Global Warming Causes

[mastakilla]

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.

Well said and damn right!

I mean seriously : who in their right mind can claim that man doesn't have an effect on the earth and it's climate? We're chopping down rain forests faster than I can blink my eyes, we have been pumping polluting gases in the atmosphere for the past 200 years, I mean what the hell?

Denying global warming is like denying the holocaust IMO.

But yeah, our planet is going to hell anyway, the human race is doomed, so our discussion really doesn't matter. We will never be able to beat the oil nuts.

I'm actually happy that we are running out of earth oil and coal, the problem will kinda solve itself. 30-40 years from now, life as we know it today won't exist anymore. How you 20 mpg people can still sleep at night is beyond me.

 

[kemmer]

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.

I did read two of them but what it boils down to is that I don't really trust the source of that information. Papers written by a oil and gas guy, published in a journal that is not on the list of ISI peer-reviewed journals don't really convince me of much.

If that's the best you can do I think you've just proved my point.

 

[GastonJ]

[COLOR=\"DarkGreen\"]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!![/COLOR]

Photo evidence is really good. You do of course have a photo taken from the same place 200 years ago showing no ozone hole which will prove 100% that it must have occurred since then?

 

[Raid The Revenge]

The problem with global warming is people don't consider the WHOLE picture. They'll be like:

-It's only warmer temperatures! It's NOT a big deal.

However, they don't consider the consequences from having warmer climates. Let's see:

-Icebergs melt.
-Certain animal species (polar bears, penguins) cannot survive. BIOMASS will decrease.
-Agriculture will fail.

As for the OZONE layer? You do know the SUN is constantly trying to blast us with SERIOUS radiation, right? The Earth has a magnetic field that prevents the majority of those wavelengths from mutating your RNA. The OZONE layer also plays a vital role in this. However, people are releasing gases that make molecular bonds with Oxygen and steal it from the ozone layer; leaving everything alive with LESS defense against the radiation.

No...you can't find a picture that was taken 200 years ago with an ozone count on Earth. However, everytime somebody counts it now, the hole has been getting bigger.

I KNOW THE OZONE LAYER IS NOT RELATED TO GLOBAL WARMING.

-The idea is to teach people that certain discoveries should be taken seriously. There HAS BEEN SOME ABUSIVE ACTIONS placed on this planet. People know it. They just don't want to admit it.

 

[GastonJ]

Icebergs have formed and melted as long as the earth has existed, I have no evidence to say that they haven't. Evidence points to there being glacial periods in the past, quite a few of them, and between each one comes an interglacial period when, oddly enough, the ice melts.

The earth has been coming out of such a glacial period for the last 11,000 years, which does mean that things must warm up, otherwise we'd still be in a glacial period, so tbh I would expect the temperature to rise, as far as I know it's the way ice melts and the glacial period ends.

Some time soon the scientists will make their minds up. IN the 1970's it was "we are heading for an ice age", now they're running with global warming. The grants will keep coming as long as they have a crisis to investigate. It also keeps them in work, and every word they say in the media. Not to mention that such things allow the government to levy "green taxation" and allow energy companies to raise more revenues. It's all in a good cause to stop global warming...

 

[kemmer]

Icebergs have formed and melted as long as the earth has existed, I have no evidence to say that they haven't. Evidence points to there being glacial periods in the past, quite a few of them, and between each one comes an interglacial period when, oddly enough, the ice melts.

The earth has been coming out of such a glacial period for the last 11,000 years, which does mean that things must warm up, otherwise we'd still be in a glacial period, so tbh I would expect the temperature to rise, as far as I know it's the way ice melts and the glacial period ends.

Some time soon the scientists will make their minds up. IN the 1970's it was \"we are heading for an ice age\", now they're running with global warming. The grants will keep coming as long as they have a crisis to investigate. It also keeps them in work, and every word they say in the media.

Scientists have made up thier minds. We are causeing climate change. The warming the planet is experiencing is NOT consistant with what has happened in the past. The only "scientists" saying otherwise are selling something. (google the guy from wrightme43's post)

 

[GastonJ]

It was those same scientists who said we were heading for "global cooling" in the 1970's who are saying we're causing global warming now. The forecast of the 1970's never happened, since quite obviously they were wrong. Why should they be believed now?

Similar to the predictions of the SAR's epidemic of a few years ago, or the vCJD predictions that would kill 100's of thousands of the population of the UK perhaps? The predictions of avian flu don't appear to have transpired either.

