Do you Support the Idea That Global Warming is Man-Made?

[Jean-Luc]

Seeing as how there hasn't been any recent discussion about this, and how it's my generation that is likely going to have to deal with it (and you guys are mostly around that age), I figured we could try to have a discussion about it.

Personally, I don't support the idea of global warming, at least not to the extents that the media and global warming advocates perpetuate it. I feel that it is exceedingly arrogant of mankind to come under the impression that we are capable of destroying the planet simply through the increase of greenhouse gases. Interestingly enough, I wouldn't be surprised if the increase in some ended up being highly beneficial for us.

One gas that I wouldn't mind seeing an increase in is carbon dioxide, which of course goes against almost everything global warming advocates are fighting against. Interestingly enough, plant life thrives on carbon dioxide, and grow up to 50% faster under CO2 concentrations of ~1000ppm. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration even says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm. Our current atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is a mere 385.92ppm, well below being troublesome.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping the air and environment as clean as we possibly can, but I don't feel that's a valid enough excuse to lower our quality of life in order to accommodate this, and unfortunately I've seen many people in support of GW to think that we should.

Even more unfortunate is that in the United States, some of the more useful solutions are being refused due to the SAME environmentalists. A fine example of this is the use of nuclear power plants, which produces some of the cleanest energy out there. Unfortunately, environmentalists fought against using this method, and we've resorted to burning fossil fuels in order to provide our country with electricity. Ironic isn't it?


Anyways, that should be enough to get this discussion started. Try to keep it civil.

[chrisk123999]

So you also would like to roast when the temperature gets a lot warmer? And the flooding...

[Dwood]

So you also would like to roast when the temperature gets a lot warmer? And the flooding...

It's fighting Climate Change now, not 'Global Warming' hth.

[chrisk123999]

He said global warming in hist post. Global warming and climate change go hand and hand.

[Warsaw]

Jean-Luc, CO2 would be all fine and dandy with plants converting it to O2 if it weren't for a vouple problems:

1. We are introducing CO2 faster than the flora can convert it.

2. We are removing said flora from the face of the Earth at a rapidly increasing rate, and not replacing it. Everyone is at fault here, but South America in particular is ruining it for us because they can't get their shit together any other way.

As for nuclear energy, I'm all for it. However, there is only enough fuel on Earth to sustain current growing output for roughly 130 years (assuming we only use Uranium, but THorium is also fissile), which is not really any longer than fossil fuels have been used. That brings us back to square one, so we need to find yet another source. Fusion is supposedly the ultimate, and to an extent it is, but the fuel for that is also being consumed by life processes; we'd need to decompose our world's supply of water to sustain fusion output, and there isn't enough Helium to even begin to think about using that. Now, granted, it would probably take thousands of years before we started to see an impact of fusion on the water reserve, so I wouldn't be too worried about that.

As for lowering the quality of life, what has been lowered? Honestly, I haven't seen anything get worse because of this "Green Scare," if you will. In fact, I've seen everything improve. Even in the areas of energy, this movement has tricked us into being more efficient with how we use our resources. And every man and his dog still has two cars and five chickens in every pot.

[Disaster]

http://nov55.com/gbwg.html

There is not physically enough CO2 in the air to cause global warming nor will there ever be. The only thing in our atmosphere that can cause global warming is water vapor. Last time I checked, we need water so we just can't get rid of it.

[paladin]

I think Man Kind is a Catalyst to a natural phenomenon.

There is prehistorical proof of a natural cycle between hot and cold on our plant. Human production of unnatural amounts of CO2 is cause this cycle to occur fast than normal. Go us. Get over it. We can adapt. We've done it before. We just chose a good time to exist.

[Horns]

It's simple. Global warming is a fact. We know it's happening, there's no way around that. But the thing people get wrong, is saying that we are the cause of global warming.

I believe this to be complete bullshit. I think the earth is just going through it's natural cycle. We've had Iceages and droughts many times throughout history.

[Rob Oplawar]

"I support the idea of global warming" is rather misleading. I would take it to mean "I am in favor of global warming," which is obviously not what you meant.

But whatever.

The argument I usually see against environmentalism goes like this:

The argument for stopping pollution goes like this:
1: The world is getting warmer, which is bad.
2: We are causing this warming by polluting.
3: Therefore, we should not pollute.
But, premise 2 is wrong, therefore premise 3 is wrong, and we should not be concerned about pollution.

This is a logical fallacy called denying the antecedent. "If we're causing global warming then we should not pollute, but we are not causing global warming so it doesn't matter if we pollute."


This was all a roundabout way of saying this: fuck global warming, it doesn't matter if we caused it or not, because regardless of it pollution is still clearly a bad thing.


I don't have enough knowledge to say whether the average global temperature really is rising and if this rise is man made, but I can still say that we should be concerned about damaging our environment nonetheless, because we can be sure that we are doing so.

[Ganon]

I think it's funny how we are trying to "reverse the effects". Whatever scares people into recycling!

[Jean-Luc]

"I support the idea of global warming" is rather misleading. I would take it to mean "I am in favor of global warming," which is obviously not what you meant.
Valid point, I probably should have gone with "Do you believe global warming is caused by mankind" or something. Regardless, you guys get the point :p

[SnaFuBAR]

I can tell you right now that I won't buy into the global climate change caused or even influenced by humans. If you've heard of the Medieval Warm period then you'd know that the sea surface temperature was 1 degree warmer 1000 years ago.

During that time, in the antarctic there was a cooling trend, much like we are seeing now (as in the antarctic ice has grown 43%).

Not to mention that the sun cycles being closely related to global climate trends and ocean currents as well, I'm pretty sure those two factors alone have a much bigger impact than we could ever have even in the most ridiculous hypothetical models.

Fake E: the cooling trend termed the "little ice age" only ended 400 years ago

Real E: In fact, you can see Antarctic ice has actually increased by 43% (http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=100&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=03&hemis0=S&img0=extn&mo1=03&hemis1=S&img1=conc&year0=2009&year1=1980) <-click the link

[Warsaw]

I voted "I support the idea," but not because of the traditional reasons. I do believe it is happening, but it's not because of CO2. Yeah, CO2 is rising and we are contributing to it in some way, and yes we are killing off the natural air scrubbers. However, I'm also in the boat that thinks it's a natural thing that is long overdue, actually. This should have happened years ago. If I could place my vote into the "Not supporting" category, now having a better understanding of the question asked (read: I screwed up), I would.

[kid908]

Just because the entire planet overall is warming does not mean the poles are warming. Most of planet's temperature is regulated by currents.

Here's an example. Everyone have heard of the Atlantic current that carries warm water to England.

When the ocean warm up, the water overall becomes warm and once it gets to a point, the water does not cool near the artic and will cause a disappearance of that current. Without the current, warm water doesn't reach England to warm up England and cause a more devastating winter. Basically, if "global warming" exist, it will change the weather patterns rather than say "we're make the world melt! no more ice caps. :()

Yeah, I believe in global warming, but it's natural and has nothing to do with being a human by product. Also I don't like Al Gore, that's another reason I will not believe in the "human effecting the world climate."

Yes, we do affect it, No will are not affecting it to a point where it'll be "OMFG! aklgrjap we're killing the planet! Stop using everything!" We have as much effect on the climate and global warming as any other species on this planet.

[Mass]

I voted yes because I believe we shouldn't use fossil fuels, not because I have any strong opinion on why the climate is changing. (Retrospectively, we'll know we were all wrong.)

[Heathen]

to think that it isn't real makes someone retarded.

I'm sorry.

[Con]

Personally, I don't support the idea of global warming, at least not to the extents that the media and global warming advocates perpetuate it. I feel that it is exceedingly arrogant of mankind to come under the impression that we are capable of destroying the planet simply through the increase of greenhouse gases.
I agree that the media blows it out of proportion like they always do, but it's best to stay objective and not let the interpretation of arrogance to get in the way of the facts. We're certainly not "destroying the planet", but we are causing changes in the climate. CO2 isn't the only factor.



One gas that I wouldn't mind seeing an increase in is carbon dioxide, which of course goes against almost everything global warming advocates are fighting against. Interestingly enough, plant life thrives on carbon dioxide, and grow up to 50% faster under CO2 concentrations of ~1000ppm. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration even says that average exposure for healthy adults during an eight-hour work day should not exceed 5,000 ppm. Our current atmospheric level of carbon dioxide is a mere 385.92ppm, well below being troublesome.
While it's nice to say that plants thrive on CO2 and all's good, it's not such good news for life that depends on certain concentrations of CO2 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6652866.ece) and acidity. This is just one example that came to mind, there's plenty more from all sorts of ecosystems. What's best for some plants and safe for people isn't always the best for other life.



Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping the air and environment as clean as we possibly can, but I don't feel that's a valid enough excuse to lower our quality of life in order to accommodate this, and unfortunately I've seen many people in support of GW to think that we should.
I see you're want to keep the environment clean, but you're in no way connected to the consequences. Most people are like this; we can keep living this way because nobody is there to call on our inaction. You're all for taking action, but your disposition means nothing. Recycle, turn off your lights, take the bus... if you think that's lowering your quality of life then you need to rethink your standards.



Even more unfortunate is that in the United States, some of the more useful solutions are being refused due to the SAME environmentalists. A fine example of this is the use of nuclear power plants, which produces some of the cleanest energy out there. Unfortunately, environmentalists fought against using this method, and we've resorted to burning fossil fuels in order to provide our country with electricity. Ironic isn't it?

There are plenty of alternatives, it just comes down to funding.

[rossmum]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/4f5988a1e6a88ca9ef657c6e596109410a7.gifhttp://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/4f5988a1e6a88ca9ef657c6e596109410a7.gifhttp://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Emoticons/4f5988a1e6a88ca9ef657c6e596109410a7.gif
my favourites are the people who think the greenhouse effect is bad rather than global warming

A NATURAL PROCESS IS ALLOWING ARE PLANET TO RETAIN HEAT OVERNIGHT THIS COMMUNIST PLOT MUST BE ENDED

[EX12693]

Ya know what they're finding under melting glaciers?

Prehistoric tree stumps

[CN3089]

Ya know what they're finding under melting glaciers?

Prehistoric tree stumps

Antarctica was near the equator once brah



Greenland even had forests on it at one point~

[=sw=warlord]

I've always found the motion "save the planet" quite humorous.
The planet will be here long after the climate has changed the question is, will we still be here?

It has been recorded by meteoriologists across the globe an increase in extreme weather and not just in isolated areas.
30 years ago or arround that time, governments decided after being badgered for quite some time to slowly decrease lead pollution and since then we have been better for it.
The removal of much of the lead from pollution may not have slowed down climate change but doe's that mean we should not have done it in the first place?
No, Lead is a well known poison to not just us but other species and to think, people are saying we are too arrogant to thinking we can influence the earth is rather arrogant in it self.
If we are influencing the earth and still, we did nothing about it because of our ignorance would that not make us as arrogant in that we choose wherther certain species of life in which we may well depend upon for survival extinction?

Im gonna come back to this thread later and reword itr, i've just gottten up so when i reword it expect some sources for what i am talking.

[Bodzilla]

go mankind!

Sydney’s Apocalyptic Dust Storm Seen From Space
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2009/09/duststorm1.jpg
lol victoria!
http://andrewmagrath.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/att00012.jpg
http://andrewmagrath.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/att00002.jpg
http://behindblondiepark.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/090209-04-australia-fire_big.jpg
lol rising sea levels?, erosion? it just means where fuckign awesome and you liberal socialists just cant understand how awesome it truly is!
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/wa/cyclone/about/perth/alby_floreat.jpg


We need water to live anyway, bring it on! nature!
http://nimg.sulekha.com/Others/original700/australia-floods-2009-2-4-23-3-35.jpg
http://janezlifeandtimes.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/south-of-coffs.jpg


oh, some of the biggest or biggest floods ever, the biggest most disastrous fire ever, we are loosing more coastline then ever, biggest dustorm ever.
god we are so F'in cash take that nature you cunt!

just posted my option on the poll.

how the fuck can we have 13 people say the done support the notion of global warming.
some of you have got some explaining to do.

thats just fucking ludicrous, how can you not understand that the mountains of evidence presented in front of you IS IMPORTANT to the fuckign issue.

i'm gobsmacked, Obama shouldnt just extend school, you should never go home i mean seriously what the fuck.


Alright i got some answers for you climate denial idiots.
watch this guy

QwnrpwctIh4
Global warming and the relation of the ill nino effect on graphical results THIS IS IMPORTANT

MozcU7woNNQ
the p0lar icecaps are melting (oh no my poor bear)

boj9ccV9htk
This was from the movie THE BIG SWINDLE! one of the more popular doco's (fucking facepalm) at DISPROVING THE GLOBA WARMING WHOLE THING TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS
AND OUR JORRBBBSS!

watch hour fucking stupid they are. (oh and the graphs they're using in the doc are only twenty years outta date and cherry picked to show favorable results for they're delusion, cause thats totally k BUT YOU MUST NOT LISTEN TO THOSE DAMMMMMMMM SOCIALISTS!!!SSS


HISS!!!)

5NJEouqefis
denial was not just a river in africa!
problems with africa, food yields, oh and those crazy bangaladeshianss i cant even pronounce their name properly, they're not important.
river erosion, excessive floods, rising sea level? all lulz worthy.





Oh and fellas if the sea temperature raise's a couple of degrees you can say goodbye to coral reefs, because after all, who needs food chains anyway lul

inportant link!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6652866.ece

The Great Barrier Reef will be so degraded by warming waters that it will be unrecognisable within 20 years, an eminent marine scientist has said.

Charlie Veron, former chief scientist of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, told The Times: “There is no way out, no loopholes. The Great Barrier Reef will be over within 20 years or so.”

Once carbon dioxide had hit the levels predicted for between 2030 and 2060, all coral reefs were doomed to extinction, he said. “They would be the world’s first global ecosystem to collapse. I have the backing of every coral reef scientist, every research organisation. I’ve spoken to them all. This is critical. This is reality.”

Dr Veron’s comments came as the Zoological Society of London, the Royal Society and the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) held a crucial meeting on the future of coral reefs in London yesterday. In a joint statement they warned that by mid-century extinctions of coral reefs around the world would be inevitable.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00585/Coral_585341a.jpg
.

[Disaster]

http://hubpages.com/hub/Global-Warming-Fake-01

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071022204311AARalxi
Best answer is the one I'm referring too.

[Disaster]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold. Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).
Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif~~~~~~

[=sw=warlord]

zORv8wwiadQ
Also, that thing about sunspot cycles.
Last i remember the cycle is every 11 years so that should put that claim to null and void.

[Jean-Luc]

just posted my option on the poll.

how the fuck can we have 13 people say the done support the notion of global warming.
some of you have got some explaining to do.

thats just fucking ludicrous, how can you not understand that the mountains of evidence presented in front of you IS IMPORTANT to the fuckign issue
Time for some explaining then. I will not deny that the Earth has been heating up as it's proven fact no matter how you slice it. The reason I voted no in the poll is because while I agree that the Earth has been heating up, I don't agree with the idea that global warming is caused by man as so many would like us to believe, nor do I think the effects are going to be nearly as severe or unnatural as they claim it will be. Seeing as the debate with global warming is almost always around the notions of "Did we cause it?" and "This will be catastrophic and will end the world as we know it!", I just assumed people would connect the two.

oh, and as for
the p0lar icecaps are melting (oh no my poor bear)A common argument, but unfortunately it isn't exactly how it seems. The Arctic ice cap has seen a 5.6% decrease in extent, but a 7.6% increase in ice concentration as shown here in these graphs from 1980 to earlier 2009 (http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=100&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=03&hemis0=N&img0=extn&mo1=03&hemis1=N&img1=conc&year0=2009&year1=1980)

As for the Antarctic ice cap, the difference is even more extraordinary. The sea ice extent has grown by 30%, and the concentration has gone up 45%. Graph here (http://nsidc.org/cgi-bin/bist/bist.pl?annot=1&legend=1&scale=100&tab_cols=2&tab_rows=2&config=seaice_index&submit=Refresh&mo0=03&hemis0=N&img0=extn&mo1=03&hemis1=N&img1=conc&year0=2009&year1=1980)

In fact, here's an article (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25348657-401,00.html) from an Australian news site that says the Antarctic shelf (on the eastern side) is actually growing while it is just parts of the western coast that are breaking off/melting. This is important because, as the article says, the eastern coast of Antarctica is 4x larger than the western coast.

[=sw=warlord]

Jean, you say we don't have the power to influence the earth and yet for ceunturies we have been destroying forests, making destructive devices and influencing our landscapes.
Well in the past century we have detonated alot of nuclear devices which last i remember burn at the same temperature as the surface of the sun.
Im pretty sure that kind of release of energy into the atmosphere has definently affected our climate and not in a good way either.

[Jean-Luc]

Jean, you say we don't have the power to influence the earth and yet for centuries we have been destroying forests, making destructive devices and influencing our landscapes.
That's not what I said. I said I don't believe global warming is CAUSED by mankind. Yes, we have been destroying forests. We've also been replanting a shitload to help make up for it.
Well in the past century we have detonated alot of nuclear devices which last i remember burn at the same temperature as the surface of the sun.
Im pretty sure that kind of release of energy into the atmosphere has definently affected our climate and not in a good way either. That heat was temporary and the detonation of nuclear bombs would actually serve to cool the planet. Ever heard of Nuclear Winter?
.

