Global Warming

[DrGlass]

didn't have time to read through, but thought this was a good "pro do something about 'global climate change'" point:

http://www.esr.org/outreach/climate_cha ... /man1.html

To sum that link up: Humans are directly responsible for the HUGE peak in co2 (etc.), what will it do? who know, who cares. We know how to FIX this problem, do it.

I'd say this is very clear, even if this is a natural change we are NOT helping by doing nothing but add to it.

[zombie@computer]

On the other hand, why spend billion to reduce co2 when co2 hardly affects the environment? Can't this just be a consipracy of the companies that build solar cells and wind mills? I agree less=more concerning power usage, but why spend so much money on things that dont even matter in the first place, while we have so many things better to spend the money, like poverty,education,health?

BTW, that site, its complete bullocks. The only argument to proove humans are responsible for the increased c02 is that co2 levels have risen parallel to fossil fuel usage? that is very WEAK evidence.
Some site linked the co2 rise to the amount of pirates on the world. They correlated quite good, yet, do you believe they are cause and effect?

If we were responsible for increased co2, where are the ww1 and ww2 peaks? usage of fossil fuels during those wars was considerably heigher, yet i see no peaks in co2, or atleast changes in its rise?

The same organisation they base most of their graphs on, the IPCC, is publishing a report on feb 2nd that everybody's been overreacting for the past decades (see dutch link or wait a few days). Just like we did with acid rain, dust in the air etc. If we would believe what they told us then, we would dissolve instantly when walking through the rain! Models, models, models. They mean squat. You simply cant predict what will happen over periods of hundreds of years, without extensive knowledge of the years before. We know squat.

[~}A{~TF2]

I found this to be interesting, and as such thought it worthy to add to this discussion:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 020507.htm

[Dionysos]

I found this to be interesting, and as such thought it worthy to add to this discussion:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/glo ... 020507.htm

Yeah, interesting read. He didnt really state why global warming isnt our fault, but generally I agree with him. Remember he doesnt deny global warming, just the "consensus" on the matter

[Mr. Happy]

Dont ask me for a cite since I heard this on the radio-news.

UN recently had a conference to discuss global warming and analyze it and what not, all the leading scientists and people in it blah blah blah, the experts ya know. Anyway, they concluded that theres a 75%-90%(cant remember exact number) chance the rise of CO2 emmisions were caused by human activity. This number is up 15%-20% (again, cant remember) since a couple years ago, meaning all new research is pointing to us being the cause.

Also they determined that even the halting of all emmisions would not be enough to stop the average global climate a rediculous number of degrees (I think it was 50degrees F) over the next hundred years.

Z@C, I like you, but everything youve said is complete bullcrap.

ITS A SCIENTIFIC, PROVEN, FACT based on SIMPLE PHYSICS that CO2 molecules refract/reflect/forgot which infrared radiation (infared radiation transmits heat by the way) towards the earth from the sun.

WW1 and 2....what??? The world is a big place ok. You see, its larger then your room. When you put a space heater in your room the air heats up quite quickly right? Why? Because its a small space. Now, when you put a heater in a big room, like a convention center, it takes a long time to heat up. Same thing is happening with global warming, it takes a while, so of course there arent dramatic spikes over 5 year periods. We're looking at a spike that took about a hundred years to peak, and is continuing upwards.

Companies forming a conspiracy? There is 50-100 trillion dollars worth of oil left underground, not to mention all the coal, and you want to talk about small solar and wind energy companies forming a conspiracy?

Your right, we cant predict trends without knowledge. Say, the knowledge of CO2 levels of the past few eons? The knowledge that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere? What knowledge are you talking about? You lack thereof?

Look, I'm not trying to be mean or anything but this is a serious issue and you just poured a bunch of crap onto it that someone might mistake for truth.

[Sorrow]

Hmmm there was a nice article in some magazine about methane being trapped inside russia's tundra's that's being released because the perm is melting... this releases methane yes, which heats up the environment, which releases more methane... we're going to have a nice tropical climate in a few years time

The way they presented it, it was already set in motion and we're basically screwed unless we kinda quit with what we're doing.

[DeathProdigy]

new zealand is rather feeling the effects of global warming over the summer, as the way the upper atmosphere currents work, around summer we have the hole in the ozone layer directly above us during our summer.

burn times are around 10mins during 11am - 4pm

which is rather fast, considering it takes up to and over an hour in most other country's

but really my opinion in all this, "zomg the worlds going to explode" "na dw nothings wrong" im sort of in the middle. even if we did/didn't cause it its still going to happen.

[zombie@computer]

ITS A SCIENTIFIC, PROVEN, FACT based on SIMPLE PHYSICS that CO2 molecules refract/reflect/forgot which infrared radiation (infared radiation transmits heat by the way) towards the earth from the sun.

I never said it cant. I only said it wasnt proven the co2 rise causes a rise in global warming. even the ipcc report doesnt fully proove co2 being the cause of increased temperatures

WW1 and 2....what??? The world is a big place ok. You see, its larger then your room. When you put a space heater in your room the air heats up quite quickly right? Why? Because its a small space. Now, when you put a heater in a big room, like a convention center, it takes a long time to heat up. Same thing is happening with global warming, it takes a while, so of course there arent dramatic spikes over 5 year periods. We're looking at a spike that took about a hundred years to peak, and is continuing upwards.

Its a simple fact that co2 emmisions were a lot higher in ww1 and ww2 due to tanks, planes, fires and bombs which werent really co2 friendly. Due to the global scale and size (relative to total co2 emisions around those times), its pretty reasonable to expect a peak of some sorts

Companies forming a conspiracy? There is 50-100 trillion dollars worth of oil left underground, not to mention all the coal, and you want to talk about small solar and wind energy companies forming a conspiracy?

Yes, just as likely. Sounds weird, maybe? Well, both have 0% proof, so both parties being in a conspiracy is just as likely.

Your right, we cant predict trends without knowledge. Say, the knowledge of CO2 levels of the past few eons? The knowledge that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere? What knowledge are you talking about? You lack thereof?

The only co2 levels we know of from more than a few decades ago are from ice, which is highly inaccurate.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean or anything but this is a serious issue and you just poured a bunch of crap onto it that someone might mistake for truth.

The purpose of a serious discussion imho is to come with arguments/counter arguments, not just "everything youve said is complete bullcrap". You say ive told complete bullshit? Either come with facts or arguments (like you did btw).

[Dionysos]

I have to say I dont know who to believe anymore. Both sides sound tempting. You have the CO2, and apparently its been increasing, as well as the temperature having gone up, at the same time as us having produced more and more co2. According to that article posted by ~}A{~TF2 however in the 70 or so there was a cooling trend. Also, how much experience do we have in comparing/correlating the amount of co2 in the atmosphere to the temperature? And the climate has obviously changed dramatically before, and I guess humans would then too have asked themselves whether it was their fault.

I dont think we will know anytime soon, and I dont think there are many/any scientists/groups that can be entirely trusted either. its as DeathProdigy said, either way its still happening, and we cant know for sure why since the climate is so complex (I think we can agree on that). What we do know is that CO2 is not good *NO MATTER* whether its causing global warming or not. The forests dying is one example (although there have been improvements on the forest planting front, in europe anyways-guess I got the source somewhere if anyone wants it). We do know its not good either way, and rational thinking suggests to try to get away from fossil fuels anyways. Imo the subject of who is to blame isnt as important as actually doing something about pollution.

So yeah... wouldnt it be real funny if the warming trend turned and we get a cooling trend in a couple of years tho?

[Mr. Happy]

I guess I'm a little passionate about this lol.

WW1 and 2....what??? The world is a big place ok. You see, its larger then your room. When you put a space heater in your room the air heats up quite quickly right? Why? Because its a small space. Now, when you put a heater in a big room, like a convention center, it takes a long time to heat up. Same thing is happening with global warming, it takes a while, so of course there arent dramatic spikes over 5 year periods. We're looking at a spike that took about a hundred years to peak, and is continuing upwards.

Its a simple fact that co2 emmisions were a lot higher in ww1 and ww2 due to tanks, planes, fires and bombs which werent really co2 friendly. Due to the global scale and size (relative to total co2 emisions around those times), its pretty reasonable to expect a peak of some sorts

What I'm saying here is that those were the first large spikes in CO2 emmissions, as the industrial revolution wasn't to far earlier. So, what you got is the infared being refracted in towards the earth at higher levels. The change in temperature won't occur for some time later however, as the infared radiation has to be absorbed into tree's, rocks, and gas molecules. The heat isn't being abosrbed by the CO2, only transmitted by it. It goes back to something that, which I admittedly don't understand very well, is the difference between heat and temperature. Correct me if my terminology is wrong or explanation is wrong, but something can be very hot without having a high temperature because it's not transmitting the heat. (something like that). So the heat is there, but it's not causing the molecules on earth and in it's atmosphere to move around rapidly, which is what temperature is. (I probably explained this wrong but the basic premise is right).

Your right, we cant predict trends without knowledge. Say, the knowledge of CO2 levels of the past few eons? The knowledge that CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere? What knowledge are you talking about? You lack thereof?

The only co2 levels we know of from more than a few decades ago are from ice, which is highly inaccurate.

Ok, I don't actually know the resolution (+- values of accuracy) of these readings, but I assume that the scientists do and that they wouldn't consider them good indicators if they weren't. The accuracy might be off, but when you apply the +- to the whole graph it doesn't matter as it just shifts up and down a bit. The trend is what matters. -this is how I interpret it.

Look, I'm not trying to be mean or anything but this is a serious issue and you just poured a bunch of crap onto it that someone might mistake for truth.

The purpose of a serious discussion imho is to come with arguments/counter arguments, not just "everything youve said is complete bullcrap". You say ive told complete bullshit? Either come with facts or arguments (like you did btw).

Well, my opinion is that your opinion is crap, thus you dumped some crap on here and I cleaned it up, in my opinion

[~}A{~TF2]

And as well I thought that I would add this to the debate: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... at+swindle

[AnthraX1]

There is no such thing as GLobal warming there is no evidence or proof.

[~}A{~TF2]

There is no such thing as GLobal warming there is no evidence or proof.

Wow... did you even WATCH the video?!

[Mr. Happy]

There is no such thing as GLobal warming there is no evidence or proof.

This is serious discussion, at least Z@C backs up his rediculous ramblings with pseudo-proof and logical discourse. Please do the same.




Proof? You wan't proof? Go ask any scientist whom has ever researched or written a paper about the issue, since there are NONE that say it's a myth. ALL evidence in existence points to it being very very bad and real. (last time I checked)

[Dead-Inside]

Indeed, you won't be finding any "There is no global warming". It's a hype that's catched on. You know why? Because it's comfortable.