Global Warming

[Neoteny]

Here is an interesting graph from the wikipedia commons that lists a few hundred thousand years worth of temperature, methane, and other data from Vostok, Antarctica. Who knows if this has been argued before, but it's the first time I've noticed it.

[bigimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg[/bigimg]

Note that there is a cyclical pattern to the temperature as it peaks and crashes and peaks again. Notice, first, that the temperature peaks and then crashes after a relatively short period of time. Is it not odd that, during our time period on the far left, there is no subsequent crash after the peak? Even if it "IS going to take hundreds of years," why is it not fitting the pattern? It's not even close. Would this not fit the projected results from the greenhouse theory? I recognize this is anecdotal, but this is the kind of data that climate "skeptics" must contend with when trying to debunk global warming theory. Anyone have any ideas other than "that's just how climate works? Wait a little longer and you'll see."

Of course, climate is influenced by solar output and plenty of other factors as well, but current data points to us contributing a fair share. And it's a bit naive to think that our massive carbon footprint isn't having a major effect on the planet.

Conservatives: systematically doing our best to hinder scientific progress since 1994.

[jay_a2j]

This should put this issue to rest once and for all.


DEBUNK THIS!

Apparently no one could debunk this... that's what I thought.

[HapSmo19]

Heres the truth.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[Frigidus]

This should put this issue to rest once and for all.


DEBUNK THIS!

Apparently no one could debunk this... that's what I thought.

Sorry, seems there aren't many people that do experiments on this shit here. I can't debunk a video without a science team on my side. And saying "well things should be fine for 100 years, shit doesn't get bad until 1000" hardly changes things. Oh, it's far away so not our problem! Out the door it goes.

[Neoteny]

This should put this issue to rest once and for all.


DEBUNK THIS!

Apparently no one could debunk this... that's what I thought.

I'm not going to take the time to write out a response to a video when you aren't going to read it. Care to pick something out of the video to discuss? Perhaps the timing discrepancy between CO2 increases and temperature increases?

[radiojake]

Whether or not there is global warming is irrelevant. It's now used as a mere advertising campaign for companies selling more shit by being 'green' - Which is impossible, because our civilisation is so far away from being green or sustainable that it will inevitably collapse whether or not the temperature is rising or not.

Just a quick question for you to contemplate. Think of your local area you live in. How much food, water or clothing could your local area produce if importing became impossible (through either lack of oil or the price of oil being too expensive)? - It wouldn't be able to produce shit because chances are it is a concrete jungle. When cities have to to import food and resources from outside the city, or country, it is, by definition, unsustainable. It will catch up with us eventually, and that's when shit hits the fan. It's already happening in places like Haiti and other third world countries. Don't be so naive to think that it won't eventually happen in first world western countries. Our collective greed will catch up with us - it's not a matter of if but when.

That's my real worry, global warming (if it exist) is just a mere by-product of a much larger demon

[PLAYER57832]

CO2 has been proven to act as a greenhouse gas. And it would be less food because
A) Less water
B)A lot less arable land with a lot more people living on it.
This is what really pisses me off. People citing anecdotal evidence as the gospel. And it's not the coldest on record. I believe that, while the general trend is warming, it causes extreme cold and extreme warm. It's been proven to even make colder springs. Come on. From 10,000 B.C. (BCE if you want to be politically correct) to 1850 A.D. (CE), generally warming the whole time, temperatures have risen 16 degrees ferenheit. Then from 1850 to about 2000, temperatures rose 4 degrees. Have any real arguement against it? And "We just had a cold winter" or "It's a scam" doesn't count.

Ice Ages. One mustn't forget the mini ice age that lasted for about 750 years. From the Late Dark Ages/Early Medieval Ages, up to the early 19th century. So of course it would have been warming up. CO2 has only been accounted for a small amount of the Global Warming, if I remember correctly, other parts include natural warming and cooling periods that have been going on for thousands of years. It isn't until recent times that we have actually been able to (partially, at least) measure such temperatures.