[=sw=warlord]

Yes, nuclear winter is usualy caused by dust and ash being caught in the clouds and blocking out sunlight which if you have not noticed, has not happened.
It's only been in recent decades humans have started to replant forests after being badgered by envrionmentalists.

[Jean-Luc]

That's true, and it will probably take some time before we can fully make up for the trees we've taken down.

There are a couple more points I'd like to bring to the table though. The first one is the fact that the globe goes through warming and cooling trends in very short periods of time. In fact, in Time Magazine 1974 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html), there was speculation and panic that the Earth was going into a new ice age. Now, merely three and a half decades later (nothing in planetary terms), we're worrying about global warming. How much of an about-face could you ask for, and how do we know it's not perfectly natural?

Speaking of natural, I'd like to pose this question to every scientist and every human being in the world. If we're so concerned about "unnatural" temperatures and weather cycles, then tell me this...What IS natural?
See, that's the trick here. We don't know what the perfect climate is for Earth and suddenly we're worrying that we've fucked things up from the natural order?

Let me tell you something folks; it is exceedingly arrogant of mankind as a whole to say that in the mere 200 years since the industrial revolution that we're suddenly causing the death of our planet. The Earth has been through a lot worse than us, not the least of which would be nuclear winter from asteroid impacts. And yet, life still persists on Earth. We're not worried about "saving the planet," we're worried about saving ourselves.

[legionaire45]

I think the results of this poll are some of the most depressing things I've seen on this website.

GG guys, enjoy your new polluted, toxic and trash filled oceanfront property in 30 or 40 years. Don't mind the heat either, or the mass extinctions of species that have an effect on our lives.

Let's just keep burning fossil fuels until they have been used up and everything on this planet has been burned away or drowned.

[=sw=warlord]

Jean, the whole thing "we are destroying the planet" or "we want to save the planet" is as i said completely false.
The planet will still be here but the question is will we be.
And to look out and say oh we can't be certain what way things should be would be pretty ignorant.
We have managed to map the human gene and cloned near extinct species, species we our self put in that place.
Not to mention the research in antarcic ice which holds thousands if not millions of years worth of atmospheric records.
If you figure out what the average is with those ice records you can infact find out what the earths temperature should be.

P0lar get your ass in here and start postin.

[Jean-Luc]

I think the results of this poll are some of the most depressing things I've seen on this website.

GG guys, enjoy your new polluted, toxic and trash filled oceanfront property in 30 or 40 years. Don't mind the heat either, or the mass extinctions of species that have an effect on our lives.

Let's just keep burning fossil fuels until they have been used up and everything on this planet has been burned away or drowned.
What you just posted is one of the most depressing things I've seen.

Are we honestly so arrogant as a species to believe that our CO2 production is the worst thing this planet has ever seen? Give me a fucking break. Approximately 40 million years ago, there was little to no ice at all on Antarctica. (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/greenhouse_earth_no_ice_in_antarctica_40_million_y ears_ago) Mankind didn't even exist back then, and I quote from the article:

"Although we did not measure carbon dioxide, several studies suggest that greenhouse gases forty million years ago were similar to those levels that are forecast for the end of this century and beyond.

Our work provides another piece of evidence that, in a time period with relatively high carbon dioxide levels, temperatures were higher and ice sheets were much smaller and likely to have been completely absent."The Earth has been through many of these cycles of increased CO2 and increased temperatures throughout its lifetime completely irrespective of our existence. Another thing; even if we stopped all carbon emissions right this second, it wouldn't change a goddamn thing. Temperatures would still stay high, the ice would still melt, and we'd be in the same boat.

I pose this question to all of you who think man is causing this "disaster." What, exactly, makes you think that we are not simply living in a time where CO2 levels are rising naturally? I would also like an answer as to why we were panicking about going into a new ice age just 35 years ago for the exact same reasons we're worrying about global warming. Get back to me on those.

We need to adapt to the way the Earth changes, not the other way around.

[Cojafoji]

I thought this thread was supposed to be serious.
The current climate already kills many people a year and if you deny that then i suggest you try standing in the way of a F4 tornado then come back and tell me.
Awwwww, did someone break their funny bone? I was just joshing.

I've had my fill of tornadoes. When I was 7, one whirled up my street and wrecked my tree. (In Pennsylvania no less LOL).

No but seriously. Global warming is a real and serious problem. I think we need to curb oil intake, cut/modify the point system, to eliminate trading, that we have for major industry, and set up scrubbers in every town/city/hamlet/borough/village, and encourage the "greening" of cities, by which I mean planting trees and grass EVERYWHERE. Got a wall? IT NEEDS A FUCKING TREE.

Is that serious enough for you?

[Disaster]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image270f.gif~~~~~~

Quoting this because nobody seems to realise that man made co2 is not the cause of global warming. There have been several scientific studies on this and its all come out that the water vapor in the air is the leading cause of global warming. THere is not even enough man made co2 in the atmosphere to do anyting at all. 0.117% of the co2 in the atmosphere is man made :\


As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor! Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) -- both man-made and natural-- is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect-- a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!
Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
Conceding that it might be "a little misleading" to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is "customary" to do so!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image269.gif

[=sw=warlord]

Disaster, your forgetting, warmer climate = more water vapour.
And coji, you try being in physical pain for 72 hours so much that you can't even sleep then come back to me on that.

[Disaster]

Disaster, your forgetting, warmer climate = more water vapour.
And coji, you try being in physical pain for 72 hours so much that you can't even sleep then come back to me on that.
We can't do shit about water vapor though. We require water to survive. There is absolutely nothing we can do to prevent global warming. WE can slow it down by lowering co2 emissions but that will never stop global warming.
All man made global warming is bull shit. We are only contributing so little to it that it doesn't even matter. If all the co2 was removed from the air we would still be heating.

[Jean-Luc]

Disaster, your forgetting, warmer climate = more water vapour.
I'm don't believe he's forgetting it but you raise an interesting point.

Fortunately, nature balances itself out in a very simple manner. With more water vapor in the air, the Earth gets more precipitation. The poles begin increasing in size as snow builds up and the glaciers begin their slow crawl to the equator as the ice spreads outward. This is what causes an ice age much like the most recent one. Now, as the glaciers begin to take up more landmass, the sea level goes down considerably and much less water vapor is in the air. With the decrease in water vapor comes a decrease in precipitation and eventually the glaciers grind to a halt. After a prolonged time with insufficient rainfall/snowfall, the glaciers begin their retreat back to the poles and the whole cycle starts all over again.

[Disaster]

I'm don't believe he's forgetting it but you raise an interesting point.

Fortunately, nature balances itself out in a very simple manner. With more water vapor in the air, the Earth gets more precipitation. The poles begin increasing in size as snow builds up and the glaciers begin their slow crawl to the equator as the ice spreads outward. This is what causes an ice age much like the most recent one. Now, as the glaciers begin to take up more landmass, the sea level goes down considerably and much less water vapor is in the air. With the decrease in water vapor comes a decrease in precipitation and eventually the glaciers grind to a halt. After a prolonged time with insufficient rainfall/snowfall, the glaciers begin their retreat back to the poles and the whole cycle starts all over again.
Exactly. THe climate is in a perfect balance.

[rossmum]

.
nuclear winter has fuck all to do with atomic bombs or even radiation

hth

[Jean-Luc]

Exactly. THe climate is in a perfect balance.
Not quite what I meant. The climate is not in a perfect balance but is rather trying to find a perfect balance. You see this in many other areas in nature as well.

In the current climate, the Earth is recovering from a period that was colder than average, and we're now in a period that is warmer than average. Nature will balance itself out and the cycle continues.

E: disaster ninja'd

[Disaster]

nuclear winter has fuck all to do with atomic bombs or even radiation

hth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

hth

Its the outcome of a nuclear war. :ugh:


Not quite what I meant. The climate is not in a perfect balance but is rather trying to find a perfect balance. You see this in many other areas in nature as well.

In the current climate, the Earth is recovering from a period that was colder than average, and we're now in a period that is warmer than average. Nature will balance itself out and the cycle continues.
What I mean by a perfect balance is that the climate will eventually stabilize itself out after a major environmental disaster.

[Maniac]

Im not sure if its even possible to estimate how much actual heat energy we have released ( and continue to do so) into the atmosphere in the last 100 years, but i bet its a fuck load (nobody ever considers this).

http://chartjunk.karmanaut.com/images/iceages-redrawn.gif
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png

The earth warms and cools, its a natural cycle. We are obviously aiding the heating of the planet but im not sure it really affects too much.

Why the fuck would people even still be considering using nuclear power? when there are soo many better ideas out there.

[Disaster]

0.4446 PPM is how much CO2 that human beings have released into the atmosphere :\

[Maniac]

Its not safe or clean.
Why the fuck do people say this.
There are better alternatives so why not use those?

[MetKiller Joe]

Because it's safe, clean and efficient??


QFT

[CN3089]

It's not safe or clean.

Yes it is.


There are better alternatives so why not use those?

Haven't seen you name a better alternative yet brah?

[Maniac]

So is god dam wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.
Only difference is you dont have to store nuclear waste for years, and if there is an accident then we dont all end up with fucking deformed babies.

[=sw=warlord]

Its not safe or clean.
Why the fuck do people say this.
There are better alternatives so why not use those?
Neither is using the decomposed corpses off long dead plants and animals.
Pretty much what coal is.

[CN3089]

So is god dam wind, solar, hydro and geothermal.
Only difference is you dont have to store nuclear waste for years, and if there is an accident then we dont all end up with fucking deformed babies.

You seem to think that accidents like that (i.e. Chernobyl-type) are possible in modern nuclear power plants. They aren't. :raise:


Also geothermal/hydro aren't possible in a lot of places vOv



Hopefully one day we'll get all our power from solar but nuclear is a nice stopgap until we get more efficient solar power generation~!


edit: pretty much we should all be like france (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_France)

[Maniac]

Im not sure that we have figured how to make coal burn clean yet.
Also its a fossil fuel, dont rely on that being there forever.

I thought you people were sposed to be young and looking for clean safe alternatives, not just repeating what some old cunt told you?

@Kyon

How are they not possible?

[Jean-Luc]

Im not sure that we have figured how to make coal burn clean yet.
Also its a fossil fuel, dont rely on that being there forever.

I thought you people were sposed to be young and looking for clean safe alternatives, not just repeating what some old cunt told you?
What...the HELL are you talking about?

You...you're aware that nuclear power plants don't use coal right :ohdear:

[CN3089]

What...the HELL are you talking about?

We've debunked your antiscientific crap and are now having a debate on the merits of nuclear power :neckbeard:

[Jean-Luc]

We've debunked your antiscientific crap and are now having a debate on the merits of nuclear power :neckbeard:
Except you haven't debunked anything vOv. Keep trying.

Regardless, nuclear power ftw.

e: Maniac, do you know anything about how nuclear power works or are you just following the environmentalists and their propaganda against nuclear energy?

[Maniac]

Warlord mentioned coal so i was talking to him.
l2read.

I know some of how they work.
I also lived 10 miles from Hunterston Nuclear power plant for 21 years, and i know that 1 has leaks. I am sure you still need to store the waste until it is safe.
That does not change the fact that there are better renewable ways to make power.

[Jean-Luc]

I know some of how they work.
I also lived 10 miles from Hunterston Nuclear power plant for 21 years, and i know that 1 has leaks. I am sure you still need to store the waste until it is safe.
Yes, and we have places to store nuclear waste safely. A popular misconception is that spent fuel rods are harmful upon immediate contact. Spent fuel rods are only dangerous after long term exposure.
That does not change the fact that there are better renewable ways to make power.
Wind = takes up too much space for the energy it supplies.
Hydrothermal = works in limited areas.
Geothermal = works in limited areas.

Yucca Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository) would have been a fantastic place to store nuclear material, but unfortunately the Obama administration slashed the funding so it's no longer an option.

[Maniac]

I know some of how they work.
I also lived 10 miles from Hunterston Nuclear power plant for 21 years, and i know that 1 has leaks. I am sure you still need to store the waste until it is safe.
Yes, and we have places to store nuclear waste safely. A popular misconception is that spent fuel rods are harmful upon immediate contact. Spent fuel rods are only dangerous after long term exposure.
That does not change the fact that there are better renewable ways to make power.
Wind = takes up too much space for the energy it supplies. You should provide some evidence of this because i call bullshit.
Hydrothermal = works in limited areas. By hydro i meant water.
Geothermal = works in limited areas.Then use it where you can and use wind, water or solar where that works best too.

[CN3089]

Hydrothermal = works in limited areas. By hydro i meant water.

hydroelectric power generally requires a fairly steep elevation gradient e.g. the niagara escarpment vOv

[TeeKup]

Im not sure that we have figured how to make coal burn clean yet.

There is no such thing as clean coal. I'm tired of hearing that disgusting word.

[Ganon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26179944/

lets take from the moon what it never gave us~

[CrAsHOvErRide]

You seem to think that accidents like that (i.e. Chernobyl-type) are possible in modern nuclear power plants. They aren't.
Uhm they closed two nuclear power plants here in Germany recently because their security system malfunctioned.

Yes Chernobyl cannot happen again. They used lead as an neutron moderator which can carry much more energy before it evaporates. Now they use water and once it evaporates (with less energy obviously) the chain reaction stops.

But that is not the problem...it is the waste which will take millions of years to contaminate. Poor countries are exploited to store this waste...

Of course it is very beneficial...no CO2 and very efficient but at a very high expense.

Still...the planet is getting warmer and global warming is happening. It does not really matter what causes it but it does not allow us to continue pollute the world.

If it is ships that are leaking oil or rising CO2 levels...you cannot deny that this affets nature's health, and by that, our health as well. Put yourself in a chamber with a CO2 level of just 5% and tell me what it is like.

We haven't even talked about Ozone yet...

[teh lag]

There, go back to whatever you were doing.

[Jean-Luc]

Thank you teh lag.

Before the debate continues, I would like to apologize for my poor wording in the creation of this topic. It is blatantly obvious that the Earth is currently heating up and to try to deny that is tantamount to denying gravity. What the debate SHOULD be about (and I've changed the title to fit) is whether or not global warming is man-made and what, if anything, can we do about it.

That said, I still hold my stance that global warming is NOT man-made but rather part of the natural heating and cooling cycles of the planet. I do, however, believe that it is possible we have slightly, and I mean slightly, accelerated the already natural process. However, I do not buy the notion that 1) We are to blame 2) What is happening is completely unnatural.

[SnaFuBAR]

“There is no way out, no loopholes. The Great Barrier Reef will be over within 20 years or so.”
The recent discovery that the reef actually secretes a chemical that influences local weather (as in creates cloud cover) to regulate temperatures should play out very interestingly.
read HERE (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6953-coral-reefs-create-clouds-to-control-the-climate.html)


Also, that thing about sunspot cycles.
Last i remember the cycle is every 11 years so that should put that claim to null and void.

ACTUALLY:

Earth's atmosphere also undergoes a less visible but still dramatic change during the peak in the solar cycle, one that has a direct impact on anything orbiting the planet.

While more than half of Earth's atmosphere is huddled within 6 miles (10 km) of the planet's surface, the atmosphere extends several hundred miles up, getting ever thinner with height.

During solar maximum, extra doses of the most extreme wavelengths of ultraviolet light heat Earth's upper atmosphere, a region called the thermosphere, which starts at about 60 miles up (100 kilometers).

During solar minimum, the gas temperature in the thermosphere is around 1,290 Fahrenheit (700 C). But during solar maximum, the temperature can more than double, Hathaway says. The extra heat causes the thermosphere to expand during solar maximum. Denser layers of atmosphere reach higher, and so the region where the Space Station orbits can become 50 times more dense.

All wind and clouds on Earth are directly or indirectly tied to the Sun. Heat from the Sun produces the temperature differences that lead to pressure differences. Air naturally moves from high to low pressure areas, and this creates the winds.

The oceans store solar heat for long periods, and watery currents move the energy around the globe, fueling everything from mild breezes and localized fog to ferocious storms.


etc etc etc i don't feel like quoting more.

[Jelly]

Thank you teh lag.

Before the debate continues, I would like to apologize for my poor wording in the creation of this topic. It is blatantly obvious that the Earth is currently heating up and to try to deny that is tantamount to denying gravity. What the debate SHOULD be about (and I've changed the title to fit) is whether or not global warming is man-made and what, if anything, can we do about it.

That said, I still hold my stance that global warming is NOT man-made but rather part of the natural heating and cooling cycles of the planet. I do, however, believe that it is possible we have slightly, and I mean slightly, accelerated the already natural process. However, I do not buy the notion that 1) We are to blame 2) What is happening is completely unnatural.
The current scientific consensus is that it is man-made and that we should take measures to keep the climate the same as it is currently (or was, back when stuff wasn't melting).

We do not know how the planet will adapt in the future to different temperatures, but we do know that the current temperature is working alright, so we should work to keep it this way.

[Disaster]

The current scientific consensus is that it is man-made and that we should take measures to keep the climate the same as it is currently (or was, back when stuff wasn't melting).