Perhaps seeing is believing after all, and I see nothing but people/organisations/governments making money on the back of global warming.

 

[nimzotech]

There is no question that human consumption of petroleum fuels, the C02 emissions contributes greatly not only to the gaping holes in the ozone layer, but the progressively raising global temperatures. Even if history shows the the worlds temperatures have fluctuated up and down, the industrial revolution and dirty fuel consumption have drastically sped up the process of raising temperatures. NASA is currently planning a 100 yr project in which through the well studied green house effects on earth, we will be able to begin slowly warming up Mars' atmosphere. Which in turn will help melt the frozen oceans. With H20 on Mars, plants may be planted and thus the production of Oxygen will begin. Total Recall - revisited :rockon:

 

[kemmer]

It was those same scientists who said we were heading for \"global cooling\" in the 1970's who are saying we're causing global warming now. The forecast of the 1970's never happened, since quite obviously they were wrong. Why should they be believed now?

Similar to the predictions of the SAR's epidemic of a few years ago, or the vCJD predictions that would kill 100's of thousands of the population of the UK perhaps? The predictions of avian flu don't appear to have transpired either.

Perhaps seeing is believing after all, and I see nothing but people/organisations/governments making money on the back of global warming.

So because they were wrong once we should just assume they're wrong now? That's probably best, because we haven't made any advances in science or anything since the 70s. I'm sure modern computers haven't helped scientists create better and more accurate models either. /sarcasm

 

[Juan1]

95% of all scientists believe that man is responsible for global warming. 40% of the general population doesn't believe man is to blame. I think I'll side with the science community rather than the know nothings.

Global warming is not a new theory. Margaret Thatcher rallied Brits to fight global warming in the 80's.

Yes, there are natural cycles, but the temperature gains that we've seen are higher than the models suggest.

 

[Juan1]

Some time soon the scientists will make their minds up. IN the 1970's it was \"we are heading for an ice age\", now they're running with global warming. The grants will keep coming as long as they have a crisis to investigate. It also keeps them in work, and every word they say in the media. Not to mention that such things allow the government to levy \"green taxation\" and allow energy companies to raise more revenues. It's all in a good cause to stop global warming...

95% of all scientists have already made up their minds: Man is warming the globe.

I assume you don't get vaccinations, don't use medication, refuse to get surgery, and will never see a doctor. Medical science has been wrong too, and I expect you'd be equally dismissive of it for past mistakes.

 

[wrightme43]

Humans are responsible for 4% of the earths output of Co2.
4%
You all getting that. 4% the whole planet. 4%.

Cold Facts on Global Warming

 

[wrightme43]

It does not increase temp in a line. Its not that freaking simple.
.3% of the atmosphere to .385% of the atmosphere.
CO2 is the least of of our worries.
Its that damn water vapor doing 98% of the global greenhouse effect. Put a lid on your cup. Dont water the lawn. Its reponsible for 33-35 degrees of climate. Co2 1-2 degrees. A increase of .085% Co2. .085% Why isnt it up 4% per year every year from the 1930s? Hmmmmm???? Where does it go?

Oceans? Forests?

Now say you cut down 2/3rds of the worlds forests, (responisble in total for about 220 gigatons of CO2 lock up a year) would CO2 levels rise?

I know I am wasting my time. I hope some people see this and take a look at the lies they are being fed about "global warming"

 

[kemmer]

It does not increase temp in a line. Its not that freaking simple.
.3% of the atmosphere to .385% of the atmosphere.
CO2 is the least of of our worries.
Its that damn water vapor doing 98% of the global greenhouse effect. Put a lid on your cup. Dont water the lawn. Its reponsible for 33-35 degrees of climate. Co2 1-2 degrees. A increase of .085% Co2. .085% Why isnt it up 4% per year every year from the 1930s? Hmmmmm???? Where does it go?

Oceans? Forests?

Now say you cut down 2/3rds of the worlds forests, (responisble in total for about 220 gigatons of CO2 lock up a year) would CO2 levels rise?

I know I am wasting my time. I hope some people see this and take a look at the lies they are being fed about \\"global warming\\"

I don't have the answers to the questions you're asking. Even if I did know, I doubt I would be able to answer them to your satisfaction on an internet message board. It's not just about co2, obviously. There are lots of human factors that are contributing, vast expanses of concrete that is replacing foliage, de-forestation, cattle farming, other pollutants, etc...

