Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:52 pm Posts: 1058 Location: Hong Kong
Funny that 95% of scientists think that the earth is heating up at a faster rate than any point in the earth’s history due to humans, yet all these armchair scientists call BS.
Must be all the meteorological and geological experiments you have done.
Funny that 95% of scientists think that the earth is heating up at a faster rate than any point in the earth’s history due to humans, yet all these armchair scientists call BS.
Must be all the meteorological and geological experiments you have done.
i would guess it due to how fucking cold its been the past two winters
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
Pollution is not doing us or any living thing a favor physiologically.
The earth, on the other hand, is quite a bit more resilent than its inhabitants.
The key is to conserve, not waste, and attempt to curb unnecessary pollution, not because of a global warming theory, but rather because it is helpful in keeping us and other living things healthy.
As far as global warming goes, based upon classes I have taken and limited reading on the subject, we are most likely experiencing a natural warming cycle.
Humans are impacting the environment, in terms of polluting lakes, rivers, streams, the oceans, the air, and land. This has a direct effect on creatures and things that live in or off of such things. As far as the global climate is concerned, I am less likely to believe that we have had an impact that large.
However, if we should have, say, a large-scale nuclear exchange (many thousands of warheads for example), I believe a global change could occur. Anything short of that, may not have as dire of consequences as some would have us believe.
Fossil fuels will become scarce down the line anyway, so the argument may become a bit moot eventually.
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
Pollution is not doing us or any living thing a favor physiologically.
The earth, on the other hand, is quite a bit more resilent than its inhabitants.
The key is to conserve, not waste, and attempt to curb unnecessary pollution, not because of a global warming theory, but rather because it is helpful in keeping us and other living things healthy.
As far as global warming goes, based upon classes I have taken and limited reading on the subject, we are most likely experiencing a natural warming cycle.
Humans are impacting the environment, in terms of polluting lakes, rivers, streams, the oceans, the air, and land. This has a direct effect on creatures and things that live in or off of such things. As far as the global climate is concerned, I am less likely to believe that we have had an impact that large.
However, if we should have, say, a large-scale nuclear exchange (many thousands of warheads for example), I believe a global change could occur. Anything short of that, may not have as dire of consequences as some would have us believe.
Fossile fuels will become scarce down the line anyway, so the argument may become a bit moot eventually.
I think I'm in love.
_________________ For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there but I wouldn't hold my breath
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
Man in Black wrote:
tsunami wrote:
Pollution is not doing us or any living thing a favor physiologically.
The earth, on the other hand, is quite a bit more resilent than its inhabitants.
The key is to conserve, not waste, and attempt to curb unnecessary pollution, not because of a global warming theory, but rather because it is helpful in keeping us and other living things healthy.
As far as global warming goes, based upon classes I have taken and limited reading on the subject, we are most likely experiencing a natural warming cycle.
Humans are impacting the environment, in terms of polluting lakes, rivers, streams, the oceans, the air, and land. This has a direct effect on creatures and things that live in or off of such things. As far as the global climate is concerned, I am less likely to believe that we have had an impact that large.
However, if we should have, say, a large-scale nuclear exchange (many thousands of warheads for example), I believe a global change could occur. Anything short of that, may not have as dire of consequences as some would have us believe.
Fossile fuels will become scarce down the line anyway, so the argument may become a bit moot eventually.
I think I'm in love.
Easy, boy!
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
I might as well throw in a couple things that have always made me skeptical about global warming being induced by humans:
--The composition of the atmosphere approximately consists of nitrogen at around 78%, oxygen at 20%, argon at 1%, and the rest at 1%. Furthermore, I woudl assume that there's a good division between natural and articifial CO2 within that fraction of a percent.
--The earth was actually cooling a tad from around the 1940s to the 1960s, and fossil fuels were still being burned back then.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:55 am Posts: 9080 Location: Londres
I'm not sure how long the traditional inhabitants of low-lying island countries like Maldives and Palau have been living there, but you just try explaining to them why the sea has crept up to their homes so quickly over the recent years.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Hinny wrote:
I'm not sure how long the traditional inhabitants of low-lying island countries like Maldives and Palau have been living there, but you just try explaining to them why the sea has crept up to their homes so quickly over the recent years.
I don't think the debate is really "Is global warming taking place?", but instead "Why is global warming taking place?"
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
Green Habit wrote:
Hinny wrote:
I'm not sure how long the traditional inhabitants of low-lying island countries like Maldives and Palau have been living there, but you just try explaining to them why the sea has crept up to their homes so quickly over the recent years.
I don't think the debate is really "Is global warming taking place?", but instead "Why is global warming taking place?"
EXACTLY
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:55 am Posts: 9080 Location: Londres
Green Habit wrote:
Hinny wrote:
I'm not sure how long the traditional inhabitants of low-lying island countries like Maldives and Palau have been living there, but you just try explaining to them why the sea has crept up to their homes so quickly over the recent years.
I don't think the debate is really "Is global warming taking place?", but instead "Why is global warming taking place?"
Sorry. I just thought it was pretty clear that it's a little from column A, and a little from column B.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 1918 Location: Ephrata
$úñ_DëV|L wrote:
We already have 3 inches of rain where I live in 2005, and our annual average is just over 8 inches. That's reason enough for me to believe that climates don't have to dictate any concrete laws about what temperatures and/or precipitation has to be....
I think you're using false logic here. You can't use a fluke season to predict what is occurring in the long term here.
Personally I am a bit shocked that so many people believe that global warming is a bunk theory. People have studied this for some time and the vast majority have come to the conclusion that the warming trend we are seeing is outside of the normal temperature changes we've seen in Earth's past. It's not so much the temp swing that is unusual, it's the coincidence with the rise in CO2 emissions and the time frame in which it has occurred.