We do not know how the planet will adapt in the future to different temperatures, but we do know that the current temperature is working alright, so we should work to keep it this way.
That would be because water vapor is not accounted for in the majority of scientific reports even though it is the most versatile greenhouse gas of them all and it makes up 95% of the total ammount of green house gasses in the atmosphere. :\

[SnaFuBAR]

The current scientific consensus is that it is man-made and that we should take measures to keep the climate the same as it is currently (or was, back when stuff wasn't melting).

We do not know how the planet will adapt in the future to different temperatures, but we do know that the current temperature is working alright, so we should work to keep it this way.

Don't be fooled by pseudoscience.

[Dwood]

Don't be fooled by pseudoscience.

Quotin' dis. -It's hard to find truer words-

[Jelly]

Don't be fooled by pseudoscience.
I don't even.

What part of that was pseudoscience?

furthermore,

That would be because water vapor is not accounted for in the majority of scientific reports even though it is the most versatile greenhouse gas of them all and it makes up 95% of the total ammount of green house gasses in the atmosphere. :\

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/06/greenhouse-hot-air/

[Disaster]

I don't even.

What part of that was pseudoscience?

furthermore,


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/06/greenhouse-hot-air/
http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=467636&postcount=35
May I refer you to this post.

0.117% of the co2 in the atmosphere is man made.

[Jelly]

(water vapor is affected much less by humans did you not read the blog?)

In addition, http://www.pnas.org/content/104/47/18866.abstract

(snypa)

[Dwood]

(water vapor is affected much less by humans did you not read the blog?)


You missed the point of what he was trying to say. Like 100% offtarget.

[Jelly]

You missed the point of what he was trying to say. Like 100% offtarget.
what who was trying to say? Disaster or the blogger?

[PopeAK49]

We will have an ice age, and land hurricanes that can freeze you instantly if you are in the eye of it. :realsmug:

Destroying rain forests is the reason for climate change. I refuse to say global warming because Alaska had it's coldest summer last year.

[Pooky]

I feel that it is exceedingly arrogant of mankind to come under the impression that we are capable of destroying the planet simply through the increase of greenhouse gases.

This is the phrase that always drives me up the wall. Destroy the planet, save the planet, whatever. There's a big difference between destroying mankind and destroying the earth, something a lot of people seem not to get.

[rossmum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

hth

Its the outcome of a nuclear war. :ugh:
Actually it was also the outcome of the asteroid which ended the dinosaurs, and unless you're about to tell me it was made of weapons-grade plutonium, that had nothing at all to do with nuclear war :ugh:


The nuclear winter scenario (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scenario) predicts that the huge fires caused by nuclear explosions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_explosion) (particularly from burning urban areas) would loft massive amounts of dark smoke and aerosol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerosol) particles from the fires into the upper troposphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troposphere) / stratosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratosphere). At 10-15 kilometers (6-9 miles) above the Earth's surface, the absorption of sunlight would further heat the smoke, lifting it into the stratosphere where the smoke would persist for years, with no rain to wash it out. This would block out much of the sun's light (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight) from reaching the surface, causing surface temperatures to drop drastically.
Well geez it sure sounds like nuclear winter could actually be caused by any overwhelming eruption or fire engulfing most of the planet, and the only reason the name nuclear is in there anywhere is because of cold war paranoia dictating it the most likely cause :ugh:

[Disaster]

Actually it was also the outcome of the asteroid which ended the dinosaurs, and unless you're about to tell me it was made of weapons-grade plutonium, that had nothing at all to do with nuclear war :ugh:


Well geez it sure sounds like nuclear winter could actually be caused by any overwhelming eruption or fire engulfing most of the planet, and the only reason the name nuclear is in there anywhere is because of cold war paranoia dictating it the most likely cause :ugh:
You stated what you said like it had absolutely nothing at all to do with nuclear weapons. I never said it was just nuclear weapons now did I? I just stated that nuclear winter was the outcome of an all out nuclear war. :ugh:

[rossmum]

It does have absolutely nothing to do with the weapons themselves, it could've been the outcome of a really really bad conventional war just as much :ugh:

Whoever decided to name it after a single, highly unlikely cause is literally dumb as fuck

e/ Nuclear power owns we should all use it instead of coal if you disagree you're probably really gullible

[SnaFuBAR]

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/06/greenhouse-hot-air/

iirc the amount of water vapor is variable with sun cycles because the heat retention of the oceans and their warming and cooling periods coinciding with the sun cycles, and thus, hurricanes, dry spells, warm/cold variation, etc etc etc.

[legionaire45]

Time to inject some science into this thread. This is mainly for Disaster, who doesn't seem to have a clue about how the greenhouse effect actually works.

You know all those fun images that the media likes to parade around of light rays bouncing in and out of the Earth's atmosphere, with CO2 causing more those rays to bounce around instead of bounce off? Forget about that, that's not how the greenhouse effect works.

Gases in the earth's atmosphere (and liquids in the ocean) hold onto a certain amount of energy. Additionally, different gases are capable of holding onto different frequencies of solar energy better than others. The majority of the solar energy that we actually get on earth is in the form of infrared radiation - heat. The rest is either blocked by different processes in the atmosphere unrelated to the greenhouse effect or global warming - this is why we aren't cooked by gamma radiation whenever we step outside, but we still feel heat.

Water Vapor does a decent enough job of holding onto that infrared energy. That is what has kept our climate relevantly stable over the past billion or so years, with some minor spikes and drops here and there. However, Carbon dioxide does a significantly better job of holding onto infrared energy compared to water. Methane, another major gas that humans pump into the atmosphere, is around 8 times as effective as CO2 in terms of holding onto infrared energy as well.

Guess what this means yet? Proportionally, an increase in CO2 levels will have a much greater effect on the level of infrared energy stored in the atmosphere than H2O. Since the 1700's we've added about 100ppm to the atmosphere - probably a lot more than that, but plants do a pretty good job of filtering that out. Since that time, we've added 1000ppm of Methane to the atmosphere. Trees don't convert CH4 into O2 - a single molecule of CH4 degrades over the course of about a decade.

If you won't take my word for it, there's a fairly good, if basic explanation on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential).

BTW, as temperatures rise, H2O gets better at absorbing IR radiation. Nice little feedback loop there.

Another bad sign is the fact that our oceans are getting warmer - our oceans are another huge source of stored CO2.

Regarding nuclear power:
Nuclear power itself isn't a perfect solution either. There's only so much Uranium on this planet and from what I remember, Nuclear power would only be able to sustain us for perhaps a century or two before Uranium becomes too expensive to be worth the effort to mine/process it.

Between Petroleum and Nuclear Fuel, we have perhaps 2 or 3 centuries to switch over to something sustainable - maybe 4 or 5 if we throw coal in there. Global warming will probably catch up with us within this century.

Last I checked, our planet has about a billion years of life-sustaining potential left before the sun gets too hot for plants to go through photosynthesis, more if we remove all of the planet's nitrogen (which opens up another can of worms...). During that time, we will have several hundred watts of energy per square meter raining down on us from the sky. That energy will drive winds on this planet for just as long. Between solar and wind power, we could theoretically power ourselves for the next billion years.

If we figure out nuclear fusion, then as long as there is hydrogen in the universe, we're fine until the heat death of the universe or something. IDK. But a long ass time.

In the short term, developing solar and wind energy will be more expensive then Nuclear or Coal. In the long term, it will save us from having a second energy crisis.

(I pick solar/wind)

ADDENDUM: Comparing between, in the very short term, wind power makes more sense than solar since it takes close to a decade for current solar technologies to break even with the initial energy required to produce them. At least for silicon based stuff anyway - not sure about solar turbines which I think have higher efficiency.

That reminds me of geothermal, which is another option. Not quite as efficient IIRC, but I'm not entirely sure.

[rossmum]

Anyone who thinks nuclear is the be-all and end-all is just as ignorant as those who think burning coal will be viable for as long as humans live on Earth, but it's the best of the interim solutions. Besides the obvious waste - which is fine when disposed of properly - it doesn't shit up our planet and it's far more efficient than burning fossil fuels. Nuclear power plants are not the ticking time-bombs they're made out to be by scaremongering idiots and the media (usually one and the same). Chernobyl was the result of a monumental cock-up which would never have happened with proper supervision and in any case, we know a lot more than we did when that happened.

Hopefully, development of superconducting materials will eventually yield a material which is superconducting at normal outside temperature ranges; line loss accounts for a considerable amount of energy produced, so obviously by eliminating that power production in general can be scaled back.

[Bodzilla]

[QUOTE=SnaFuBAR;468239]The recent discovery that the reef actually secretes a chemical that influences local weather (as in creates cloud cover) to regulate temperatures should play out very interestingly.
read HERE (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6953-coral-reefs-create-clouds-to-control-the-climate.html)
you familliar with coral bleaching bra from the excessive temperatures?

it's already happening and the only reason that it's not gone now is that the coral actual made some weird adaption with algae that bought it another degree or so.

[Terry]

global warming is not man made it is as natural as childbirth

god, how can you be so arrogant little scientists thinkin your so smart

its also not happening because i was cold today

and anyway co2 vs water vapour? water vapour is more otherwise we'd be drinkin co2,. so take that.

[PopeAK49]

global warming is not man made it is as natural as childbirth

god, how can you be so arrogant little scientists thinkin your so smart

its also not happening because i was cold today

and anyway co2 vs water vapour? water vapour is more otherwise we'd be drinkin co2,. so take that.


U2. :allears:

[skz333]

i think the science behind man made climate change is pretty undeniable.

[Dwood]

i think the science behind man made climate change is pretty undeniable.

It's undeniable that Mankind doesn't contribute a significant portion.

[Jean-Luc]

i think the science behind man made climate change is pretty undeniable.

These kinds of posts need to stop. From both sides. If you're going to take a side, post evidence/facts to support it. Don't just say "Well the science behind it proves it" without actually showing us what you're talking about.

You can say anything you want, but if you can't support it then you're just talking out of your ass.

Oh, another thing. I have no issue with you defending your side, but it is absolutely unacceptable to insult someone who has an opposing viewpoint purely for that reason. Remember folks, neither side has been conclusively proven by anyone. Post evidence supporting your side but don't take it as the end all be all of scientific fact.

[Bodzilla]

Oh, another thing. I have no issue with you defending your side, but it is absolutely unacceptable to insult someone who has an opposing viewpoint purely for that reason. Remember folks, neither side has been conclusively proven by anyone. Post evidence supporting your side but don't take it as the end all be all of scientific fact.
except for 99% of the scientific community supporting it.




>_>
look at the vids i posted, they're good.

[=sw=warlord]

Remember folks, neither side has been conclusively proven by anyone.
This discussion will end up the same way as religious discussions do.
You can't prove it one way or another because by the time you find out one way or the other you will be dead.
Personaly i would rather take the safe road and try to prevent any possible damage done to the environment.
Better safe than sorry.
Better safe than sorry.
Better safe than sorry.
Better safe than sorry.

[rossmum]

This discussion will end up the same way as religious discussions do.
You can't prove it one way or another because by the time you find out one way or the other you will be dead.
You can certainly prove things one way or another, but good luck actually persuading every single person that you've proven anything. I'm sure there are people out there who still unironically believe the world is flat, despite being educated otherwise.

If people don't want it to be true, then it won't be - for them.

[=sw=warlord]

You can certainly prove things one way or another, but good luck actually persuading every single person that you've proven anything. I'm sure there are people out there who still unironically believe the world is flat, despite being educated otherwise.

If people don't want it to be true, then it won't be - for them.
Yes i know this.
Sadly there will always be people who want to live in a rock, even if said rock was going to kill them...

[Jelly]

These kinds of posts need to stop. From both sides. If you're going to take a side, post evidence/facts to support it. Don't just say "Well the science behind it proves it" without actually showing us what you're talking about.

You can say anything you want, but if you can't support it then you're just talking out of your ass.

Oh, another thing. I have no issue with you defending your side, but it is absolutely unacceptable to insult someone who has an opposing viewpoint purely for that reason. Remember folks, neither side has been conclusively proven by anyone. Post evidence supporting your side but don't take it as the end all be all of scientific fact.
Please don't talk about conclusive proof this is a scientific discussion thanks.

Also, a scientific consensus means that, after reviewing the evidence bought to bear, the community of scientists who are experts in the respective field have decided that a theory is likely correct. Obviously, this view is open to modification and complete reversal as new evidence comes out.

I have not reviewed all the evidence, I have not read the studies and I probably would not understand most of the science behind it, but I'm willing to trust the consensus, because they know more about this stuff than me. I'm not sure what your opinion is based on, but I think you've either interpreted a study wrong, listened to the skewed media coverage of the issue, or just plain don't want to change your habits.

The media are certainly not covering the science well enough. They enjoy reporting on the minority viewpoints, seeing it as an underdog battling against the establishment, but the studies that get this kind of attention are often of poor quality in scope or theory or both. Again, I've not read the studies, this is a mirroring of the scientific commentary on them. Studies need to be condensed for the public. The actual experiment is condensed into a study, which is condensed into a conclusion, which is condensed into a news item. Various conclusions can be condensed into a report, which can again be condensed to another conclusion, which will give a decent overall view of where the evidence stands. Currently the evidence suggests manmade global warming is real and serious thanks for reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

tl;dr: referencing the scientific consensus doesn't require evidence, global warming is manmade, stop listening to the media coverage, also have a wiki link to the latest IPCC report.

[Jean-Luc]

Please don't talk about conclusive proof this is a scientific discussion thanks.

Also, a scientific consensus means that, after reviewing the evidence bought to bear, the community of scientists who are experts in the respective field have decided that a theory is likely correct. Obviously, this view is open to modification and complete reversal as new evidence comes out.
There are 31,478 scientists who would like to have a word with you (http://petitionproject.org/)

I have not reviewed all the evidence, I have not read the studies and I probably would not understand most of the science behind it, but I'm willing to trust the consensus, because they know more about this stuff than me. I'm not sure what your opinion is based on, but I think you've either interpreted a study wrong, listened to the skewed media coverage of the issue, or just plain don't want to change your habits.
So wait. You haven't read the studies, you don't cover the evidence, and yet you're willing to trust someone simply because they say so? People should be QUESTIONING what they read and what they hear constantly. I may be against the idea of manmade global warming, but I still check both sides of the spectrum here.

The media are certainly not covering the science well enough. They enjoy reporting on the minority viewpoints, seeing it as an underdog battling against the establishment, but the studies that get this kind of attention are often of poor quality in scope or theory or both. Again, I've not read the studies, this is a mirroring of the scientific commentary on them. Studies need to be condensed for the public. The actual experiment is condensed into a study, which is condensed into a conclusion, which is condensed into a news item. Various conclusions can be condensed into a report, which can again be condensed to another conclusion, which will give a decent overall view of where the evidence stands. Currently the evidence suggests manmade global warming is real and serious thanks for reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

tl;dr: referencing the scientific consensus doesn't require evidence, global warming is manmade, stop listening to the media coverage, also have a wiki link to the latest IPCC report.
Don't blindly trust the IPCC. (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0ea8dc23-ad1a-440f-a8dd-1e3ff42df34f&p=2)
.

[Jelly]

Why would my interpretation of the studies matter? I'm not a climatologist, a meteorologist, or anywhere even close to that. I'm a (UK) college student doing physics who knows how science and peer review works. That's why I'm willing to trust the consensus. The community will be made up of scientists from various backgrounds, so a shared bias is unlikely and thus their opinion can likely be trusted. Better than me basing my view off of some studies I don't understand.

The Petition Project page you linked to is an excellent example of the lengths that global warming deniers are willing to go to simulate credibility. The list is comprised of a lot of scientists I'm sure, but they do not show any credentials, so they could all have PHDs in Economics for all you know, unless you've googled all the 31000 names.

The project has also been criticized for listing fake names, names of non-scientists, and names of dead people. How can a dead person review the evidence jesus christ.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Debunking-the-Oregon-Petition-Project&id=1675285
http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/25/new-media-same-as-the-old-media-politico-pimps-global-cooling-for-hill-deniers/
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Me dicine

Also that last article was a massively biased piece written exclusively from the view of a butthurt entomologist who didn't get accepted into the IPCC. Does that harm its (the IPCC's) credibility at all? Seriously?

[Kalub]

Hey, I know it's the fucking coldest year I've seen, all, year? FUCK YOU IT'S COLD UP IN THE HILLS

[Bodzilla]

jelly's taking names and making housecalls.

[paladin]

Yeah, global warming? Why is it 29 degrees out side in the fall?

[Dwood]

Yeah, global warming? Why is it 29 degrees out side in the fall?

Is this in Celsius or in Fahrenheit? referencing 29 degrees means nothing.

:eng101:

[Huero]

Yeah, global warming? Why is it 29 degrees out side in the fall?

and yet another person fails to grasp the concept of global warming/climate change in the first place

[Disaster]

warming
could be that part

[PopeAK49]

The sun's radiation is having mad butt sex with the earths ozone layer. That's why our poles are acting weird and the climate keeps changing. :realsmug:

[sdavis117]

could be that part

Or maybe the GLOBAL part. You know, the part where this is effecting the average annual temperature of the entire planet, not just the temperature during a specific date at a specific location.