I do think it's kind of funny that you take a oil and gas man at his word, but you think the entire scientific community and most of the goverments on the planet are lying to you. You think there's a signifcant ammount of money bieng made on global warming compared to oil, gas and coal? What a laugh. :rof:

 

[TKarrade]

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:

A quick answer to your question... if you view the image url(right click)
http:// rhscardinals.net/pics/stratosphere_ozone_layer_sept_2006.jpg
One of those nice internet tricks you pick up over the years.

 

[wrightme43]

I don't have the answers to the questions you're asking. Even if I did know, I doubt I would be able to answer them to your satisfaction on an internet message board. It's not just about co2, obviously. There are lots of human factors that are contributing, vast expanses of concrete that is replacing foliage, de-forestation, cattle farming, other pollutants, etc...

I do think it's kind of funny that you take a oil and gas man at his word, but you think the entire scientific community and most of the goverments on the planet are lying to you. You think there's a signifcant ammount of money bieng made on global warming compared to oil, gas and coal? What a laugh. :rof:

I can assure you he is not the only person calling BS on it. I am calling BS on the CO2 forcing climate.
You spoke of basic physics when CO2 absorbs infrared (heat) It does not increase in line with CO2 level. It requires expotential increases in CO2 to maintain a linear increase in absorbtion.
Laugh all you want.
If you would look at it, you would see that its fishy.
The climate of the planet is in and has been in and will continue to be in a state of flux.
CO2 is the least of our worries but it is getting tons of attention, and LOTS of money.
Again I say.
Baseline .3% now .385% That is almost one whole 10th of one percent.

Oddly enough at .3% we had ice ages, and warm periods. Humans live better and breed better in the warm periods. We have more time to study, learn, and work on society when we are not freezing to death scratching to barely survive.

Now wanna do something about deforestation, and the urban heat sinks? Plant some freaking trees. LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of trees.

A mature (very rare now) forest is a outstanding cooling device that also ties massive amounts of carbon up.

 

[kemmer]

I can assure you he is not the only person calling BS on it. I am calling BS on the CO2 forcing climate.
You spoke of basic physics when CO2 absorbs infrared (heat) It does not increase in line with CO2 level. It requires expotential increases in CO2 to maintain a linear increase in absorbtion.
Laugh all you want.
If you would look at it, you would see that its fishy.
The climate of the planet is in and has been in and will continue to be in a state of flux.
CO2 is the least of our worries but it is getting tons of attention, and LOTS of money.
Again I say.
Baseline .3% now .385% That is almost one whole 10th of one percent.

Oddly enough at .3% we had ice ages, and warm periods. Humans live better and breed better in the warm periods. We have more time to study, learn, and work on society when we are not freezing to death scratching to barely survive.

Now wanna do something about deforestation, and the urban heat sinks? Plant some freaking trees. LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of trees.

A mature (very rare now) forest is a outstanding cooling device that also ties massive amounts of carbon up.

Who else is calling BS on human factors having a profound impact on global warming? I still haven't seen a study from a credible source that attributes the change we are experiencing to "the planet just doing it's thing".

At least we agree on something, planting trees is an important part of the solution. I have planted dozens of trees over the years, both on my own property and on public lands. I encourage my friends and neighbors to do the same.

Still, even if you don't believe in global warming, you have to agree that drastically reducing the amount of driving we do and finding cleaner sources of energy needs to be one of our highest priorities, if only to improve the horrible air quality in our cities.

 

[GastonJ]

95% of all scientists believe that man is responsible for global warming. 40% of the general population doesn't believe man is to blame. I think I'll side with the science community rather than the know nothings.

Global warming is not a new theory. Margaret Thatcher rallied Brits to fight global warming in the 80's.

Yes, there are natural cycles, but the temperature gains that we've seen are higher than the models suggest.

95%? do you have a number on that rather than a percentage? 31,000 US scientists have signed a peition with regards IPCC statements and the lack of evidence. If that 31,000 is teh 95% who don't believe in thee US, then the US has around 620,000 scientists?

What Margaret Thatcher did in the 1980's was to push any means to generate power as the way to go so that she could close coal mines and end the reliance on coal miners to supply the coal to coal fired power stations. That was out of pure self interest on her part in wanting to "beat the unions".

 

[dark_isz]

..........

 

[GodSpeedLuc]

this thread moves too fast for me to keep up anymore. lol.

it was 39 degrees this morning. my teeth were literally chattering riding on my way to school this morning. it's def colder much sooner than last year.