Sort of ... we have records ...from seeds, plants and so forth found in bogs, ice, landslides, even desert sands. (all preserve in various ways) We have tree ring data ..from living trees and those either preserved in the afore-mentioned ways or used in construction. You start with living trees, match the rings with trees that were cut within the living tree's life span ... and the find older ones. Etc. We also have written records that, while not giving the exact temperature in Celsius, tell us if it was a climate more like Hawaii or more like the Yukon Territory. Put it all together, and you can come up with a pretty good idea of what the climate was like.

The furter back, of course, the fewer artifacts, the less chance of a fully accurate picture. BUT, even a very loose grouping is enough to tell that whether a particular area was a swamp or desert, hot or icey.

BUT, don't take my word for it. This is one of the VERY FEW issues about which scientist around the world have reached a near complete concensus.

Whether or not there is global warming is irrelevant. It's now used as a mere advertising campaign for companies selling more shit by being 'green' - Which is impossible, because our civilisation is so far away from being green or sustainable that it will inevitably collapse whether or not the temperature is rising or not.

Just a quick question for you to contemplate. Think of your local area you live in. How much food, water or clothing could your local area produce if importing became impossible (through either lack of oil or the price of oil being too expensive)? - It wouldn't be able to produce shit because chances are it is a concrete jungle. When cities have to to import food and resources from outside the city, or country, it is, by definition, unsustainable. It will catch up with us eventually, and that's when shit hits the fan. It's already happening in places like Haiti and other third world countries. Don't be so naive to think that it won't eventually happen in first world western countries. Our collective greed will catch up with us - it's not a matter of if but when.

That's my real worry, global warming (if it exist) is just a mere by-product of a much larger demon

It is bleak, but not as bleak as you paint. First, you CAN grow stuff, even in the "concrete jungle".

And, folks can live in cities and still be sustainable if the farms are located near enough. This was the way things were for centuries... before RR and cars. However, this is why it is critical that we preserve what farm areas and wild areas we have.

Few things make me angrier than the latest urban yuppie coming out, finding his or her piece of the wonderful outdoors, building their own private home (complete, perhaps with solar and wind energy) .. and then complaining about the "smells" and "mess" of the local farms ... or condeming the local folks who have lived there for 3-4 generations, telling them they cannot hunt or fish ... either because it is "morally wrong" OR just an "invasion of privacy/property".

[TaylorSandbek]

global warming is simply a theory. it may or may not be true. You cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it is true, just as I cannot sit and tell you there is no way it isnt true.

[Dancing Mustard]

global warming is simply a theory. it may or may not be true. You cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it is true, just as I cannot sit and tell you there is no way it isnt true.

But what we can say with overwhelming confidence is that it is far more likely to be true than to be untrue. Therefore, via the handy method that is Ockham's Razor, we can say Global Warming is a very real thing which we ought to do something serious to counteract.

[Neoteny]

global warming is simply a theory. it may or may not be true. You cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it is true, just as I cannot sit and tell you there is no way it isnt true.

Ack! You are fucking with me! You have to be...

"... simply a theory." It's like hearing the wind whistling through the cavernous halls of insanity.

[PLAYER57832]

global warming is simply a theory. it may or may not be true. You cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it is true, just as I cannot sit and tell you there is no way it isnt true.

Actually we CAN say, as a fact, that the earth's average temperature is increasing ... significantly.

What we cannot say with 100% certainty is whether, or how much of, it is due to Human pollution, etc.

However, in many respects the only relevant part is how badly it will affect us (pretty bad), and if we can do anything to prevent or mitigate these harms ... whether they are "naturally occuring events" or not.

And THAT, my friend, is why so many large, essentially "conservative" businesses are making plans for things like rising sea levels ... and asking the governments to get together to actually WORK ON the solutions, instead of spending more time debating whether it "is real" or not.

To paraphrase something said in other threads (over and over...). Just about EVERYTHING is "just a theory" in science. That includes whether the sun will "rise" tommorrow, whether gravity actually causes things to fall ... and many, many other things that most folks, in the "day to day" world would pretty much call "facts" ... or at least extremely reasonable assumptions.

When you throw out its "just" a theory on stuff like this, you really show your complete ignorance of science and the study you are attempting to criticize, not any real critique.

[shadowsteel9]

ok here are some facts for you
1. The earth has gone through atleast 6 global warming and cooling trends.(so what's happening is natural)
2. There is no proof that humanity's contribution to greenhouse gases is causing this process to increase.
3. Out of all those previous times of global heating and cooling, this is the only time that the earth has had 2 polar ice caps.
4. There's no such thing as a whole in the O-Zone layer. (here's a shocker for you, there cant' be a whole in a gas) It merely is thinning during it's winter months, because the sun's radiation is not there to cause the formation of )O-zone, and sometimes the winds that carry new O-zone to that area change course leaving it with a depleated O-Zone area.
5. The biggest contributer to Greenhouse gases are cows, not people
6. We can't kill the planet, we may cause humans to die out, but the planet will over time heal it's self

I hope these help you in trying to understand global warming, and that basically the biggest threat to us is just another ice age

[Simon Viavant]

global warming is simply a theory. it may or may not be true. You cannot say without a shadow of a doubt that it is true, just as I cannot sit and tell you there is no way it isnt true.

Just like gravity, evolution, and the fact that the earth is round.

Shadowsteel9:
1) 6 times over 4 billion years. So this definetly isn't natural.
2) That's just wrong.
3) Don't quote me on this, but I'm pretty sur that's wrong.
4)This is irrelivent to the Global Warming debate
5)They aren't even the biggest contributors of methane, let alone CO2. 80% of methane in the atmoshphere is from methane trapped in melting permafrost at the poles.
6)Isn't that enough reason to stop global warming?

And btw, you should cite your source.

[Pedronicus]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI

[PLAYER57832]

ok here are some facts for you
1. The earth has gone through atleast 6 global warming and cooling trends.(so what's happening is natural)
2. There is no proof that humanity's contribution to greenhouse gases is causing this process to increase.
3. Out of all those previous times of global heating and cooling, this is the only time that the earth has had 2 polar ice caps.
4. There's no such thing as a whole in the O-Zone layer. (here's a shocker for you, there cant' be a whole in a gas) It merely is thinning during it's winter months, because the sun's radiation is not there to cause the formation of )O-zone, and sometimes the winds that carry new O-zone to that area change course leaving it with a depleated O-Zone area.
5. The biggest contributer to Greenhouse gases are cows, not people
6. We can't kill the planet, we may cause humans to die out, but the planet will over time heal it's self

I hope these help you in trying to understand global warming, and that basically the biggest threat to us is just another ice age

SUMMARY: 1-5 are just false ... further, cows, domesticated animals that they are, are often included in the "people" part

6. yes .. but I believe most of us would prefer humans survive... and therefore consider "death of the planet" to mean "changing the planet so WE cannot live upon it".

Check any CREDIBLE science organization and they will say the same thing.

And, for the general arguments against science bit ... go look at Widowmaker's Creation thread... most of it was covered pretty thoroughly there.

[shadowsteel9]

ok here are some facts for you
1. The earth has gone through atleast 6 global warming and cooling trends.(so what's happening is natural)
2. There is no proof that humanity's contribution to greenhouse gases is causing this process to increase.
3. Out of all those previous times of global heating and cooling, this is the only time that the earth has had 2 polar ice caps.
4. There's no such thing as a whole in the O-Zone layer. (here's a shocker for you, there cant' be a whole in a gas) It merely is thinning during it's winter months, because the sun's radiation is not there to cause the formation of )O-zone, and sometimes the winds that carry new O-zone to that area change course leaving it with a depleated O-Zone area.
5. The biggest contributer to Greenhouse gases are cows, not people
6. We can't kill the planet, we may cause humans to die out, but the planet will over time heal it's self

I hope these help you in trying to understand global warming, and that basically the biggest threat to us is just another ice age

SUMMARY: 1-5 are just false ... further, cows, domesticated animals that they are, are often included in the "people" part

6. yes .. but I believe most of us would prefer humans survive... and therefore consider "death of the planet" to mean "changing the planet so WE cannot live upon it".

Check any CREDIBLE science organization and they will say the same thing.

And, for the general arguments against science bit ... go look at Widowmaker's Creation thread... most of it was covered pretty thoroughly there.