[Dwood]

Or maybe the GLOBAL part. You know, the part where this is effecting the average annual temperature of the entire planet, not just the temperature during a specific date at a specific location.

Or maybe the fact that last year was one of the coldest years we've had, average, in the past 10 years?

El nino//La Nina anyone?

[t3h m00kz]

I voted yes because I'm willing to bet it's at least partially the cause of it.

[Bodzilla]

hai gaiz it was 104 degrees farenheight where i live (DURING WINTER).

but thats completely besides the point.

[Jean-Luc]

hai gaiz it was 104 degrees farenheight where i live (DURING WINTER).

but thats completely besides the point.

hai gaiz America had one of the coldest summers in past years

but thats completely besides the point.


And actually it is completely besides the point. You can't judge warming on a global basis by ONE LOCATION.

[Kalub]

no, you're gay.


its cold and that's all I have to say. kthx

[paladin]

32 F, still not warm.

http://open.salon.com/files/1christ-middle-finger1237063167.jpg
Global Warming...

[Bodzilla]

righto got a new vid to show yas, the birth of a climate denial crock.


The observation that natural climate variability exists is not a new one.
Early in September 2009, at a gathering of experts on global climate change, one of the world's most respected and experienced climate modelers, Mojib Latif, made some observations on climate, media and human nature.

The message seemed clear.
natural variations in the long term warming might be misinterpreted,
by the media. out of ignorance, or malice.

Climate deniers were quick to take Latif's remarks, and begin
doing exactly that.

You can listen to Latif's original remarks, here, by clicking on the
recording titled "Advancing climate prediction science".
http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/rec_audios_en...

the original powerpoint is here:
http://www.wmo.int/wcc3/sessionsdb/do...

An analysis is here:
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/ana...
http://deepclimate.org/2009/10/02/key...

khikoh3sJg8

watch this, it's important.

[Dwood]

hai gaiz it was 104 degrees farenheight where i live (DURING WINTER).

but thats completely besides the point.

Aussie has hotter Temperatures like that all the time. :realsmug:

[=sw=warlord]

hai gaiz it was 104 degrees farenheight where i live (DURING WINTER).

but thats completely besides the point.
Your in australia you don't count.
One of the few places you can get sun burn and heat stroke at christmas.

[rossmum]

see the funny thing is that earth's axis of rotation is tilted compared to its orbit,

[Huero]

it's actually slowly changing, too
eventually we will be sideways land

[Bodzilla]

cheers for watching the vid guys appreciate it, will +rep again.





:smithicide:

[Bodzilla]

Ever wanted to be one of the worlds leading scientists?
to be apart of the famous 32000 climate skeptic experts?


ladies and gentlemen, now is your chance.
5P8mlF8KT6I

[Jean-Luc]

Boy it sure would be nice to have some FACTS and EVIDENCE to try and prove global warming instead of getting videos and articles that all try to denounce something that was said by the skeptics.

Pfft, what am I saying :ugh:

[=sw=warlord]

You want proof? goto fucking iceland and then tell me the ice isnt fucking melting.
each time someone has shown you proof and evidence you have disregarded it, going lalalalala wont make things better you know.

[rossmum]

Boy it sure would be nice to have some FACTS and EVIDENCE to try and prove global warming instead of getting videos and articles that all try to denounce something that was said by the skeptics.

Pfft, what am I saying :ugh:
The exact same could be said about the other side.

Face it, neither will accept the other until they're either drowning in seawater in the middle of the Himalayas or safely living in a seaside home five generations from now.

[Jean-Luc]

You want proof? goto fucking iceland and then tell me the ice isnt fucking melting.
each time someone has shown you proof and evidence you have disregarded it, going lalalalala wont make things better you know.

Oh bawww, I'm ignorant because I have found articles/graphs/data that contradicts global warming as anything other than a natural cycle while the global warming "advocates" keep fighting against me, often without providing links and source material to back them up.

But no, I'm the one at fault here.

This is how you try and defend your side. (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=467636&postcount=35)
This is not. (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=467591&postcount=27)

Unless you're going to give me reputable articles/data to read and further decide (read: actually consider the data) how I feel about this matter, then you're not going to get anywhere by insults.

[=sw=warlord]

Oh bawww, I'm ignorant because I have found articles/graphs/data that contradicts global warming as anything other than a natural cycle while the global warming "advocates" keep fighting against me, often without providing links and source material to back them up.

But no, I'm the one at fault here.

This is how you try and defend your side. (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=467636&postcount=35)
This is not. (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=467591&postcount=27)

Unless you're going to give me reputable articles/data to read and further decide (read: actually consider the data) how I feel about this matter, then you're not going to get anywhere by insults.
Any one can make up a fucking flow graph seriously think about it for a moment, we have detonated how many muclear devices in the past 60 years?
And then think how much cardon dioxide and monoxide has been released by our acitivities in the past...200 years as well as every other ozone gas we have used in our technology and then compare that to how much of said gasses and carbon residule was released naturaly before hand, now with that in mind look at the ice records spanning the past 3000 years and you would notice the atmosphere has taken a rather sharp turn in recent years, note: recent as in past 200 years.
There was a time when we had higher concentrates of lead in our rain because of what we we're doing, now there are regulations on the usage of lead and guess what, the concentration of lead in rainwater has lowered.

[Jean-Luc]

Any one can make up a fucking flow graph seriously think about it for a moment, we have detonated how many muclear devices in the past 60 years?
Has no effect on the global climate unless large exchanges were to take place. Hence the "Global Winter" theory.
And then think how much cardon dioxide and monoxide has been released by our acitivities in the past...200 years as well as every other ozone gas we have used in our technology and then compare that to how much of said gasses and carbon residule was released naturaly before hand, now with that in mind look at the ice records spanning the past 3000 years and you would notice the atmosphere has taken a rather sharp turn in recent years, note: recent as in past 200 years.
And yet if you'll look back even further than 3000 years, say...40 million years like I posted earlier in this thread, you'll see that Antarctica was once nearly devoid of any ice at all. Last I checked mankind wasn't polluting then. 3000 years is yesterday in planetary terms.
There was a time when we had higher concentrates of lead in our rain because of what we we're doing, now there are regulations on the usage of lead and guess what, the concentration of lead in rainwater has lowered.


Unless you're going to start posting LEGITIMATE information to back up what you're saying, please stop posting in this thread.

E: Seriously, and this is for everyone. Don't spout "facts" unless you can back them up. Not a single person on this forum has an extensive background in climatology and the effects of mankind on it.

[=sw=warlord]

Yes antaricia was devoid of ice but it also wasnt at the south pole either so you know kind of nulls your point.
Also how doe's exploding so many energetic devices have no effect on the atmosphere? that energy has to go somewhere.
I would start posting sources for where i learned all this from but as shown throughout this topic your way to stuck in your happy place belief that it would make the whole thing pointless.

[Jean-Luc]

Yes antaricia was devoid of ice but it also wasnt at the south pole either so you know kind of nulls your point.
Also how doe's exploding so many energetic devices have no effect on the atmosphere? that energy has to go somewhere.
I would start posting sources for where i learned all this from but as shown throughout this topic your way to stuck in your happy place belief that it would make the whole thing pointless.
I'll look up the placement of Antarctica 40,000,000 years ago, but that last line of yours...wow. This is basically what you're telling me. "Because I think you're wrong, I'm not even going to bother looking up evidence to back up my side. Because you're wrong."

[=sw=warlord]

I'll look up the placement of Antarctica 40,000,000 years ago, but that last line of yours...wow. This is basically what you're telling me. "Because I think you're wrong, I'm not even going to bother looking up evidence to back up my side. Because you're wrong."
No more like, "i've seen you disregard evidence you your self has asked for and because of that i can't be arsed with looking up more graphs for you knowing full well you will over look it much like everything else that goe's against your thoughts".

[SnaFuBAR]

Funny you keep bringing up the nuclear weapon detonations. Where does the heat go? Well let's think about that for a second...

Our atmosphere isn't a solid, heat retaining, closed off object. It allows heat radiation from the sun to warm the sun side, and the shadow side dissipates heat. The atmosphere gets thinner and thinner and thinner until it meets the vacuum of space which is something like -250 F. It's called "joule exchange".

Setting off nukes has about as much heat influence as you dipping a match in a tub of water and expecting it to change.

[Jean-Luc]

Why is it when I disagree and find evidence against what your side is presenting, that's "disregarding the evidence?"

For the record, I actually did watch those videos Bodzilla linked to, and while the man brings up some interesting points at times, I can't find any evidence that Peter Sinclair is any more reputable than that conspiracy theorist Dane used to harp on about.

In fact, here's Peter Sinclair's information:
"Peter Sinclair is a longtime advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives. An award winning graphic artist, illustrator, and animator, Mr. Sinclair runs Greenman Studio from his home in Midland, MI."

Why exactly would I trust a graphic artist when it comes to climatology?

[SnaFuBAR]

You know, I just gotta say this. All the people saying that GW is caused by man and their "evidence" is to look outside and use less gasoline is as scientific as 14th century Christians whipping themselves to prevent the Black Plague.

You have just as much of a scientific understanding of global climate change and the influencing factors, and much like them, you're paining yourself and it won't change a damn thing.

[SnaFuBAR]

also, for Zilla:

Posted 26 February 2009 from here (http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=442&Itemid=1)

"It is fashionable to promote climate change as being a contributor to changing fire frequency and intensity. The pattern of rainfall over the past century does not point to a trend of reduction in rainfall. Nor has any link been offered between global temperature trends and the meteorology of Victorian heatwaves. Extreme bushfire events are rare events and must be analysed according to the statistics relating to rare events; the breaking of a previous temperature record established 70 years earlier does not establish an underlying trend." Dr William Kininmonth, former head of Australia's national Climate Centre, writing in the Melbourne Age.


also:

from here (http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_cause_of_the_devastating_bushfires_in _Victoria_Australia)

Arsonists were mainly to blame. Each place where someone's life was lost was treated as a crime scene, because the authorities said the speed with which the fires started and then took off was more likely to have occurred as a result of being deliberately lit. Fire criminologists and special investigations task forces confirmed this.
Carelessness was another cause - a lit cigarette, tossed from a passing car or truck, was blamed for starting the major bushfire that hit Bendigo, destroying 50 houses and killing two people.
At Horsham, in western Victoria, a faulty power line was found to be the cause of the fire which began in that region. Arson has, at least, been ruled out in this instance. It is believed arcing began due to a faulty insulator, resulting in showers of sparks falling to the ground and igniting the dry grass. Similarly, the survivors of the Kinglake fire, which wiped out the entire town and killed so many, launched class action as that fire also appeared to have been started by faulty power lines.
Victoria and the southern Australia region had recently experienced one of their hottest summers on record, with a heatwave over parts of Victoria and South Australia. This was on top of a drought which had lasted a dozen years. This had dried up the vegetation, making it like tinder in a fireplace - easily ignited and easily spread. Spot fires also occurred as strong, gusting winds - some hurricane-force - carried blazing embers beyond the fire fronts: these fires quickly fanned into larger fires.
Unfortunately, political pressure from "Green" groups had limited controlled burnoffs prior to the fire season, which would have seen a reduction in dry vegetation and fuel for bushfires. They, too, must accept part of the blame.
Further information:
In south-east Australia, bad fire days are associated with the presence of a 'blocking' high pressure system in the Tasman Sea. This brings hot, dry strong wind from the centre of the continent to the south-east. The high temperatures, some in excess of 45 degrees, and dry air experienced throughout Victoria on Saturday resulted in very low fuel moisture content. Combined with the extended rainfall deficit for much of the state, this resulted in tinder-dry fuel that was very easily ignited and very difficult to extinguish. In addition, to the high pressure system there was an approaching cold front which helped to strengthen winds ahead of the front, as well as causing a wind change after the front passed. Very strong winds resulted in fires that spread very rapidly with the wind and were practically unstoppable until the weather moderated following the cool change. Victoria's topography and vegetation also played a role. (A blocking high is a persistent high pressure system that occurs on a large scale, remaining stationary for a period of time, compressing and warming the air below.)
Why couldn't the fires be put out?
There is very little that can be done to suppress fires burning under these conditions. All that fire fighters can do is concentrate on asset protection and wait for the weather to change.

[Bodzilla]

Boy it sure would be nice to have some FACTS and EVIDENCE to try and prove global warming instead of getting videos and articles that all try to denounce something that was said by the skeptics.

Pfft, what am I saying :ugh:

hawk eye is on the list of famous scientists you quoted for me.
hawkeye pierce.



from M*A*S*H...

so NO you do not have the scientific backing you've been claiming you have. and the articles he links to in the video are from peer reviewed scientific journals which is more then we can say from what your posting.

theres another one on the medieval warming period. Basically the graph you post of it is a good graph, showing real data, it however was taken from only a european area thus does not constitute the enviroment as a whole.
it's out-dated.
a more thougher review nick named "the hockey stick graph" was done later which included a sampling from the entire world which was semi-consistent with the modern graphs of today, it showed a rise in the overall global temperature.

then since then it's had more and more research into it and we've refined the graph to what we have now.
the medievil warming period as a global phenomenon never existed.


Also theres videos of scientists warning of global warming from as early as 1957, so no it is not a new craze. we've been studying this shit for over 50 fucking years AND EVERYTHING we've seen points to a HUMAN CAUSE.

[Bodzilla]

Why exactly would I trust a graphic artist when it comes to climatology?
BECAUSE HE IS SHOWING YOU EVIDENCE AND PROOF FROM PROVEN UNBIASED SOURCES?

go to his video and check out the links he's posting :psyduck:

[Terry]

E: Seriously, and this is for everyone. Don't spout "facts" unless you can back them up. Not a single person on this forum has an extensive background in climatology and the effects of mankind on it.

Point conceded. Now why the fuck is this thread here?

[Gwunty]

Guys I have the best argument ever.
Global warming is man made becuase i saw it on the news :downs:

[Jean-Luc]

Point conceded. Now why the fuck is this thread here?
What I meant by that is that none of us here have the credibility/experience to spout off facts without providing links to reputable sources to back up what we're saying.

@Bodzilla

I'll check out those links, but no source is going to be proven and unbiased, I guarantee you that.

[SnaFuBAR]

a more thougher review nick named "the hockey stick graph" was done later which included a sampling from the entire world which was semi-consistent with the modern graphs of today, it showed a rise in the overall global temperature.

The "hockey stick" graph (MBH98 reconstruction) was completely flawed by the fact that McIntyre and McKitrick filled in values for data they were missing. More relevant data was actually CENSORED.

It's no surprise the "hockey stick" graph is so supported by the IPCC.
More pseudoscience.

EDUCATE YOURSELF (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/)

btw it should be noted that both MM's are not climatologists. One works in mining, the other is an economist.

[Disaster]

The "hockey stick" graph (MBH98 reconstruction) was completely flawed by the fact that McIntyre and McKitrick filled in values for data they were missing. More relevant data was actually CENSORED.

It's no surprise the "hockey stick" graph is so supported by the IPCC.
More pseudoscience.

EDUCATE YOURSELF (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/)

btw it should be noted that both MM's are not climatologists. One works in mining, the other is an economist.

I'd also like to add this to what snaf said.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/01/response-from-briffa-on-the-yamal-tree-ring-affair-plus-rebuttal/

[SnaFuBAR]

same links? nvm you fixed it

also, good info.

[PopeAK49]

What I meant by that is that none of us here have the credibility/experience to spout off facts without providing links to reputable sources to back up what we're saying.

Wikipedia. :realsmug:
/thread

[Jelly]

The "hockey stick" graph (MBH98 reconstruction) was completely flawed by the fact that McIntyre and McKitrick filled in values for data they were missing. More relevant data was actually CENSORED.

It's no surprise the "hockey stick" graph is so supported by the IPCC.
More pseudoscience.

EDUCATE YOURSELF (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/false-claims-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick-regarding-the-mann-et-al-1998reconstruction/)

btw it should be noted that both MM's are not climatologists. One works in mining, the other is an economist.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorry-deniers-hockey-stick-gets-longer-stronger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/

Hockey stick's not going anywhere, and the science has moved on since 1998. The same kind of study can (and has) be[en] done in more detail, with a wider sample.

[Rob Oplawar]

Hey, I take offense to my posts being summarily deleted without consideration. If you've got a beef with my posts, give me an infraction for going off topic. Sheesh.

[Bodzilla]

The "hockey stick" graph (MBH98 reconstruction) was completely flawed by the fact that McIntyre and McKitrick filled in values for data they were missing. More relevant data was actually CENSORED.

It's no surprise the "hockey stick" graph is so supported by the IPCC.
More pseudoscience.

it is NOT supported snaf.

because as science does what it does best it evolves and changes as new data becomes available.
the hockey stick graph was a stepping stone to our continued understanding.
and we are still stepping along.

[rossmum]

I'll look up the placement of Antarctica 40,000,000 years ago, but that last line of yours...wow. This is basically what you're telling me. "Because I think you're wrong, I'm not even going to bother looking up evidence to back up my side. Because you're wrong."
Actually I was mad keen on dinosaurs as a kid, not just from a cartoons and movies standpoint but also from a scientific one (I can still name various obscure dinosaurs from the Triassic which nobody here will know about, as well as their approximate habitats) and from what I recall the Earth's entire landmass was concentrated heavily around the equator for a good deal of said period, as opposed to now where it's concentrated around the northern end of the planet. Both Australia and Antarctica were nowhere near the South Pole unless my memory is playing tricks on me (again).