If you don't think a few degrees Celsius is anything to worry about just remember that even a small swing like that can wreak havoc on our planting and harvesting cycles. Perhaps the most dangerous part of global warming is when the real small stuff, like bugs and diseases are able to spread outside of their traditional habitat because of a few degree swing.
For me the most bizarre part of the debate is why so many people are against making changes in order to stop global warming. Let's just say that the thousands of scientists and climatologists are wrong and there's no effect from our CO2 emissions, why don't we do it for the sake of our health? The worse part of greenhouse gases is what it's doing to our children in the major metropolitan areas. Since the advent of the car and fossil fuel burning, there's been a dramatic increase asthma in children.
So I guess my question is, why not do something just in case not only for the health of the planet but for our own health as well.
_________________ no need for those it's all over your clothes it's all over your face it's all over your nose
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 1918 Location: Ephrata
Green Habit wrote:
--The composition of the atmosphere approximately consists of nitrogen at around 78%, oxygen at 20%, argon at 1%, and the rest at 1%. Furthermore, I woudl assume that there's a good division between natural and articifial CO2 within that fraction of a percent.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Even at 1% the greenhouse gases have a major impact on our climate. You can't compare the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with the amount of other gases but rather compare the amount today with the amount 100 years ago.
I would think conservatives would be all over this one. Think of the money to be made in making things greener. The US could lead the way with this and sell green technology to the world. I would think they'd also do it strictly because it's a good way to combat the costs of health problems due to poor air quality.
_________________ no need for those it's all over your clothes it's all over your face it's all over your nose
We already have 3 inches of rain where I live in 2005, and our annual average is just over 8 inches. That's reason enough for me to believe that climates don't have to dictate any concrete laws about what temperatures and/or precipitation has to be....
I think you're using false logic here. You can't use a fluke season to predict what is occurring in the long term here.
Personally I am a bit shocked that so many people believe that global warming is a bunk theory. People have studied this for some time and the vast majority have come to the conclusion that the warming trend we are seeing is outside of the normal temperature changes we've seen in Earth's past. It's not so much the temp swing that is unusual, it's the coincidence with the rise in CO2 emissions and the time frame in which it has occurred.
If you don't think a few degrees Celsius is anything to worry about just remember that even a small swing like that can wreak havoc on our planting and harvesting cycles. Perhaps the most dangerous part of global warming is when the real small stuff, like bugs and diseases are able to spread outside of their traditional habitat because of a few degree swing.
For me the most bizarre part of the debate is why so many people are against making changes in order to stop global warming. Let's just say that the thousands of scientists and climatologists are wrong and there's no effect from our CO2 emissions, why don't we do it for the sake of our health? The worse part of greenhouse gases is what it's doing to our children in the major metropolitan areas. Since the advent of the car and fossil fuel burning, there's been a dramatic increase asthma in children.
So I guess my question is, why not do something just in case not only for the health of the planet but for our own health as well.
Question: what accounts for 97% of "greenhouse gases".
_________________ For your sake I hope heaven and hell are really there but I wouldn't hold my breath
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
gogol wrote:
Let's just say that the thousands of scientists and climatologists are wrong and there's no effect from our CO2 emissions, why don't we do it for the sake of our health?
Of course, one could also reverse that and say "We should ween ourselves off fossil fuels simply because it is a health hazard"
Let's also include that fossil fuels are a limited resource and some of them are obtained from "unfriendly" parts of the world. Also good reasong to ween off of them.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
gogol wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
--The composition of the atmosphere approximately consists of nitrogen at around 78%, oxygen at 20%, argon at 1%, and the rest at 1%. Furthermore, I woudl assume that there's a good division between natural and articifial CO2 within that fraction of a percent.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Even at 1% the greenhouse gases have a major impact on our climate. You can't compare the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere with the amount of other gases but rather compare the amount today with the amount 100 years ago.
Whoops, I left out a critical part that MIB has just alluded to.
gogol wrote:
I would think conservatives would be all over this one. Think of the money to be made in making things greener. The US could lead the way with this and sell green technology to the world. I would think they'd also do it strictly because it's a good way to combat the costs of health problems due to poor air quality.
Well, some business is gained from that, and some business is lost from the transactions of traditional models.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:12 am Posts: 1080 Location: boulder
I'll take a stab at these, Nick.
Green Habit wrote:
--The composition of the atmosphere approximately consists of nitrogen at around 78%, oxygen at 20%, argon at 1%, and the rest at 1%. Furthermore, I woudl assume that there's a good division between natural and articifial CO2 within that fraction of a percent.
Now think about how vast the earth is and realize that even a small percentage change is a HUGE amount of physical change. From the beginning of the industrial age until now, the levels of CO2 have increased by 30%. When you consider that the entire amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 14 billion tones, you realize just how significant this 30% is.
You can cite all the statistics you want to try to downplay the change but considering the size of the earth, it's frankly downright amazing that we have been able to pump out that much CO2 to make this kind of sizable change.
Green Habit wrote:
--The earth was actually cooling a tad from around the 1940s to the 1960s, and fossil fuels were still being burned back then.
That is a graph of oil production throughout our history. Look at the area of the graph up to 1960. Now look at the area of the graph up until 2005. We've used something like 30x more oil since 1960 than we had in the entire history of the earth up until 1960. And that's just oil; add in coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels.
Additionally, most scientists believe that the effects of CO2 result in positive feedback loops, so it'd be no surprise that it would take some time for the effects to become more significant than the "background noise". When the effects are less than the background noise, as during those years, anything can happen. But once the effects are greater...
Nick, how long are you going to wait for another period of cooling before you decide that maybe it's not coming? It's been 45 years since 1960 and we keep setting new records every year.
_________________ "my fading voice sings, of love..."
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum