Global Warming Causes

[Raid The Revenge]

Hey! Look at this!

Wow!~ That big hole wasn't there before! Hmmm....

Nah. People aren't responsible for that bigass hole there! THAT HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF!! Oh well. It ain't doing anything serious NOW so let's just FORGET ABOUT IT!!

 

[TKarrade]

Hey! Look at this!

<snip>

Wow!~ That big hole wasn't there before! Hmmm....

Nah. People aren't responsible for that bigass hole there! THAT HAPPENED ALL BY ITSELF!! Oh well. It ain't doing anything serious NOW so let's just FORGET ABOUT IT!!

No offense... but the ozone layer depletion is a separate subject/off topic. The ozone hole is recovering due to the banning and reduced usage of CFC's. It'll take another 25 years or so to recover completely, but the fact remains that it's still getting better, even though global warming is getting worse.

It shows that we can still make an impact against these global problems. That's gotta be encouraging.

-TK

 

[Wavex]

Does this ^^ really show the ozone? to me it looks like a thermal survey of the Earth, (or whatever planet) with a cool spot at one of the pole... in other words it just shows that it`s cold in the south pole... Elm, please put down the joint you`ve been smoking. tyvm :spank:

 

[agutierrez]

Global warming and green house gasses are a different issue than the hole in the ozone layer. The fear is about how a change on temperature affects the world, not about ozone and pollution.

According to wiki, the potential effects of Global Warming are the following;

"Increasing global temperature is expected to cause sea levels to rise, an increase in the intensity of extreme weather events, and significant changes to the amount and pattern of precipitation, likely leading to an expanse of tropical areas and increased pace of desertification. Other expected effects of global warming include changes in agricultural yields, modifications of trade routes, glacier retreat, mass species extinctions and increases in the ranges of disease vectors."

That translates in order to more ocean, unpredictable weather, more rain, less rain, more or less farming, new roads and lots of death.

 

[FZ1inNH]

My personal opinion, is that it is kind of egotistical for humans to think we can destroy the planet.

I tend to agree with only one major exception. Fire all the world's nukes at once and the Earth will change enough to possibly destroy nearly all life here.... back to the prime ordeal soup!

The human race will evolve and just as David said, we will have no choice but alternative energy as we deplete our supply of oil worldwide. A greener and planet friendlier time is ahead with regards to energy. Humans are not going to extinct themselves.

 

[abacall]

We do know that CO2 emissions and smog lead to generally increased temperatures on Earth. We know the caps are melting. We know the major source of the CO2 and smog is human development.
We think that the Earth has temperature cycles.
I'm willing to be open minded enough to believe both are contributing. But I can't possibly understand how people refuse to believe that emissions are not contributing and we don't need to take drastic corrective measures.

 

[FZ1inNH]

We know the major source of the CO2 and smog is human development.

I thought it was flea and ant farts?

Don't forget the cows too. Do your part to save the planet and eat a cow!

 

[oldfast007]

Agreed on the cow poop!

A WARMING WORLD Pollution on the hoof
Livestock are a leading source of greenhouse gases. Why isn’t anyone raising a stink?

October 15, 2007 in print edition A-14

It’s a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.

That may be because it’s tough to take cow flatulence seriously. But livestock emissions are no joke.Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon dioxide, the world’s most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources – fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it’s estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day.

 

[FZ1inNH]

That does it! Steaks tonight! with a side of Hamburg and a fillet mignon for desert....

All washed down with Sam Adams Octoberfest, of course!

 

[D-Mac]

Wow. I guess I'm pretty surprised at the results of the poll. I thought that most folks had accepted that humans are the driving force behind our climate crisis.....at least people accept that it's real anyway. I guess that's a start.

Disclaimer: I'm a scientist. I study the ecology of coastal environments. Take that for what it's worth. I've spent more than a decade studying impacts of factors such as warming on the spread of infectious diseases, and changes to populations of organisms. I don't get paid to say anything pro or against the climate-change issue.

It's true that climate has varied DRAMATICALLY over the Earth's history. What's alarming about the current situation though is the RATE and EXTENT of warming right now. It's waaaaay beyond anything we've seen in recorded history (and in the last 10,000 years) and way beyond anything our species has ever experienced.

The evidence that humans are involved is OVERWHELMING. There are THOUSANDS of carefully reviewed, published papers on this topic. Both observational studies, experiements, and powerful, predictive models (we can run the models backwards and see how they explain what's already happened - this is one way to explore human 'forcing' on climate versus 'natural forcing'. To say that humans are not a major contributor is to ignore DOZENS of INDEPENDENT approaches to studying our climate. We have more evidence to support climate change (and human impacts) than we do to support what we know about pretty much any basic set of science you could care to name. There is NO CONTROVERSY among the scientific community about this issue (sure - you might find the odd wing-nut scientist who doesn't believe this, but he's almost certainly not someone who studies this issue....I could find you a scientist who argues that gravity doesn't exist too).

If I had scientific evidence that humans were NOT responsible for global warming then I'd really be famous! If an idea in science sucks, it'll soon be explored, tested, and dismissed. True - scientists are just people who could have personal agendas, but we're armed with an approach that allows us to carefully examine the work of others.

It does matter that we understand the cause. If we don't it will impair our ability (and willingness) to do anything about it.

 

[kemmer]

D-mac, I too am really surprised. There is NO question about the cause of global warming. It is true that there have been ice ages in the past, and that the earth cools and warms in cycles, but there has never been a cooling period so rapid as the one we are experiencing now. The current cooling is directly related to co2 emmissions. The evidence is overwhelming. The fact that people continue to believe otherwise is startling.

I know it's a hard reality to face, and there may not be a whole lot we can do to stop all of this but we owe it to our children to do what we can. You can igonre the facts and pretend it's just business as usual as far as the planet is concerned, but science IS NOT on your side on this one.

 

[Gopher]

Urm... where to start...

Being a scientist myself, i know a hell of a lot about this topic. I still find it interesting to see peoples views. But at the end of the day, there is NO conclusive evidence! No, really, there isnt!

Regardless of what ANYONE says! There are very strong arguments for and against the THEORY, but thats all it is! A theory!

The ice core drilling from Greenland shows an increase in CO2, but even this data is flawed.... Want proof? Open google and search for ice core charts... do any two look the same from different companies? No.

Hell, even the reason behind global warming/cooling cant be agreed on.... CO2 levels, aerosol particulates, ozone depletion (and replenishment), SOX and NOX concentrations... the list could go on forever!

On one side, the planet is heating up.... on the other the planet is cooling. Both cant be right... its just the nature of science... cover all the possible outcomes! Did you know that we are actually already in an ice age? No? Its refered to as 'The Mini Ice-Age' and its been here for tens of thousands of years already! Correct me if i'm wrong, but a few thousand years ago, we had barely begun metallurgy research...! So that begs the question, if we are already at the tail end of an ice age, just how warm was it before it happened?

Do you see what I mean? There are quite simply too many variables to comprehend, and too little data to create an accurate prediction. So why all the research? Well, its survival. Research groups need funding, and nothing funds better than a government under duress from its people demanding answers.

I know there will be some of you who think i'm talking outta my ass, because you've already been brainwashed into believing one point of view. But until you have all the answers, you dont know squat! Which is why I havent voted.... there is literally no answer to the question!


Long post......... almost done

Global warming is the least of our worries in my opinion. The greater threat is the breakdown of global economy and society due to a lack of fuels. Imagine in fifty years time, some of us will still be here, the oil has ran out, the coal has long gone, and uranium ore is too expensive to mine. We havent made enough HEP's or wind-turbines to produce power. Society as we know it will collapse, riots for coal/oil, no cars except for those with something to trade.... we really should be looking at new energy resources rather than global warming.... a reduction of COX SOX and NOX's would be a by product! But instead, the world keeps investing in research which wont actually benefit us....

Rant over... PHEW!!!!!!!


Challenge me! I'm a scientist, and as such my opinions or theories should be challenged... but there seems to be a general acceptance of theories regarding global warming... not so much challenging going on there!

 

[nimzotech]

You do agree that C02 and other dirty fuel for instance, China's coal burning contribute to breaking down the ozone layer and also the melting of glaciers?

 

[kemmer]

Challenge me! I'm a scientist, and as such my opinions or theories should be challenged... but there seems to be a general acceptance of theories regarding global warming... not so much challenging going on there!

Can you provide a link to a scientific study that concludes that humans are not to blame for the dramatic climate change we are experiencing? Or even one that concludes that we may not be? The reason there is a "general acceptance of theries regarding global warming" is because every study I have ever seen on the subject reaches the same conclusion.

Also, to say that "On one side, the planet is heating up.... on the other the planet is cooling." is just misleading. The average temperature, globally, is rising.

 

[wrightme43]

Published and reviewed papers as requested. I can bring somemore when you get done.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

Check page three to get a idea of what this is about. ^^^^^^^

http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354 Here are alot of them for you.


Here as well written article about Manns "hockey stick" and how the data set is scewed.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

These should get you started.



Also the avg temp measured where? How is it avg.? What is the data set? What if you knew the data set was flawed due to man made interference?

If you place a temp recording station in one place that is away from HVAC, Pavement, and buildings, then over time buildings are built close by, HVAC units located less than 20ft away, and pavement up to 2' from it, but you still use that data in your avg temp calculations is that right?
What if I can prove that? Would you look again?

I am not knocking you at all, I would like to present the other side of the coin to you. More than likely you do everything by the book, and expect other sceintists to do that exact same thing. What if someone can prove they arent?

 

[kemmer]

Published and reviewed papers as requested. I can bring somemore when you get done.

http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/mcintyre.mckitrick.2003.pdf

Check page three to get a idea of what this is about. ^^^^^^^

http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354 Here are alot of them for you.