Funny you keep bringing up the nuclear weapon detonations. Where does the heat go? Well let's think about that for a second...

Our atmosphere isn't a solid, heat retaining, closed off object. It allows heat radiation from the sun to warm the sun side, and the shadow side dissipates heat. The atmosphere gets thinner and thinner and thinner until it meets the vacuum of space which is something like -250 F. It's called "joule exchange".

Setting off nukes has about as much heat influence as you dipping a match in a tub of water and expecting it to change.
THANK YOU

While the natural greenhouse effect does retain enough heat to sustain life - keeping it at, say, -50 to 40 degrees C overnight versus a few hundred below like other planets - blowing up a nuke, MOAB, or anything similar makes fuck all difference. Mass volcano eruptions or asteroid impacts probably will make a difference, but over time they will cool the planet considerably because the sun's heat won't penetrate the clouds of shit floating about in the air. This is nuclear winter - just smoke and debris and various other detritus choking out the sun's heat and killing basically everything on the surface. You get all manners of fun stuff with it, like widespread acid rain. As I pointed out earlier, mind you, all it has to do with nukes is that a general nuclear exchange of Cold-War-gone-hot proportions would set so much shit alight that there'd be smoke everywhere. The actual nuclear explosion itself contributes virtually nothing to any environmental factors besides radiation.

[Jean-Luc]

Alright, seeing as how I'm not even sure what's being debated anymore (read: it's a clusterfuck in here), let's try and get back to debating singular points.

So far as I've gathered, the argument for man made global warming is largely based upon the notion that CO2 increases are responsible for temperature increases and always have been (for those that have seen An Inconvenient Truth, you know what I'm talking about.
For the time being, I direct you all to these two videos:
XDI2NVTYRXU
FfHW7KR33IQ



IMPORTANT:
These are some very basic rules I want everyone to follow from here on out.

1) Refrain from insults. They destroy your own credibility and make you look like an ass.
2) If you're going to defend your side with facts, post links to the source material in order to back it up. It is extremely difficult to lend any credence to information that doesn't have even a semi-reputable source to back it up.
3) Don't try to stir up shit by discussing information that is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Bodzilla]

Jean that shit is so fucking biased it's not even funny.

Al gore?
i mean c'mon. your fucking with me arn't you.

ok.
i'm seeing fox news
and a list of 30 000 scientists containing Hawkeye.
from mash




:ugh:

[Jean-Luc]

Jean that shit is so fucking biased it's not even funny.

Al gore?
i mean c'mon. your fucking with me arn't you.

ok.
i'm seeing fox news
and a list of 30 000 scientists containing Hawkeye.
from mash


So basically what you're trying to tell me is that you didn't watch either video and are basing your entire opinion purely off the titles. That's great deductive reasoning Sherlock!

1) First video works to debunk Al Gore's proposal that CO2 is the cause of global warming, not Gore himself.
2) Ignore those 30k scientists if you want, I doubt its credibility myself now, but did it go completely over your head that it's the founder of the weather channel talking? Why doesn't he deserve a listen?

You got upset with us for not watching your videos (which are made by a man with no background in climatology simply presenting data from other sources), yet when I provide the same type of video that's somehow wrong?
Also, this bullshit mentality that "Fox News = false because it's republican" needs to get the fuck out. If you don't like something presented in a story, or feel that it's false, then check to see if it is. As much as I may generally dislike the channel, there is no possible nor plausible way for every single thing they say to be incorrect. Besides, you're discrediting information based upon a network, rather than the person who is actually talking. What?

I don't like this double standard that the side I'm defending can't bitch about your sources but you can certainly shoot the shit out of ours.

[Bodzilla]

So basically what you're trying to tell me is that you didn't watch either video and are basing your entire opinion purely off the titles. That's great deductive reasoning Sherlock!
nice projection good friend! yes i did watch the video's.

1) First video works to debunk Al Gore's proposal that CO2 is the cause of global warming, not Gore himself.
It's Al Gore's proposal and thus not something that has the peer reviewed support of the scientific community. he's a figure head for getting the world out, something he's done extremely well, but thats it!
and i'm pretty sure ALOT of those graphs and what not are from the mocumentary "the big swindle"
which we've already laughed at in this thread.

2) Ignore those 30k scientists if you want, I doubt its credibility myself now, but did it go completely over your head that it's the founder of the weather channel talking? Why doesn't he deserve a listen?
because he's referencing 30k scientists as a credible source of information!
thats an alarm bell right from the offset, his credibility is incredibly low.
and just because he founded a TV weather channel as opposed to say a credible scientific Field (something alot of other scientists have been doing for over 50 years) does not mean he has a clue about the scientific foundations around the things he's trying to debunk.
For example, MTV is a music channel, surely the founder of it knows about sound engineering! The logic does not add up.

You got upset with us for not watching your videos (which are made by a man with no background in climatology simply presenting data from other sources)(which happen to be peer reviewed scientific journals and articles, you forgot that part.), yet when I provide the same type of video that's somehow wrong?
Providing the same type of video is great, you just havnt shown the same type of video yet.
Also, this bullshit mentality that "Fox News = false because it's republican" needs to get the fuck out. If you don't like something presented in a story, or feel that it's false, then check to see if it is. As much as I may generally dislike the channel, there is no possible nor plausible way for every single thing they say to be incorrect. Besides, you're discrediting information based upon a network, rather than the person who is actually talking. What?
(i did both tbh, did you even listen to that interview? wheres the evidence!
"i'm a tv station founder thats a weather report channel"
"wow really! thats MY favourite channel! (apart from fox news witch is the best)"
"those dam people and their journalistic credibility are refusing to give me air-time, just because of some vague connection to the feild, but it's totally cool for me to slag off al gore... thats different"
"oh i see, how many scientists did you say you have PROOVING THAT IT"S A SCAM TO TAKE YOUR MONEY watch out america."
"oh at least 30000! all of them with PhD's!, we got this number from a couple of surveys that where faked to look like survey from the IPCC by an ex-commity leader (not unlike myself) who did marvellous things like try to prove that cigarette smoke was completely harmless on a persons body which accepting large stacks of cash from tobacco companies.
he then went a step further by making it an internet survey and due to the thousands of people that have signed up we have no way of checking back on there credibility, simply because we cant, therefore we must assume that EVYERONE IS TOTE LEGIT!"
"oh thats my avourite channel! apart from fox news!"


that is not journalism.

I don't like this double standard that the side I'm defending can't bitch about your sources but you can certainly shoot the shit out of ours.
my sources are peer-reviewed jesus christ. Do you have any idea at all about hte scientific process, just what it takes to get your work to being peer-reviewed or even accepted as a theory?
it's the same as evolution is a nice THEORY but i know the bibles true because it tells me it's fact.

these people completely MISS THE POINT.
to quote Yahtzee.

you couldnt have missed the point more if the point was in another country and you where shooting in the opposite direction.
righto seeing alot of things wrong here.
and imma let you finish but... responses in bold.

i gotta calm down but when i see this my sarcasm goes into over-drive.
maybe it's a coping mechanism to help me survive this cruel old world and keep myself from going insane.

[Jean-Luc]

Alright, you destroyed me there and I'll concede that one. However, I would like to bring up a couple of points. First off, I don't instantly grant an article validity purely because it's pure reviewed. While I'll usually give it more credence than a blog post or even something discussed on a news network, it does not always mean that the information presented is factual and unbiased. Secondly, I find the 800 year lag between temperature and CO2 to be quite interesting. What's your take on it?

[Bodzilla]

if the graph is from the movie the big swindle (and i'm inclined to think it is) you shouldnt even acknowledge it untill it appears in other scientific journals.

simply because the bastards have been caught lieing through their teeth a couple of times about the information they present, hence why the movie has a couple of different versions...
wouldnt trust it as far as i could throw it, even if i had no arms.

[Jean-Luc]

While I have no clue about the graph itself, I've seen both sides admit that CO2 usually starts rising 800 years after temperature does. I'm not positive as to how valid realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/) is, but I've seen it discussed in several different areas.

If, hypothetically, that 800 year lag exists as profoundly as it appears to be in ice cores, then why isn't that lag as present in modern day? According to modern charts, CO2 appears to move almost 100% in concert with temperature change, which goes against the idea that temperature is what influences CO2 levels. I'm going to have to look more into this.

[Bodzilla]

While I have no clue about the graph itself, I've seen both sides admit that CO2 usually starts rising 800 years after temperature does. I'm not positive as to how valid realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/) is, but I've seen it discussed in several different areas.

If, hypothetically, that 800 year lag exists as profoundly as it appears to be in ice cores, then why isn't that lag as present in modern day? According to modern charts, CO2 appears to move almost 100% in concert with temperature change, which goes against the idea that temperature is what influences CO2 levels. I'm going to have to look more into this.
please do and get back to me, i'll troll around, see what i dig up

:)

Edit: i was right, it was from the movie the swindle.
hWJeqgG3Tl8
and i was right to doubt it.

he gives ya some pretty clear info and use's the studies that the very graph is from to annihilate their strawman argument.

[Disaster]

because he's referencing 30k scientists as a credible source of information!
thats an alarm bell right from the offset, his credibility is incredibly low.
and just because he founded a TV weather channel as opposed to say a credible scientific Field (something alot of other scientists have been doing for over 50 years) does not mean he has a clue about the scientific foundations around the things he's trying to debunk.
For example, MTV is a music channel, surely the founder of it knows about sound engineering! The logic does not add up.

Oh, I thought meteorology was a credible form of science :allears:

[sdavis117]

Oh, I thought meteorology was a credible form of science :allears:

John Coleman got an education in Journalism, not meteorology.

[Bodzilla]

Oh, I thought meteorology was a credible form of science :allears:
because thats exactly what i said isnt it.

nice strawman :ugh:

[Disaster]

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOLkze-9GcI&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOLkze-9GcI&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vN06JSi-SW8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vN06JSi-SW8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iCXDISLXTaY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iCXDISLXTaY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bpQQGFZHSno&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bpQQGFZHSno&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[paladin]

Red Eye is awesome. Watch it every night :realsmug:

[Bodzilla]

Carbon dioxide isnt a pollutant.

you've got to be kidding me.

Edit: well i finished watching it and i was intrigued by Watts influence on this guy relating to weather stations validity ect ect.
so i trolled around and came up with a report published by the very organization he was criticizing, they used his hand picked bad weather stations and put them up towards new weather stations built in rural areas far away from urban expansion and compared the data based on a rate of increase or decrease.

guess what they found... the data was identical.
the specific temperature was not as essential as the percentage increase, and never has been.

i'd like to link you to some more info on it, this guy has some shady connections as well but while i was researching firefox crashed.
it's got this weird nasty habit of trying to open pdf files in a new tab, and then when it loads that new tab it's to load a new tab for the next tab. just opens a fucking billion tabs in a short time, cause's it to crash and me loose my place, because restarting it from the error brings back the dreaded tab nightmare.

so i'll just link ya too another video.
dcxVwEfq4bM

there where a couple other things in that guys video's such as temperature vs timeline that set my teeth on edge because he was taking one specific result as pronouncing it as the absolute as opposed to all the data we have readily available, and thats called cherry picking.


and science has ALWAYS been about the consensus!
if it wasnt we wouldnt have theorys!

[Disaster]

Carbon dioxide isnt a pollutant.

you've got to be kidding me.

Edit: well i finished watching it and i was intrigued by Watts influence on this guy relating to weather stations validity ect ect.
so i trolled around and came up with a report published by the very organization he was criticizing, they used his hand picked bad weather stations and put them up towards new weather stations built in rural areas far away from urban expansion and compared the data based on a rate of increase or decrease.

guess what they found... the data was identical.
the specific temperature was not as essential as the percentage increase, and never has been.

i'd like to link you to some more info on it, this guy has some shady connections as well but while i was researching firefox crashed.
it's got this weird nasty habit of trying to open pdf files in a new tab, and then when it loads that new tab it's to load a new tab for the next tab. just opens a fucking billion tabs in a short time, cause's it to crash and me loose my place, because restarting it from the error brings back the dreaded tab nightmare.

so i'll just link ya too another video.
dcxVwEfq4bM

there where a couple other things in that guys video's such as temperature vs timeline that set my teeth on edge because he was taking one specific result as pronouncing it as the absolute as opposed to all the data we have readily available, and thats called cherry picking.


and science has ALWAYS been about the consensus!
if it wasnt we wouldnt have theorys!

Thats called cherry picking.

You completely missed the point of the videos. Based on temperature records from as far as 15,000 years back to as close as 700, the Earth's temperature rise is not unusual.

I'd also like to add that it was stated in the video that the period of warming shown by that weather station was during winter when the A/C was off and the generators were not producing any heat.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

I know the whole Watts deal. What the Professor was talking about in the video was Watts whole critcism of the weather station sparked interest in what caused the large increase in temperature. After the data had been looked back on, It was shown that the raw data stream (unprocessed data, the processed data was edited to reflect proper temperatures based on where the weather station was located in proximity to urban areas and man made heat sources) had been restored after the Y2k incident, not purposely of course.



and science has ALWAYS been about the consensus!
if it wasnt we wouldnt have theorys!
lmao. I have absolutely no comment to that. Its completely absurd.

[=sw=warlord]

Erm excuse me, but how does a generator not produce any heat?
They have maximum efficiency of 90% last i saw and average is 75-87% power efficiency so surely said generators would have done something to warm the place up a little depending how big they were.

[Disaster]

Erm excuse me, but how does a generator not produce any heat?
They have maximum efficiency of 90% last i saw and average is 75-87% power efficiency so surely said generators would have done something to warm the place up a little depending how big they were.
The A/C generators were off because of it being winter. :allears:

[=sw=warlord]

The A/C generators were off because of it being winter. :allears:
One would think you would want A/C generators to be on to power any heating equipment or other electricals.:v:

[Disaster]

One would think you would want A/C generators to be on to power any heating equipment or other electricals.:v:
I'm guessing you haven't watched the videos then?

What I meant by generator was the main unit of the A/C where the exhaust comes from.

I don't know where generator came from. Its been a long day :ugh:

[Jean-Luc]

Carbon dioxide isnt a pollutant.

you've got to be kidding me.
Not a single person, group or government agency on this Earth will convince me that a NATURAL GAS is a pollutant on its own merit (I.E., at non-excessive levels). Sorry, just isn't happening. I don't give a fuck that the Supreme Court deemed it a pollutant, it's been around since before mankind and is an integral part in our atmosphere. If you want to call that a pollutant, then every single oxygen breathing animal is a pollutant factory. However, plant life requires CO2, and if plants didn't exist, life as we know it may not even exist.

and science has ALWAYS been about the consensus!
if it wasnt we wouldnt have theorys!

Scientific consensus does NOT automatically mean it's right. Interestingly enough, the theory of continental drift was rejected by "consensus" for 50 years. It wasn't until, and this is important, indisputable proof and an acceptable mechanism were made.

[Disaster]

Ahh, I disagree with you about a natural gas not being able to be a pollutant.
Look at Ozone for that matter. However, c02 is not a pollutant capable of global warming.

[Jean-Luc]

Sorry, I worded that badly. Co2 can be a pollutant if it's in EXCESS, along with ozone, methane, etc. However, to say it's a pollutant at all times is just wrong. Hell, if it wasn't for CO2, plants wouldn't exist and life as we know it would be drastically different/nonexistent.

Edited my first post to clarify.

[Disaster]

Sorry, I worded that badly. Co2 can be a pollutant if it's in EXCESS, along with ozone, methane, etc. However, to say it's a pollutant at all times is just wrong. Hell, if it wasn't for CO2, plants wouldn't exist and life as we know it would be drastically different/nonexistent.
True.

[Bodzilla]

Failed to comprehend that the exact degree was not as important as an actual rise or fall in temperature.
seeing as how no matter what happened it was accellerating and this was shown accross the boards at hand picked weather stations that DO conform to national standards, as in they're fucking miles off in the middle of no where show a continual rise.
all i saw tbh.

[Bodzilla]

lmao. I have absolutely no comment to that. Its completely absurd.
how does a theory come to be?
peer reviewed results based on continued observation and testing.
all of it approved by the vast majority of the scientific community.

it's not "i have an idea, and a couple of results."

therefore it's of the consensus, and it takes a fucking long hard trek to get there.

[Jelly]

Scientific consensus does NOT automatically mean it's right. Interestingly enough, the theory of continental drift was rejected by "consensus" for 50 years. It wasn't until, and this is important, indisputable proof and an acceptable mechanism were made.
Scientific consensus changes with new evidence. You gave an excellent example just there. What you are doing right now, however, is banking on an unknown piece of "indisputable proof" to confirm your preconceived notion. That's not science or skepticism; that's denialism.

Also RE your argument concerning CO2: Yes it was around before mankind existed. But back then, it was balanced out by natural absorptions from the sea and plants and stuff. With mankind's reliance on fossil fuels, which are filled with carbon that had previously been absorbed, we've upset the balance and the absorption can't keep up.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm


However, c02 is not a pollutant capable of global warming.
CO2 is a pollutant capable of global warming. It's been known and observed since 1861 when John Tyndal published results identifying CO2 as a gas which can absorb heat rays. Since then multiple studies have confirmed this (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm



and science has ALWAYS been about the consensus!
if it wasnt we wouldnt have theorys!
lmao. I have absolutely no comment to that. Its completely absurd.
Most theories are based off the consensus of another theory. They use what we already know.

[Trulife8342]

I think he just won the thread.

[=sw=warlord]

Bod, science has never been purely about the concensus it has been about going out into your subject field, testing all the variables of the environt of the test wherther that be the mechanics of a engine, the flow of a electronic circuit or the the chemical balence and flow of a enclosed or non-enclosed environment.
Science is when you can replicate the results many times over using the same technique and that anyone else following what you did will also get the same results.
Due to the nature of science a consensus is made on wherther or not something is true or not.
Science is all about logic gates basicly, if this happens, if that happens do that but if this dosnt happen then move on.

Art is about pure consensus science is not, art you can have a entire group of people saying it is art but in science if you had a group saying it was the truth doe's not mean it is the truth, if that were so then we would be no where near as scientificly advanced as we are now because the consensus of the solar system when galileo did his tests, we were at the middle of the universe are you saying we are at the middle of the universe despite obvious evidence to prove otherwise since then?

[Corgy]

Why hasn't CN3089 come in here and stomped some fuckin (apparently empty) skulls

[Corgy]

oh he's banned? what the fuck?

[paladin]

You havent noticed the Free Kyon sigs everywhere....?

[CN3089]

oh he's banned? what the fuck?

lol who told you that?

[Disaster]

CO2 is a pollutant capable of global warming. It's been known and observed since 1861 when John Tyndal published results identifying CO2 as a gas which can absorb heat rays. Since then multiple studies have confirmed this (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/)

I worded what I said wrong. What I meant was that man made c02 was not the cause of global warming here on Earth. Of course c02 is a green house gas. It would be completely illogical to rule out c02 as not able to cause global warming. Look at Venus for example, it has an extreme greenhouse gas. However, its atmosphere is ~96% C02.
0.0383% of earths atmosphere is c02. And yet again, only 0.117% of that 0.0383% is man made. That is approximately
4.4811 × 10-7

As proven in that video, the current global temperature increases are nothing unusual and have occurred on this planet before humans have been putting c02 into the atmosphere.



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/NFHZOYtAztU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W9IHKfzDdn8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Jelly]

I worded what I said wrong. What I meant was that man made c02 was not the cause of global warming here on Earth. Of course c02 is a green house gas. It would be completely illogical to rule out c02 as not able to cause global warming. Look at Venus for example, it has an extreme greenhouse gas. However, its atmosphere is ~96% C02.
0.0383% of earths atmosphere is c02. And yet again, only 0.117% of that 0.0383% is man made. That is approximately
4.4811 × 10-7

As proven in that video, the current global temperature increases are nothing unusual and have occurred on this planet before humans have been putting c02 into the atmosphere.

NFHZOYtAztU

W9IHKfzDdn8
Well, in response to those videos, Bob Carter really isn't a credible source (http://www.desmogblog.com/rm-bob-carter) in the first place, but lets talk about his points anyway!

Test 1: Has the earth really warmed at all over the past few years?
No warming since 1998 'eh? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm)
I believe these are the satellites he references in his second graph. We'll return to this article in test 5. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm)

Test 2: Is the current global warming outside the natural variation? (contradicted himself already?)
Earth has gone through warm periods before, yes, due to natural processes. But have we observed any of these natural processes happening over the past few warming years? (http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm)

Test 3: Does CO2 output correlate with temperature change?
Fortunately he kept this one short. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-temperature-correlation.htm) MUCH LIKE HIS TIME PERIOD! Do you see what I did there? Do you also see what he did there?

Test 4: Does CO2 lead or lag temperature change?
He makes the false dichotomy that it can either be one or the other. The reality is that it can be both; more CO2 causes more warming which causes more CO2 to be released from big contributors like the ocean. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm)

Test 5: Does the pattern of atmospheric temperature change match theoretical predictions of greenhouse warming?
The model's predictions are shown to be correct around the poles, but not over the troposphere. This is most likely due to errors in the data measuring and calculation (http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm). It sounds like a cheap way out, I know, but if you read the summary in the link it explains the likely errors (which have been admitted by the people in charge of the satellites).

On the plus side, this is an excellent example of another of Carter's contradictions! In the beginning of the first video, around the 2:50 mark he shows a definition of Science, highlighting the "trustworthy methods" part specifically. For his final test, he references data collected using untrustworthy methods. Beautiful.
__________

Also stop claiming that CO2 has little or no effect. I will literally hate you forever if you say that again. Natural CO2 gets completely absorbed by natural processes. Humans put out about 26 gigatonnes of CO2 every year, and 15 gigatonnes of that is absorbed too. So we have an excess of 9 gigatonnes which will slowly push up CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Extra CO2 means extra heat being absorbed and the planet gets warmer. This is a pretty slow process, but also a self-feeding one (the more the planet warms, the more CO2 gets released, the more the planet warms etc.)
Scientists are not claiming that global warming will turn the planet into an arid desert in the next decade, predictions for this decade's warming are at like a 0.15 degree (celcius) increase over last decade. Seriously, such a small amount of CO2 can have such an (apparently small) effect.

Look at what you made me do. It's 12:30 AM now.

[Jean-Luc]

Scientific consensus changes with new evidence. You gave an excellent example just there. What you are doing right now, however, is banking on an unknown piece of "indisputable proof" to confirm your preconceived notion. That's not science or skepticism; that's denialism.

And global warming/climate change advocates are banking on consensus rather than indisputable proof for THEIR notion. It honestly goes both ways.

Also RE your argument concerning CO2: Yes it was around before mankind existed. But back then, it was balanced out by natural absorptions from the sea and plants and stuff. With mankind's reliance on fossil fuels, which are filled with carbon that had previously been absorbed, we've upset the balance and the absorption can't keep up.

Yes, mankind emits CO2 into the atmosphere, more than current natural processes can keep up with. However, current atmospheric CO2 levels are MUCH lower than even 100 million years ago, where models have found it was roughly 1000ppm, rather than the 385ppm we have now.
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7295/phanerozoiccarbondioxid.png

Explain that one for me.


CO2 is a pollutant capable of global warming. It's been known and observed since 1861 when John Tyndal published results identifying CO2 as a gas which can absorb heat rays. Since then multiple studies have confirmed this (http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/)

Interesting how CO2 has only been deemed a "pollutant" after it's been identified to retain heat and specifically after we've found mankind is able to expel large amounts into the atmosphere. If it wasn't for carbon dioxide, life on this planet WOULD NOT EXIST in the manner we know it today, if at all. Why exactly are we deeming a natural gas, one that is required for life as we know it...as a pollutant? Hell, why is it a pollutant when mankind produces it, but not when "nature" produces it? Not a single person I've ever seen has been able to explain that one to me.

Most theories are based off the consensus of another theory. They use what we already know.

.

[Heathen]

So I am still confused and haven't voted yet because of it...

Is this thread asking if I believe in Global Warming? Or is it asking if I support it?
I don't support the thing destroying out planet :[

[Jean-Luc]

So I am still confused and haven't voted yet because of it...

Is this thread asking if I believe in Global Warming? Or is it asking if I support it?
I don't support the thing destroying out planet :[

I clarified it a few pages back. The real question here is in the title. "Do you believe that global warming is caused by mankind?"

[Jelly]

And global warming/climate change advocates are banking on consensus rather than indisputable proof for THEIR notion. It honestly goes both ways.
Banking on consensus that is based on the evidence. Shut up about indisputable proof; no such thing.


Yes, mankind emits CO2 into the atmosphere, more than current natural processes can keep up with. However, current atmospheric CO2 levels are MUCH lower than even 100 million years ago, where models have found it was roughly 1000ppm, rather than the 385ppm we have now.
http://img203.imageshack.us/img203/7295/phanerozoiccarbondioxid.png

Explain that one for me.
Maybe if we were dinosaurs we would be less concerned about global warming or something?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/carbon_cycle.jpg

Imagine if the Industrial emissions weren't there. That would be a net decrease of 9 gigatonnes per cycle. Over 100 million years? No wonder CO2 has decreased!

Last point is irrelevant. It's a pollutant because it causes warming and is in excess in the atmosphere.

[Disaster]

Last point is irrelevant. It's a pollutant because it causes warming and is in excess in the atmosphere.
I guess water is a pollutant then!
Just look at all of the clouds around you! There is more water vapor in the air than c02 and water causes more warming than c02. Based on your reasoning, water should be a pollutant.

[Jelly]

I guess water is a pollutant then!
Just look at all of the clouds around you! There is more water vapor in the air than c02 and water causes more warming than c02. Based on your reasoning, water should be a pollutant.
excess is defined as "not balanced by natural processes" LALALA I AM NOT LISTENING GOING TO BED NOW.

[Jean-Luc]

Last point is irrelevant. It's a pollutant because it causes warming and is in excess in the atmosphere.

There are a few questions I'd like to ask (or re-ask) that I want answered properly (read: without insults and with facts to back it up), because that is one of the most bogus answers I've ever heard. Sorry Jelly, but that doesn't cut it.

1) Why is a natural gas being deemed a pollutant purely because it retains heat and mankind produces it?
2) What is the "proper" amount of CO2 for the atmosphere?
3) Why is it when mankind produces CO2 it's a pollutant, and when nature produces it it's perfectly okay?
4) Why, EXACTLY is an increase in CO2 and a subsequent increase in temperature, however slight, such an apocalyptic problem?
5) What are the benefits to a CO2 increase (Don't say none or you're talking out of your ass)?

Whoever wants to answer those, logically and simply, go to it.

[Disaster]

The fact of the matter is you can't say what is natural. C02 levels have been 20x higher than what they are today before humans had ever appeared on this planet life survived. If anything, higher temperatures and increased c02 is good for our planet because of an increase in photosynthesizing organisms.

[Heathen]

I clarified it a few pages back. The real question here is in the title. "Do you believe that global warming is caused by mankind?"

Oh, uh...duh?

Sure, the planet goes through climate changes naturally, but how is it even questionable? The gases are there and have been proven to be there. If we are creating these gases, how can we not be influencing it?

There are people who think we have nothing to do with it?


I guess water is a pollutant then!

In parts of the atmosphere it is. Excess water in the atmosphere destroys it. Precedent = when one of the rockets went into space it destroyed a good bit of the atmosphere.

[teh lag]

Are you seriously arguing over the semantics of what constitutes a "pollutant"?

[Jean-Luc]

Are you seriously arguing over the semantics of what constitutes a "pollutant"?
Not at all. The question I'm asking is "Why are we considering a natural gas, required for life, a pollutant that is harmful to the planet?"

My other five questions above still need to be answered.

[teh lag]

Sounds like arguing over a definition to me. Sounds like arguing whether or not water is a dangerous poison because too much water in your body can kill you and it technically constitutes "water poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_poisoning)".

[Jean-Luc]

Sounds like arguing over a definition to me. Sounds like arguing whether or not water is a dangerous poison because too much water in your body can kill you and it technically constitutes "water poisoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_poisoning)".

I'm not quite sure I get the point you're trying to make. Too much of anything will kill you, whether that be CO2, water, or cold temperatures. However, we don't consider water or temperature differences to be "pollutants" or damaging to the ecosystem. Why should CO2 be the exception?

Actually, another question I'd like answered. Why is mankind's production of carbon dioxide considered "unnatural?" That makes ZERO sense. Everything mankind has ever done has been a product of nature.

[teh lag]

My point is that whether or not it's called a "pollutant" is irrelevant; its effects at a given quantity are what matters. (Which is a debate I'm not prepared to stick my head into).

[sdavis117]

Went to Google to find the definition of Pollutant, which lead me to a Wiki article, which contained this nice little paragraph:


Fund pollutants

Fund pollutants are those for which the environment has some absorptive capacity. Fund pollutants do not cause damage to the environment unless the emission rate exceeds the receiving environment's absorptive capacity (eg. carbon dioxide, which is absorbed by plants and oceans).Seems CO2 is a Fund Pollutant.

[Jean-Luc]

My point is that whether or not it's called a "pollutant" is irrelevant; its effects at a given quantity are what matters. (Which is a debate I'm not prepared to stick my head into).

Ah I gotcha. I suppose it is semantics on what it's deemed, so I'll change my questions I'd like answered.

1) What are the real downsides to an increase in CO2?
2) What are the benefits of a CO2 increase?
3) What is the "optimal" level of CO2 for plant and animal life?
4) Why is CO2 produced by mankind deemed "unnatural," even though mankind is a part of nature?"

[Trulife8342]

Seriously guys? Some of the responses in this thread truly made me laugh. Some of you are plain basing your opinion from what you hear on the T.V., You are going to tell me that we the human race are even making a dent to this planet? "OH TRUBEAR WHAT ABOUT THE POLAR ICE CAPS THEY ARE MELTING THINK OF THE BEARS" Screw the bears. You know how many times the world has gone through this? the caps have melted and froze time and time again, We aren't doing shit.

I don't mean to offend anyone but your going to tell me that factories and cars are able to cause as much damage as a meteor hitting the earth? I'm pretty sure mother earth is much more concerned with a big ass rock heading its way than your hummer making ice melt. if the bears were smart they would move where it would be cold. Its called adapting.

I swear some of you posters remind me of the 2012 theorists "OH ON DECEMBER 21ST THE PLANET WILL ALIGN PERFECTLY WITH THE SUN AND CENTER OF THE GALAXY AND WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE FOX NEWS SAID SO??!?!?" Yeah what they don't tell you is that every single year on December 21st our planet aligns with the sun in perfect alignment with the center of the galaxy.

For all those who are closed minded all I have to say is this, take your graphs a pretty signs and hand them over to Al Gore who's house emits more green house gases than the last two presidents combined. Open your mind people.

And the concenous has almost always proven itself to be wrong.

Let me just say this, Hawaii moves a few inches every year away from the U.S. Does that mean that people should freak out about not being part of the U.S.? NO! ITS HARDLY MAKING A DIFFERENCE.

Thank you for your time, good night.

[Jean-Luc]

As hysterical as he wrote it, Trulife is pretty much right. The Earth has been through this cycle of warming and cooling many times before. Even if we stopped all GHG emissions tomorrow, there would be NOTHING we could do to actually stop temperature increases and CO2 increases because the Earth is simply heating up. You know what? I say celebrate it. Enjoy the benefits. The world will be warmer, there will be more precipitation, plants will thrive, and you know what? We'll all be fine.

Yes, we'll lose a substantial portion of the ice caps and possibly some animal species along the way. That's natural selection though folks. Animals that can't adapt die off. The whole notion of Global Warming definitely appears to centralize around the notion of how it will affect MANKIND, hence why I feel we've "invented" the idea that we caused it in the hopes that we actually have a chance to reverse it. We don't care about the planet nearly as much as we care about how we might have to alter our lifestyle. Those people who have beachfront property and are screaming about losing their homes? Move somewhere else. Those people worried about flooding? Build homes to withstand it or get the hell off the floodplains.

I've said it once and I'll say it again. Humans are a part of nature, as is everything we do. I don't care if it's hunting deer or operating a nuclear power plant, every single thing we've invented or used, and every area we've inhabited on this planet has been a product of nature, something this planet has provided. We, just like every other animal, utilize a planet's natural resources to our best ability in order to survive, and we either adapt to a changing environment or die off as a species. We adapt to the planet, not the other way around.

[Bodzilla]

As hysterical as he wrote it, Trulife is pretty much right. The Earth has been through this cycle of warming and cooling many times before. Even if we stopped all GHG emissions tomorrow, there would be NOTHING we could do to actually stop temperature increases and CO2 increases because the Earth is simply heating up. You know what? I say celebrate it. Enjoy the benefits. The world will be warmer, there will be more precipitation, plants will thrive, and you know what? We'll all be fine.

woah woah woah.



woah.
i think you may need to educate yourself.

[Trulife8342]

Bad, he kinda is right. The warmer the planet gets the higher level of water in the atmosphere meaning more rain. more tropical regions would form allowing for much more oxygen and more places for species to thrive. I mean to be honest this isn't a tough concept to grasp. You have to understand that global warming is just another tool for politicians to lobby around. You have to understand that we don't affect this planet as much as we think we do.

[Bodzilla]

you also fail to mention already arid areas get hotter and drier, thus expanding deserts, the reef system and all it's food chain dissipates and we severely fuck up alot of things.

so no, it is NOT a sun shine lolli-pops and rainbows future.

found a new video for yas that gives ya a little backround on past CO2/temperature climate shifts.
x1Qlc3s8XL4
while it's not as in depth and it doesnt reference as many articles as i would have liked (or any :S) it seems to be a good starting base for understanding some of the past climate shifts.
dont take this as seriously as you would some of the other video's i've posted because of this, but it's a different angle to ones i've copy pasted lol

[paladin]

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/1196/lolhk.jpg

Fuck Global Warming.
http://boozedout.com/wp-content/upload/1christ-middle-finger.jpg

[Timo]

I like this thread.