All that information is credible,
yes we have gone through cycles of heating and cooling, yes it's impossible to have a hole in a gas,
yes we're on our way to another ice age,
yes the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases are cows- (heads up all they do is eat and release METHANE. METHANE= GREENHOUSE GAS)

I've attended classes on this, and all the professionals i talk to agree with the facts i have stated above

The only one i'm not sure on is the fact regarding the ice caps. Because there was some controversy at the lecture about that fact also

[jonesthecurl]

[quote="shadowsteel9} yes it's impossible to have a hole in a gas,
[/quote]

NOt particularly relevant, but have you never blown a smoke ring?

[shadowsteel9]

[quote="shadowsteel9} yes it's impossible to have a hole in a gas,

NOt particularly relevant, but have you never blown a smoke ring?[/quote]

There is not a whole in the middle of the smoke, the gas molecules are spread farther apart they are still there though

[MeDeFe]

yes it's impossible to have a hole in a gas

NOt particularly relevant, but have you never blown a smoke ring?

There is not a whole in the middle of the smoke, the gas molecules are spread farther apart they are still there though

I think you just settled your own argument in favour of those disagreeing with it.

[jonesthecurl]

Q.E.D.

[PLAYER57832]

ok here are some facts for you
1. The earth has gone through atleast 6 global warming and cooling trends.(so what's happening is natural)
2. There is no proof that humanity's contribution to greenhouse gases is causing this process to increase.
3. Out of all those previous times of global heating and cooling, this is the only time that the earth has had 2 polar ice caps.
4. There's no such thing as a whole in the O-Zone layer. (here's a shocker for you, there cant' be a whole in a gas) It merely is thinning during it's winter months, because the sun's radiation is not there to cause the formation of )O-zone, and sometimes the winds that carry new O-zone to that area change course leaving it with a depleated O-Zone area.
5. The biggest contributer to Greenhouse gases are cows, not people
6. We can't kill the planet, we may cause humans to die out, but the planet will over time heal it's self

I hope these help you in trying to understand global warming, and that basically the biggest threat to us is just another ice age

SUMMARY: 1-5 are just false ... further, cows, domesticated animals that they are, are often included in the "people" part

6. yes .. but I believe most of us would prefer humans survive... and therefore consider "death of the planet" to mean "changing the planet so WE cannot live upon it".

Check any CREDIBLE science organization and they will say the same thing.

And, for the general arguments against science bit ... go look at Widowmaker's Creation thread... most of it was covered pretty thoroughly there.

All that information is credible,

Not according to the over 2000 scientists that just got the nobel prize for their research confirming the Global warming threat. ... nor the thousands more that have signed onto similar declarations (the LARGEST concensus of scientists EVER).

yes we have gone through cycles of heating and cooling,

Yes, over several thousand years ... not over 100, as we ARE seeing right now.

yes it's impossible to have a hole in a gas,

But not a LAYER of that gas ... check out what you are talking about first!

As for the seasonal variations ...yes... the changes folks worry about is over and above that...

yes we're on our way to another ice age,

eventually, of course. That doesn't mean global warming won't happen, isn't real. Again .. do a bit more reading. (of REAL science, not the Creation institute science or George W. Bush's "academy")

yes the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases are cows- (heads up all they do is eat and release METHANE. METHANE= GREENHOUSE GAS)

Than what?

Actually the methane they produce contributes on the order of 1%. This is more methane than people "produce" in their bodies, but NOT more than people produce through factories, our cars, etc etc etc. Further, the problem isn't just what we produce, we also destroy forests/grasslands, etc at a higher rate than we replant these things .. particularly in the Amazon. Further, as I already said. The cow part of the equation is part of the overall HUMAN impact. Cows are no longer really part of the "natural" world.

I've attended classes on this, and all the professionals i talk to agree with the facts i have stated above

Professionals, perhaps, but not credible scientists, respected within the scientific community. A boxer is a professional ... but I don't ask George Foreman for his views on global warming.