Here as well written article about Manns \"hockey stick\" and how the data set is scewed.
http://www.climateaudit.org/pdf/others/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

These should get you started.



Also the avg temp measured where? How is it avg.? What is the data set? What if you knew the data set was flawed due to man made interference?

If you place a temp recording station in one place that is away from HVAC, Pavement, and buildings, then over time buildings are built close by, HVAC units located less than 20ft away, and pavement up to 2' from it, but you still use that data in your avg temp calculations is that right?
What if I can prove that? Would you look again?

I am not knocking you at all, I would like to present the other side of the coin to you. More than likely you do everything by the book, and expect other sceintists to do that exact same thing. What if someone can prove they arent?

Dude, Steven McIntyre works for an oil and gas exploration company. Those articles were NOT published in an ISI peer-reviewed journal.

Edit: even if I did believe one word that guy has to say, all he does in those articles is attempt to discredit one study. There are hundreds of studys and papers that support the theory that humans are causing climate change.

 

[Raid The Revenge]

Does this ^^ really show the ozone? to me it looks like a thermal survey of the Earth, (or whatever planet) with a cool spot at one of the pole... in other words it just shows that it`s cold in the south pole... Elm, please put down the joint you`ve been smoking. tyvm :spank:

Ohh..! You asked for it! YOU'RE GETTING THE SCYTHE!!!

THAT BIGASS HOLE you're looking at is hovering over ANTARCTICA. Guess what? It's continually getting bigger...

People wonder why they're getting cancer. People wonder why the ocean levels are rising higher and higher. People wonder why algae and fungi is growing in the rivers; stealing the oxygen away from the fish. People wonder why wolves and bears are starving to death.

I bet Wrightme43 knows something about algae; stealing oxygen from water...

I bet someone from New Zealand will tell you why they apply SPF 30 sunblock all the time...

I know! I bet somebody can tell you why the EVAP system on the FZ6 is for...cleaner air?

Sure, sure. You guys are right. It's NOT a big problem now. People have been working on ways to prevent further damage. The only reason why things aren't that bad is because SOMEBODY REALIZED there was a problem. Standards have DRAMATICALLY changed since then.

Maybe, if everybody's lucky, the problem wasn't realized too late?

 

[wrightme43]

Dude, Steven McIntyre works for an oil and gas exploration company. Those articles were NOT published in an ISI peer-reviewed journal.

Edit: even if I did believe one word that guy has to say, all he does in those articles is attempt to discredit one study. There are hundreds of studys and papers that support the theory that humans are causing climate change.

Based on the orginal data which is flawed.

I understand what your saying, data saying the studies are flawed is to be ignored and not researched to see if its right.

Did you read them at all? I doubt it.

 

[wrightme43]

Ohh..! You asked for it! YOU'RE GETTING THE SCYTHE!!!

THAT BIGASS HOLE you're looking at is hovering over ANTARCTICA. Guess what? It's continually getting bigger...

People wonder why they're getting cancer. People wonder why the ocean levels are rising higher and higher. People wonder why algae and fungi is growing in the rivers; stealing the oxygen away from the fish. People wonder why wolves and bears are starving to death.

I bet Wrightme43 knows something about algae; stealing oxygen from water...

I bet someone from New Zealand will tell you why they apply SPF 30 sunblock all the time...

I know! I bet somebody can tell you why the EVAP system on the FZ6 is for...cleaner air?

Sure, sure. You guys are right. It's NOT a big problem now. People have been working on ways to prevent further damage. The only reason why things aren't that bad is because SOMEBODY REALIZED there was a problem. Standards have DRAMATICALLY changed since then.

Maybe, if everybody's lucky, the problem wasn't realized too late?

Algae produce about 65-70% of the worlds O2. Wolves and bears have always starved and always feasted when they can.
Algae blooms that cause O2 depleation in water are caused by fert. runoff. Nitrates, Nitrites, Phosphorus and Iron.

Ozone and Global Warming have very little to do with each other though.

 

[GastonJ]

Well those very same people who are forecasting global warming were also forecasting an ice age in the 1970's. At some stage they might be right, pick both sides and eventually one of them will happen.

I always love the statistics like "this is the hottest summer in 100 years, so an indication of global warming" - logically it must have been warmer more than 100 years go, so I ignore such quotes. I think I saw one back in this thread "the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is higher than at any point in the last 400,000+ years" and they measured it 400,000 years ago?, what about 400,001 years ago? The level was higher than today? So that indicates that it will come down again, or does no-one want to provide the same evidence, or guess for a further year? Ozone hole was discovered in the 1970's? - did anyone look for it in 1520, because it might have been there then as well.

It's a massive subject, way too complex for quick guesses. The news media will always jump on those articles that sell their slant on things. In the 1970's it was that we're heading for an ice-age, right now it's that we're headed for global warming - if yesterdays ride home was anything to go by then where the hell was the global warming where I was????

Anyway, one thing is certain, when the earth has had enough it will get rid of us one way or another.