[paladin]

Me too

[Bodzilla]

it's nice to have a genuinely interesting thread every now and then,

i'd be a shame to close it but i dunno where we go too from here :/

[=sw=warlord]

Ah I gotcha. I suppose it is semantics on what it's deemed, so I'll change my questions I'd like answered.

1) What are the real downsides to an increase in CO2?
Organisms that depend on specific levels of a atmospheric gas will be either put on the endangered level or put on the extinct level due to their inadaptability to cope with such drastic changes to their enviroment.
More energy is trapped in the atmosphere which means less cold areas on different part of the oceans.
meaning the natural convection cycle of water moving from hot to cold would slow down decreasing the flow of "fresh" water, as such more gasses stored in the water would be released due to increased exposure to evaporation, which in turn accelerates the process.
Acidic rain caused by carbon dioxide being captured in water vapour resulting in a increase in corrosive percipitation.
for more information go here (http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10146)and here (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHC-3VVM91R-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1049407316&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1c7ad0d6614c86dc91359a3c268a4ce0)


2) What are the benefits of a CO2 increase?
Increase in fauna life that thrives by photosynthesis, increase in orgamisms that thrive on stale water reserves such as mozquitos and other life like it.
Large enviroment for live which thrives on extreme environments such as desert bacteria.
3) What is the "optimal" level of CO2 for plant and animal life?
I can't say for all life but for mammals the recommended level is between 9%-19%, but due to the fact animal life thrives on nitrogen and oxygen it would be a rather good guestimate that any higher would cause respatory issues for most animal life.
Plant's on the other hand seem to thrive very well with current levels and if the increase was drastic enough they could have the same troubles as animal life and die, it is well documented too much oxygen in a animals air supply can kill them as ironicly enough, oxygen is actualy a poison.
for more information read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity)
4) Why is CO2 produced by mankind deemed "unnatural," even though mankind is a part of nature?"
Because, burning carbon based fuels is not a natural thing by any standard, The carbon stored in fossil fuel has been stored and building there for millions of years and we are releasing the carbon stored in these reserves much quicker than the planet is able to store them back into the rock.
It is estimated that within the next 200 years the earths fossil fuel reserves will have dried out and we will have released into the atmosphere what it took the earth MILLIONS of years to trap from the atmosphere and store.
.

[Jean-Luc]

I don't quite consider the death of some animal species to be a downside to global warming. Natural selection is nature's law to eliminate those species that refuse to adapt. Also, your point about acidic rain is something to consider, but I question the worry about that when animal and plant life flourished at CO2 levels far greater than anything mankind has ever known.

You got some of the benefits right, but your "optimal" levels seem quite off. 9-19% CO2 concentrations in the air would mean the death of every living thing on this planet. Hell, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration deemed 0.5% (5000 ppm) concentration to be the maximum safe concentration of CO2, but only for 8 hours per day. We're currently at 385ppm (approximately), and rising at a rate of 2ppm annually. In 200 years (when fossil fuels are expected to run out), we'll have hit at least 785, which is still well within safe limits for mankind and would lend itself to much stronger plant growth. Hell, we should be off fossil fuels in less than 50 years as is.

Your answer to #4 though...I'm not sure how to handle that one. I've said it several times though. Everything mankind does and has EVER done has been a product of nature. Burning fossil fuels was necessary for mankind to develop to where we are now, and was simply a utilization of natural resources.


It would be a shame to see this thread have to go, but then again, both sides are just fighting each other tooth and nail with no middle ground. I'm not sure it'll lend itself to anything.

[=sw=warlord]

I consider the death of various species of life a bad thing due to the whole food chain, for instance, there is a issue of Bees disappearing for no real reason, if every bee on the planet died today we would have a very large problem as upto a whole third of our food supply would disappear.
Every species that dies out has a impact on all other species in one way or another direct or not.


Your answer to #4 though...I'm not sure how to handle that one. I've said it several times though. Everything mankind does and has EVER done has been a product of nature. Burning fossil fuels was necessary for mankind to develop to where we are now, and was simply a utilization of natural resources.I really doubt everything we have ever done is natural.
It was by sheer dumb luck we got to the place we are now, if the dinosours had not died out all those millenia ago we would still be in the trees picking flees from each other.

I hate putting movie refferences into serious subjects but this quote comes to mind.

I would like to share a revelation ive made during my time here, it came to me while i tried to classfy your species.
Every mammel on this planet, instinctivly develops a natural equalibrium with their environment, but you humans do not, you move to another area and you multiply, you multiply untill every natural resource is consumed, there is another organism on this planet that folows the same pattern, do you know what it is?
A Virus, Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

[Jean-Luc]

I consider the death of various species of life a bad thing due to the whole food chain, for instance, there is a issue of Bees disappearing for no real reason, if every bee on the planet died today we would have a very large problem as upto a whole third of our food supply would disappear.
Every species that dies out has a impact on all other species in one way or another direct or not.
While absolutely true and you deliver a great point, mother nature has compensating factors such as evolution. No animal stays exactly the same when the environment changes whether that be humans, polar bears or insects. The main difference is that some species evolve faster than others, which is why they survive as well as they do today *glances at flies*

I really doubt everything we have ever done is natural.
It was by sheer dumb luck we got to the place we are now, if the dinosours had not died out all those millenia ago we would still be in the trees picking flees from each other.
Why is sheer dumb luck a bad thing, much less unnatural? For that matter, why is what we do unnatural? Humans are not separate from nature, nor have they ever been. Way I see it, anything we do or anything we build is dictated by nature. The civilization we have today is very much thanks to Earth's natural resources, which we used to great success.


I would like to share a revelation ive made during my time here, it came to me while i tried to classfy your species.
Every mammel on this planet, instinctivly develops a natural equalibrium with their environment, but you humans do not, you move to another area and you multiply, you multiply untill every natural resource is consumed, there is another organism on this planet that folows the same pattern, do you know what it is?
A Virus, Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.

While I get the point you're trying to make, you fully understand that the context of him saying that was justification for the eradication of the human species right? :S

I don't think it applies here.

[=sw=warlord]

So tell me, if everything we do with the earths resources is natural, doe's that include polluting the atmosphere, performing geological terraforming and possibly in the future, making fuck ups so bad it may even leave the planet uninhabbitable?
You said earlier you thought humans were too arrogant to believe we could do anything that would affect our climate, my question is, are we not arrogant in thinking we can use up the earths resources and dictating what lives and what dies because of our actions?
Would it not be our role as the most technologicaly advanced species on the planet, to try and keep the planet the way we got it so that other species may evolve by themselves and reach the same plateu we are at now?
There are many sentient species but because of our accelerated metabolism and stunted life span we seem to have evolved quicker than some other species.

And the quote i do think it applies, take the whole thing of him wanting us all dead out of it and look at it for what it is.
We are more parasitic than mamalian.
There is no such thing as a "evil virus" a virus doe's not think it does what it does to survive, we how ever do think, we make our choices wherther it affects any other life form we do not care and as such we are much worse off than a virus.

[Jean-Luc]

So tell me, if everything we do with the earths resources is natural, doe's that include polluting the atmosphere, performing geological terraforming and possibly in the future, making fuck ups so bad it may even leave the planet uninhabbitable?
You said earlier you thought humans were too arrogant to believe we could do anything that would affect our climate, my question is, are we not arrogant in thinking we can use up the earths resources and dictating what lives and what dies because of our actions?
That isn't arrogance, that's survival. Do you think the salmon community is in an uproar because so many are eaten by bears? Animals live and die, and species constantly die out. Imo is not our responsibility to sacrifice our own survival for the sake of other animals.
Would it not be our role as the most technologicaly adanced species on the planet, to try and keep the planet the way we got it so that other species may evolve by themselves and reach the same plateu we are at now?
There are many sentient species but because of our accelerated metabolism and stunted life span we seem to have evolved quicker than some other species.
No, that is not our role. It's a nice thought to try and keep the Earth the way we found it, but if that was honestly our job, we wouldn't have civilization. Every single animal that has ever lived on Earth has had some effect on the planet, no matter how trivial. And as for our intelligence and technological superiority, we're very lucky to have that, and it was really a product of nature. Also, so far as animals go, humans have some of the longest life spans out there, so I don't know how we could qualify that as "stunted."

And the quote i do think it applies, take the whole thing of him wanting us all dead out of it and look at it for what it is.
We are more parasitic than mamalian.
There is no such thing as a "evil virus" a virus doe's not think it does what it does to survive, we how ever do think, we make our choices wherther it affects any other life form we do not care and as such we are much worse off than a virus.
If you want to call us a virus so be it, but explain to me why putting our own survival ahead of that of other species is an unnatural and/or irresponsible thing.

Also, I'm thinking that if this thread is going to turn into a Humans vs. Nature argument, then this thread might have overstayed its welcome.

[=sw=warlord]

My main problem with us using the earths resources all at once and changing the environment so quickly is that other species who have tried that in much lower scales have killed selves off, we are currently over fishing the waters and as such we have actualy hit a limit we can fish without the danger is literaly wiping them off the map.
I seem to remember there was a dog kind of animal native to australia and because we hunted that too much it died off, what im questioning is.
What if we do this too often and too quickly? would we end up losing our chance for survival because we were too hasty in taking resources too quickly?

Anyways now that's been said and done probably be a good idea to get back to the whole climate change subject, we've discussed the effects on other life and how that affects us.
and i've explained what we're doing that is affecting the climate.

[Jean-Luc]

Fair enough, I can understand your viewpoint on the matter. I'll admit we're definitely increasing CO2 levels faster than previously known periods of global warming, but I still don't deem that an unnatural process. From what I've read and seen both in this topic and in other areas is that while mankind is certainly not the cause of global warming, we definitely have the potential to accelerate the natural process.

I'll also say that it is quite possible that we will eliminate some species due, in part, to this CO2 increase. Retrospectively however, mankind has eliminated many different species in order to survive in the past, and yet life goes on. That's pretty much what I'm trying to get across here. We can have an impact, but the bullshit I keep hearing from global warming "alarmists" is borderline insanity.


would we end up losing our chance for survival because we were too hasty in taking resources too quickly?

This is actually a very good question.

[Trulife8342]

My main problem with us using the earths resources all at once and changing the environment so quickly is that other species who have tried that in much lower scales have killed selves off, we are currently over fishing the waters and as such we have actualy hit a limit we can fish without the danger is literaly wiping them off the map.
I seem to remember there was a dog kind of animal native to australia and because we hunted that too much it died off, what im questioning is.
What if we do this too often and too quickly? would we end up losing our chance for survival because we were too hasty in taking resources too quickly?

Anyways now that's been said and done probably be a good idea to get back to the whole climate change subject, we've discussed the effects on other life and how that affects us.
and i've explained what we're doing that is affecting the climate.

You do understand that when you say change the world quickly, you are talking about a matter of hundreds if not thousands of years from now? when probably technology will most likely be developed to counteract what changes the planet is going through. If your argument was valid then every human being should try to move to another solar system today due to the fact that the sun is going to blow up one day and kill us all. We are worrying about things that are so ahead of our times and by the time it actually is something we should worry about, we would have already found a way to have it under control. And tbh, if an animal can't adapt then screw em, the whole bee example doesn't make sense because bees can indeed adapt lol.

Seriously guys think.

[=sw=warlord]

Trulife, ever heard of the story about the grasshopper and the ant?
"Screw preparing now i want to party *later on* Fuck, im screwed i forgot to prepare and now everything is dead"
Bee's may well adapt but considering their life cycle revolves arround hives and suddenly hives are becoming more and more empty it raises the question of what the fuck is going on.
I personaly would preffer to act now while i can than have my stupidity and ignorance be a burdon for any decendants i may have in the future.
Saying that by the time this happens we will have found a way to sort it is just ignorance, your ignoring the inconvienient truth and just passing the problem to the next generation.
When i say the climate changing quickly i mean hundreds of years which is alot quicker than oh say 65 million years.
It is estimated that Sol will burn for another 3-5 billion years before expanding so much life as we know it will be impossible on this planet.
Also read this to learn about colony collapse disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder)

[Jean-Luc]

Trulife, ever heard of the story about the grasshopper and the ant?
"Screw preparing now i want to party *later on* Fuck, im screwed i forgot to prepare and now everything is dead"
Bee's may well adapt but considering their life cycle revolves arround hives and suddenly hives are becoming more and more empty it raises the question of what the fuck is going on.
I personaly would preffer to act now while i can than have my stupidity and ignorance be a burdon for any decendants i may have in the future.
Saying that by the time this happens we will have found a way to sort it is just ignorance, your ignoring the inconvienient truth and just passing the problem to the next generation.
When i say the climate changing quickly i mean hundreds of years which is alot quicker than oh say 65 million years.
It is estimated that Sol will burn for another 3-5 billion years before expanding so much life as we know it will be impossible on this planet.
Also read this to learn about colony collapse disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder)

That's the thing though. We aren't trying to prepare for it, we're trying to stop it. Those are two completely different things, and trying to stop it is just wrong. If we honestly wanted to prepare we would be researching ways to adapt our lifestyles and civilization to fit the demands of a world with higher CO2 levels and temperatures. Instead, we're running ourselves to death trying to figure out how we can stop the CO2 rise and keep everything the same. It doesn't work that way!

[=sw=warlord]

That's the thing though. We aren't trying to prepare for it, we're trying to stop it. Those are two completely different things, and trying to stop it is just wrong. If we honestly wanted to prepare we would be researching ways to adapt our lifestyles and civilization to fit the demands of a world with higher CO2 levels and temperatures. Instead, we're running ourselves to death trying to figure out how we can stop the CO2 rise and keep everything the same. It doesn't work that way!
WE ca still have a large impact on what happens when i say i would rather be prepared i mean, i would rather find a way to avoid the worst case scenario and if its not possible then atleast im prepared to keep myself safe.
We are currently in a calm moment for our climate, if our effects on the earth increase too much we will have to survive alot of extremes, humans may have done it before but we were never so technologicly dependant back then and as the ice rain storm showed in moscow a few years ago, we have alot to loose if we do not take action now to try and prevent more of these things happening.

[Trulife8342]

You're joking right? let me start off by saying your entire time scale is completely fucked, First of all it will be a lot less then 3 billion years before the sun starts being a threat to us. Solar flares are already starting to affect regions in near the equator and that's the suns fault not ours. Secondly, you aren't trying to prepare for the effects of global warming, you are trying to stop it, way two different things buddy. And since when is leaving our descendants with a problem ever been a bad thing? Apparently you haven't heard of 2007 VK184? seeing as that is actually a problem and seeing as it will affect you in your life time how about you learn to prepare for that? You are just another tool for politics to throw around, just another group of people to be lobbied. And yes I have heard of the grasshopper and the ant, but the grasshopper was preparing for winter of the year he was in, He wasn't preparing food for the next 2500 winters that he won't even be alive for. So with all due respect, I am not the ignorant one in this conversation.

Edit: I just read your new post, I'm sorry I truly have nothing to say to you, your a cool guy and don't take any of this personal but you're worried for your own safety? You are acting as if global warming is actually going to affect your life, or anyones life for that matter. You're post was truly ridiculous.

[=sw=warlord]

Trulife, with all due respect your starting to sound like a troll.
I thought you were wiser than this please tell me you are fucking trolling.
I guess all that time on halomods has fucked you pretty badly.

E: hey snaf you might want to talk to trulife about the whole flame infraction.

[Jean-Luc]

WE ca still have a large impact on what happens when i say i would rather be prepared i mean, i would rather find a way to avoid the worst case scenario and if its not possible then atleast im prepared to keep myself safe.

Thank you for proving my point. This mentality right here is exactly the problem that I mentioned and have seen time and time again. We don't WANT things to change, and we want even less to accept the possibility that we'll be forced to adapt.
We are currently in a calm moment for our climate, if our effects on the earth increase too much we will have to survive alot of extremes, humans may have done it before but we were never so technologicly dependant back then and as the ice rain storm showed in moscow a few years ago, we have alot to loose if we do not take action now to try and prevent more of these things happening.
You want to take action? I have no issue with that, however we're taking action in the wrong areas. Like I said before, the best possible thing we could do, so far as I can see, is to figure out how to adapt our civilization to a changing climate. I would much rather we figure out how to change ourselves rather than waste all our time and resources attempting to stop something that we may not even be able to, and end up getting fucked over in the process.
.

[Trulife8342]

Warlord, You are telling me that you have to worry about your own safety on a matter that isn't going to affect your life AT ALL. Like I said worry about 2007 VK184, which I know you knew nothing about seeing as the media doesn't make it a big deal. And no I am not trolling. I just know that global warming isn't something we need to worry about now or the near future or even distant future. It's just that simple warlord. And to clarify what I mean by "you are acting as if global warming is going to affect your life or anyones life for that matter" I mean that we will all be dead for a while before Global warming will affect us. We all have to adapt thats what makes Humans the number one species on this planet, we work with what he have and we live. Its that simple.

And warlord, I didn't post an insult to you. You're post was a shit post and it wasn't needed. I am doing my best to keep this conversation civilized and you are doing the complete opposite.

Professor Wunsch-
"it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

You are basing off the chance that we are the ones causing any change in the climate.

Please stop.