There are plenty of folks who will claim this is not true .. George W. Bush and his cronies prime among them. IN a few cases, they are legitimate scientists .. who mostly are not disputing the whole concept, just pieces of it. MORE often, they are the kind of scientists that make other scientists laugh (or cry) because their research is plain faulty, very highly biased (as in they are paid to come up with a particular answer ... and comply) or actually irrelevant (such as your point about the cows).

It was those "scientists" and George W. Bush's disdain for the idea of Global warming that pushed so many scientists to sign on to the Global Warming initiative, by-the-way.

Oh, and ... what made him change his toon was a few choice words by some company execs who are NOT stupid. (neither is George W ... except when it comes to science ).

[Neoteny]

[

I think you just settled your own argument in favour of those disagreeing with it.

That was rather impressive.

Anyhow, only simpletons are deceived by terms such as ozone hole and really think that their perceive misinformation has any bearing on reality.

[Juan_Bottom]

Neoteny! I am so happy to disagree with you! Finally,...

Also, I don't see exactly what you are talking about with your graph, to me it looks like it fits the pattern. Could you spell it out for me?

But here are two global cooling graphs. This is why Global Warming, is now called Global Climate Change.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/march2008/210308graph.jpg


Simon Viavant, I don't understand your temperature argument either. Even though when man wasn't emitting CO2 like crazy the earths temp was rising faster than it is today? And today the global temp is only rising a few degrees a year(I'm not convinced that it is, for future referance)?Isn't that agreeing with me? You'll have to spell it out for me too I'm afraid.

Ok, lets ignore earth for a second. If this isn't a natural cycle, then why is global warming also being veiwed on Jupiter, Saturn, Triton, and Mars? Do we all agree that the earth does go through natural periods of heating and cooling caused by solar interfearance?

And yes the ice caps are melting on earth, but they are also melting away on Mars.

And there is no global concensus on this. 20,000 scientist signed the Oregon Petition, and 100 climate scientist presented papers to the Heartland conferance.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... 63dc2d02cb
These guys make me laugh, so I just wanted to throw this in here.
Czech President Vaclav Klaus said tuesday that he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming. Weather Channel founder John Coleman said that he wants to sue Al Gore, and Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore said that there is no proof that global warming is man-made.

The oil companies for some reason, are the big pushers behind global warming(The Rockefellers, and Peter Sutherland).

And yeah, when I said coldest winter, I ment it too. It was the coldest winter in 100 years for China. And they are the worlds biggest emitter of Carbon Dioxide.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/homepageC ... 2020080204


A real question though, is anyone here willing to change there mind about Global Warming(global climate change)? Or are we wasting time on this one?

[MeDeFe]

yes it's impossible to have a hole in a gas

NOt particularly relevant, but have you never blown a smoke ring?

There is not a whole in the middle of the smoke, the gas molecules are spread farther apart they are still there though

I think you just settled your own argument in favour of those disagreeing with it.

That was rather impressive.

Anyhow, only simpletons are deceived by terms such as ozone hole and really think that their perceive misinformation has any bearing on reality.

Yes, I thought so, too, the way jones made shadow provide a perfect argument against his previous assertions. As you might notice, I have improved the post a little since then by fixing the quotes.

[Simon Viavant]

Okay, I'm going to settle this cows thing once and for all. They produce less than 20% of methane in the atmosphere, and methane is the #2 greenhouse gas. Yes, you're gonna say it's #1 cause it's 30 times more heat trapping than CO2, BUT there's much less of it so CO2 is still number one. What makes up for about 80% of methane trapped in the atmophere is permafrost melting at the poles.

http://www.hydrogen.co.uk/h2_now/journal/articles/3_Methane.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071025174618.htm
http://www.awi.de/de/forschung/fachbereiche/geowissenschaften/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment2005aug11science.climatechange
http://www.awi.de/de/forschung/fachbereiche/geowissenschaften/periglacial_research/research_themes/geomicrobiology_in_permafrost_regions/arctic_methane_cycle/
http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

They talk about "ice methane" and "frozen methane hydrate" They mean permafrost. If you don't know what that is, use google.

And yes, there is a natural cycle, but as shadowsteel9 said, it's only happened 6 times in Earth's 4 billion year history, so that would be a 666,666,666 year cycle, NOT AN 100 YEAR CYCLE!!!