower the level of global dimming which cools us down.

BS! By lowering PARTICLE EMMISIONS we risk lower the level of so called global dimming (which is just as much a theory as global warming). Interesting that you would believe such a theory and not global warming...

And how my friend do you explain the last 7 ice ages we weren't around to cause?

Because the earth has natural climate change... Whats your point? Does that somehow mean that we are not able to contribute or indeed direct the direction of the cycles by tipping the balances of gas in the atmosphere? Volcanic erruptions have climate effects due to their gasious releases, why should our gasious releases not have an effect? Because we dont want it to and its easier to just burn oil? Head in the sand!

[Efrem]

BS! By lowering PARTICLE EMMISIONS we risk lower the level of so called global dimming (which is just as much a theory as global warming). Interesting that you would believe such a theory and not global warming...

Its just more evidence that we don't actually know anything concrete.

No, what we are going on is scientific theory based on empirical evidence. Kind of like aerodynamics or relativity.

Cept for the whole competeing and huge wholes in the theory part of the comparison... But I really wouldn't be doing billions of dollars of damages to the worlds economy based on relativity back when it first came up. Hell I still wouldn't. Not that I don't believe it, but it hasn't been proven and the levels of poor on the street and deaths the sacrafice would lead to is hardly worth it based on a theory without facts to back it up.

Because the earth has natural climate change... Whats your point? Does that somehow mean that we are not able to contribute or indeed direct the direction of the cycles by tipping the balances of gas in the atmosphere? Volcanic erruptions have climate effects due to their gasious releases, why should our gasious releases not have an effect? Because we dont want it to and its easier to just burn oil? Head in the sand!

Heres a fun fact for you, the global agency for global warming does its calculations based on there being about 9 times more oil in the world yet to be found than the estimates by the saudis which is extremely generious itself.

There will be no more oil to burn by 2020 and thats the problem we should be worrying about.

[_Martyr_]

Cept for the whole competeing and huge wholes in the theory part of the comparison... But I really wouldn't be doing billions of dollars of damages to the worlds economy based on relativity back when it first came up. Hell I still wouldn't. Not that I don't believe it, but it hasn't been proven and the levels of poor on the street and deaths the sacrafice would lead to is hardly worth it based on a theory without facts to back it up.

Listen, you dont understand the scientific process very well. A scienfitic theory is never proven as fact. That is not the point of a theory. A scientist gathers data, sets of facts on a given subject, whether it is the differing lift of a wing based on angles of attack, or anything else observable. The scientist will then devise possible explanations or hypotheses for the occurances and patterns of the documented data. These hypotheses are then tested to see if they can make further predictions and are tested against further gathered data. If these predictions are sound, the experiment will be reproducable by anyone with the right equipment and knowing the right method. If at this point the experiment can be replicated, it becomes a scientific theory. A scientific theory that "replaces" an existing scientific theory usually does not show the other one to be false, but incomplete. Take Newton versus Einstein as an example. Our current theoretical understanding of how CO2 effects climate is undoubtably incomplete. But it is not "wrong", because of the simple (factual) physical properties of CO2 as a gass. How exactly the effects will manifest themselves is completely up in the air, (no pun intended) but we are sure that CO2, when heated retains heat very well. Scietific theories are rational explanations and predictions based on facts, they are not facts themselves.

[Efrem]

Yeah funny thing is, according to scientific process, Global warming isn't a theory its a hypothesis.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I hate to take sides, but this is a very nice discussion/arguement:

You say its indistputible yet a good percentage of scientists disbute it.

Could you find some scientists who disbute it?

Hell, by lowering the Co 2 emmissions we lower the level of global dimming which cools us down.

CO2 emmissions do not get reversed. What CO2 does is break up molecules in our atmosphere that can not be replaced. With that happening suns rays and heat come through to earth easier, making it hotter, making polar ice caps melt. To stop CO2 emmisions would stop the damage, but by no means undo the damage.

Yeah funny thing is, according to scientific process, Global warming isn't a theory its a hypothesis.

Now, I know _Martyr_ hasn't specified any sources of information either, but once again, could you please find me sources that would agree with you?

I'd like to end with saying that I think it is us that cause this. We, modern humans IMHO have destroyed our ozone layer, and the earth in general. Thousands and thousands of years before us, they'd get by off the land. Not harming almost at all.