[=sw=warlord]

Warlord, You are telling me that you have to worry about your own safety on a matter that isn't going to affect your life AT ALL. Like I said worry about 2007 VK184,Wrong
And no I am not trolling. I just know that global warming isn't something we need to worry about now or the near future or even distant future. It's just that simple warlord. And to clarify what I mean by "you are acting as if global warming is going to affect your life or anyones life for that matter" I mean that we will all be dead for a while before Global warming will affect us. We all have to adapt thats what makes Humans the number one species on this planet, we work with what he have and we live. Its that simple.
Oh i guess i must be the only one here who you know actualy cares wherther my decendants will actualy survive or not, oh well just makes my faith in humanity all that much less.
We spend all this money on weapons to destroy each other and yet we cannot be arsed to help our selves out by doing more medical research and making safeguards for the children of our children

And warlord, I didn't post an insult to you. You're post was a shit post and it wasn't needed. I am doing my best to keep this conversation civilized and you are doing the complete opposite.
No, i started off civilized and you came along and told me not to worry about later generations because they would/could/maybe find a way to deal with the mistakes we're making now.
You told me the bee's disappearing would not be a issue because they adapt well if that was true then why did your own government invest $80M into research on colony collapse disorder.
I say this again for the last time, What do you think will happen if we consume world resources quicker than they can regenerate?

Im getting tired of this to be quite frank, i find it very naive to think that because a animal has adapted once before it will adapt again in a completely alien environment of our own design.
3000 years ago we didnt have entire cities that covered vast amounts of ground with concrete, manhatten for instance was one marshland and now look at it.
We have destroyed much of what helped us survive back then and as such i feel it is our job to do what would have been done by what we destroyed, if we don't fix out mistakes who or what will?

[Trulife8342]

I give up. You just through the whole idea of evolution out of the window. Way to go.

[=sw=warlord]

I give up. You just through the whole idea of evolution out of the window. Way to go.
Oh so, because its part of evolution we should throw our own chances of survival out the window?
Is that what your getting at?
While we're at it im going to make a darwinism experiment with a tunnel saying "do not enter or you will be shot dead" would that legaly be allowed? no, would it be right to do such a thing? No.
So why should we the main influence out all the sentient life on this planet allow evolution to remove our chance of survival?

[Jean-Luc]

Im getting tired of this to be quite frank, i find it very naive to think that because a animal has adapted once before it will adapt again in a completely alien environment of our own design.
If we created it, why can't we adapt to it? Hell, why can't we adapt to it anyway?
3000 years ago we didnt have entire cities that covered vast amounts of ground with concrete, manhatten for instance was one marshland and now look at it.
Considering mankind is more successful now than it has ever been before, I find it very hard to believe that somehow we were better off in the days before the industrial revolution.
We have destroyed much of what helped us survive back then and as such i feel it is our job to do what would have been done by what we destroyed, if we don't fix out mistakes who or what will?
If we had actually destroyed what helped us survive back then, we wouldn't still be here with such a massive population. Also, what mistakes? If you're implying that the industrial revolution was a mistake then I'm going to have to ask you to seriously consider what the fuck you're saying here.


So why should we the main influence out all the sentient life on this planet allow evolution to remove our chance of survival?
...WHAT?!

[Trulife8342]

Oh so, because its part of evolution we should throw our own chances of survival out the window?
Is that what your getting at?
While we're at it im going to make a darwinism experiment with a tunnel saying "do not enter or you will be shot dead" would that legaly be allowed? no, would it be right to do such a thing? No.
So why should we the main influence out all the sentient life on this planet allow evolution to remove our chance of survival?

Do you not understand that we aren't as important as we think we are? We are where we are now due to the planets resources. Every animal that is still alive is alive because it could adapt. It's the way of life, I truly think that anyone who now sees this topic has lost a bit of intellectual respect for you. To say that adaptation is a bad thing is ridiculous. I have nothing else to say.

[=sw=warlord]

Jean, i was not talking about us i was talking about wildlife, the plants that once thrived where manhatten now is more than likely contributed in one way or another in recycling the our we breathe today.

When i say mistakes, i mean we are ignoring our own existance and any effects we have on our environment, if we continue as i have stated way too many times now that im starting to feel ive aged a few years explaining this, if we continue we will end up handycapping our decendants as they will have more of a job trying to fix what we broke.
We are polluting the air with chemicals not natural to the atmosphere, CO2 maybe one of which but you try standing next to a oil refinery and tell me the gasses you can smell are naturaly occuring in nature.


Do you not understand that we aren't as important as we think we are? We are where we are now due to the planets resources. Every animal that is still alive is alive because it could adapt. It's the way of life, I truly think that anyone who now sees this topic has lost a bit of intellectual respect for you. To say that adaptation is a bad thing is ridiculous. I have nothing else to say.
Trulife, did i ever say we were important? where did i say we were?
What i said was we are a influence.
Before you tell me about the whole evolution thing again think stop and actualy get that chip of your shoulder.
I could not possibly care less if someone lost respect for me on a online forum, i will probably never meet them in my life, the only thing they actualy know about me if what i say in my comments but even those should be taken with skeptism.
Adaption is a good thing if it is made naturaly, i have pointed time and time again what we are doing is not natural in any way shape or form.
I am growing tired of this if you really wish to continue this PM me with your MSN or AIM address and i will talk to you personaly.

[Trulife8342]

You are trying to fix something that is a NATURAL PART OF LIFE. You can't fix it, if cut all C02 emissions you still have to worry about the oceans that release tons of C02 into the air is not as much as we do. You have no idea what you are talking about and now its starting to get aggravating, Next time we play firefight im fuel rodding you.

[=sw=warlord]

You are trying to fix something that is a NATURAL PART OF LIFE. You can't fix it, if cut all C02 emissions you still have to worry about the oceans that release tons of C02 into the air is not as much as we do. You have no idea what you are talking about and now its starting to get aggravating, Next time we play firefight im fuel rodding you.
I have no issue with the oceans releasing it, because as you should well know by now.
Higher temp climate more water vapour released if we cut our artificial release of the gasses then we have done our job and then it is time to wait and see the results.
I dare you to go out of the city/town what ever and goto the country side and see the difference in air quality.

[Jean-Luc]

Jean, i was not talking about us i was talking about wildlife, the plants that once thrived where manhatten now is more than likely contributed in one way or another in recycling the our we breathe today.
I honestly don't know how to respond to this one. It's like you're against technological advancement and the success of the human species.
When i say mistakes, i mean we are ignoring our own existance and any effects we have on our environment, if we continue as i have stated way too many times now that im starting to feel ive aged a few years explaining this, if we continue we will end up handycapping our decendants as they will have more of a job trying to fix what we broke.
Again...WHAT DID WE BREAK? You refuse to answer this question. The industrial revolution is one of the single greatest things to ever happen to mankind, and you keep giving me more evidence that you think it was a mistake.
We are polluting the air with chemicals not natural to the atmosphere, CO2 maybe one of which but you try standing next to a oil refinery and tell me the gasses you can smell are naturaly occuring in nature.


I honestly don't even know what to say anymore.

[Jelly]

You are trying to fix something that is a NATURAL PART OF LIFE. You can't fix it, if cut all C02 emissions you still have to worry about the oceans that release tons of C02 into the air is not as much as we do. You have no idea what you are talking about and now its starting to get aggravating, Next time we play firefight im fuel rodding you.

As I have said before, the ocean absorbs more CO2 than it releases. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm) Natural emissions are balanced by natural absorptions.

also please lock this thread Haruhi p0lar_bear Con teh_lag Snafubar kyon~

[Jean-Luc]

Nothing in here constitutes as flaming or shitposting therefore the only reason to lock it is because one side is tired of arguing. That isn't a good enough reason.

[Jelly]

Nothing in here constitutes as flaming or shitposting therefore the only reason to lock it is because one side is tired of arguing. That isn't a good enough reason.

Repeating tired old arguments and not reading the debunks is pretty much just trolling so uh

[Jean-Luc]

Repeating tired old arguments and not reading the debunks is pretty much just trolling so uh

Are you basically telling me "Uh your side is wrong therefore you're trolling now and this thread should be locked?"

If that's honestly the best argument you have then maybe this thread SHOULD be locked.

[Jelly]

Are you basically telling me "Uh your side is wrong therefore you're trolling now and this thread should be locked?"

If that's honestly the best argument you have then maybe this thread SHOULD be locked.

Every single point you have bought up so far has been on this site (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php). This is not a new or exciting discussion, this is a prerecorded show.

[Jean-Luc]

Every single point you have bought up so far has been on this site (http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php). This is not a new or exciting discussion, this is a prerecorded show.
Why is it you bring up those older points and ignore the new ones that are brought up?

Example, I have yet to hear an explanation as to why we shouldn't be trying to adapt to the changes instead of preventing them. I have yet to hear why it is more acceptable to spend time and resources attempting to stop something that possibly can't be stopped instead of devoting time and resources into preparing for the future.

If you guys keep resorting to insults and refuse to answer the valid questions that are asked, then how can I be asked to take your side seriously and act as though "Well I guess they're right and there is no room for debate."

[=sw=warlord]

Example, I have yet to hear an explanation as to why we shouldn't be trying to adapt to the changes instead of preventing them. I have yet to hear why it is more acceptable to spend time and resources attempting to stop something that possibly can't be stopped instead of devoting time and resources into preparing for the future.


I guess you didn't see what i said about what happens if things change and what will happen.
I was under the understanding we had resolved this long ago...

[Jelly]

Why is it you bring up those older points and ignore the new ones that are brought up?

Example, I have yet to hear an explanation as to why we shouldn't be trying to adapt to the changes instead of preventing them. I have yet to hear why it is more acceptable to spend time and resources attempting to stop something that possibly can't be stopped instead of devoting time and resources into preparing for the future.

If you guys keep resorting to insults and refuse to answer the valid questions that are asked, then how can I be asked to take your side seriously and act as though "Well I guess they're right and there is no room for debate."
Surely you've seen this video by now. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ)

Also I don't specifically ignore any of your points, it's just that by the time I've read them you've already dropped it and moved onto another one. I respond to the most recent or dumbest claims you make. Debunking someone who poops out arbitrary points without posting references, then demands references in return is pretty hard, so I'm not going to do it for every one of your posts.

[Jean-Luc]

Surely you've seen this video by now. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ)

Also I don't specifically ignore any of your points, it's just that by the time I've read them you've already dropped it and moved onto another one. I respond to the most recent or dumbest claims you make. Debunking someone who poops out arbitrary points without posting references, then demands references in return is pretty hard, so I'm not going to do it for every one of your posts.

I've seen that video, his logic is quite good, and I completely agree with it. The best possible course IS to take action. I'm not saying we should all sit on our asses and do nothing. My argument, and one that seems to continually be ignored, is that we're taking action in the wrong way. YOUR side wants to prevent global warming entirely, I'm asking why we can't research new technologies to make life in a new climate better. Yet when I ask this question, all I get are insults.

E: I'd like to add that my stance is and always has been as such: Global warming/climate change exists, mankind is not causing it, and we're devoting entirely too much time and resources in the wrong direction.

[SnaFuBAR]

If people are going to continually directly insult people's intelligence (Jelly, Warlord) you will receive infractions and this topic will be locked.

You have been warned.

[Jelly]

I've seen that video, his logic is quite good, and I completely agree with it. The best possible course IS to take action. I'm not saying we should all sit on our asses and do nothing. My argument, and one that seems to continually be ignored, is that we're taking action in the wrong way. YOUR side wants to prevent global warming entirely, I'm asking why we can't research new technologies to make life in a new climate better. Yet when I ask this question, all I get are insults.
Pretty sure you just made up that bit about new technologies. In fact, you were saying at the beginning that you had no concerns about the effects of global warming (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=467589&postcount=26). Now you think they should research ways to counteract these effects? Quite the turnaround!


If people are going to continually directly insult people's intelligence (Jelly, Warlord) you will receive infractions and this topic will be locked.

You have been warned.

Could you save me the trouble of an infraction and lock it now?

[Jean-Luc]

Pretty sure you just made up that bit about new technologies. In fact, you were saying at the beginning that you had no concerns about the effects of global warming (http://www.modacity.net/forums/showpost.php?p=467589&postcount=26). Now you think they should research ways to counteract these effects? Quite the turnaround!


Considering in the very post you quoted I said:

" I will not deny that the Earth has been heating up as it's proven fact no matter how you slice it."
"I don't agree with the idea that global warming is caused by man as so many would like us to believe, nor do I think the effects are going to be nearly as severe or unnatural as they claim it will be."

I don't think there has been any "turnaround" here. Are you even trying anymore or are you just working hard to get this thread locked?

[Jelly]

Considering in the very post you quoted I said:

" I will not deny that the Earth has been heating up as it's proven fact no matter how you slice it."
"I don't agree with the idea that global warming is caused by man as so many would like us to believe, nor do I think the effects are going to be nearly as severe or unnatural as they claim it will be."

I don't think there has been any "turnaround" here. Are you even trying anymore or are you just working hard to get this thread locked?


It was more the "nor do I think the effects are going to be nearly as severe or unnatural as they claim it will be" part that I was talking about.

[Jean-Luc]

It was more the "nor do I think the effects are going to be nearly as severe or unnatural as they claim it will be" part that I was talking about.

Right, but how are you getting "He has no concern over the effects of global warming" from my saying that I don't believe the effects will be "nearly as severe or unnatural as they claim it will be."

[Jelly]

Do you have concerns over the effects of global warming?

[Jean-Luc]

Do you have concerns over the effects of global warming?
Of course I do. For example, I'm curious about how we'll handle rising sea levels. I'm curious about how we should build new homes to withstand the probable flooding that will occur from the higher levels of precipitation. I'm curious what new technology we'll develop for energy production when fossil fuels run out in the near future.

What I don't concern myself with is the notion that WE caused this. I firmly believe it isn't mankind's fault and that it is not our responsibility to waste time trying to stop it. I believe it's our responsibility to humans as a species to work together and develop better homes, better vehicles, and all around better technology to compensate for the inevitable change in climate rather than spending all our time to stop the change from occurring in the first place.

[=sw=warlord]

If people are going to continually directly insult people's intelligence (Jelly, Warlord) you will receive infractions and this topic will be locked.

You have been warned.
You might want to talk to trulife about that Snaf, i've seen worse insults sent around the forum and they have not been infracted for it.

[rossmum]

If people are going to continually directly insult people's intelligence (Jelly, Warlord) you will receive infractions and this topic will be locked.

You have been warned.
this thread is dumb as fuck (woot indirectly insulting everyone's intelligence)

I honestly don't even know if there's a point to this anymore, I'm all for a debate but holy shit neither side is going to back down no matter what evidence is presented

[=sw=warlord]

this thread is dumb as fuck (woot indirectly insulting everyone's intelligence)

Just because it dosn't have aeroplanes doe's not mean it is dumb.
If you don't want to take part on the discussion then go away and let the intellectual's do their thing,

[rossmum]

You're not being intellectual. You're yelling at each other with little result.

The only time anything good happened in this thread was when Jean-Luc actually acknowledged that Bodie had made a good point, and made no attempt to argue it further.

Just because I haven't picked up a turd of my own and chosen someone specific to throw it at yet, it doesn't mean I'm too dumb for this matter. It means I'm smart enough to realise that nobody here really gives two shits about accepting anyone else's presented evidence (accurate or otherwise), so it'd be a waste of my brainpower to try.

e/ Just because I feel like a dick, the irony of you suggesting yourself to be one of the "intellectual's [sic]" should be lost on nobody

[=sw=warlord]

You're not being intellectual. You're yelling at each other with little result.

The only time anything good happened in this thread was when Jean-Luc actually acknowledged that Bodie had made a good point, and made no attempt to argue it further.

Just because I haven't picked up a turd of my own and chosen someone specific to throw it at yet, it doesn't mean I'm too dumb for this matter. It means I'm smart enough to realise that nobody here really gives two shits about accepting anyone else's presented evidence (accurate or otherwise), so it'd be a waste of my brainpower to try.

Oh right, so even though i've answered jeans questions and raised a few of my own such as what do you think would happen when we're taking resources that took millions of years to build and use them in a couple on centuries, that no valid point has been made since jean accepted bods comment?
Right...

[rossmum]

I read back through the last page. The fact you two have actually sunk to insults and snipes tells me that no amount of valid points would stop you from going at each other.

[=sw=warlord]

I read back through the last page. The fact you two have actually sunk to insults and snipes tells me that no amount of valid points would stop you from going at each other.
Oh right, because i had to make a aggressive move to try and get the question and point across means im not capable of logical thinking or ration?
Right keep on thinking that rossmum keep on thinking that.
Me and trulife have settled this via PM and jean has noted i've made a few geniunely good notes and questions, if i was given a good point from the other perspective i would take it into account but so far all i have seen if "we are too small to do anything major on the planet and even if we did do something its natural anyways"

[rossmum]

I never said that you weren't capable of rational thinking, I said this is a shitty thread. Stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.

[=sw=warlord]

I never said that you weren't capable of rational thinking, I said this is a shitty thread. Stop putting words in my mouth, thanks.
Actualy you did with:
"I read back through the last page. The fact you two have actually sunk to insults and snipes tells me that no amount of valid points would stop you from going at each other."

Anyways, anyone want to explain this to me?
Swarms of giant sea muccus (http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/12/invasion-of-the-gian.html)