Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

global warming

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: global warming

    Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
    This is a stupid argument because no matter what governments or man does it will not change the situation in the least. Earth itself is responsible for 99.9% of the carbon released into the atmosphere, and there's plenty of proof to back that up.
    Back it up then. Who is to say that the .01% we contribute isn't enough to tip the scale in the wrong way? I can think of a lot of instances where .01% is a significant amount. Studies indicate that a mere 5 parts per billion in ground level ozone is the difference between healthy lungs and damaged lungs in developing humans.

    As permafrost thaws out, carbon is released which increases warming, which increases permafrost thawing. It's a feedback loop.

    No one is quite sure how much carbon the oceans are capable of absorbing, but the acidity level of the oceans is increasing to the point where sea life no longer is able to survive. Coral reefs are dying. The ocean food chain is crumbling at it's lowest level.

    Many nations are setting their sites or have already planted their flag in anticipation of the north pole cap thawing. Natural resources.

    Whether one chooses to believe the scientific community at large or a few scientists funded by entities with a vested interest in the status quo is obviously a personal decision. For my money, I'll go with the majority of independent scientists until someone can prove their conclusions incorrect.

    Regardless, there is no credible claim that global warming is not occurring. We know the climate on Earth is not static, it is constantly changing. What has not been observed before is the rapid change in such a short time span.

    Choosing to ignore the consequences of climate change is irresponsible and dangerous. IMO, going green is likely too little too late. At this point preparing for the inevitable rise in sea levels, increased storm severity, drought and famine is the prudent action to take.

    I want the deniers to be 100% correct. But if they are wrong, boy oh boy are we in for trouble in a big way, grasshopper.

    So whats riskier, observing the preponderance of evidence and taking actions within our control, upsetting current industries but also creating new industries, or ignore the warning signs and kick the can down the road for future generations to manage?
    Last edited by SpiffPeters; 01-08-2010, 12:09 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: global warming

      Where is this preponderance of evidence? What makes you think your facts are more valid than anyone else's?
      The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that this warming is probably attributable to human influence has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries. No remaining scientific society is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.
      Maybe the scientists of every major country are just basing there opinion on a dart board but I'm willing to accept like all their other endeavors it is evidence based. I can go pull numerous studies off the web but personally I am not well equipped to argue scientific findings and defend them if questions arise. If you have a problem with the consensus of your nations scientific community feel free to take that argument to them.

      And I can argue the exact opposite
      Feel free. Like I said I'm not well equipped on the scientific end of things. I leave those arguments for actual scientists. If you need someone to poke holes in any argument you plan on bringing to the scientific community at large I'll do my best to help you.

      Where is the proof to back that up?
      Here is some polling data on the issue. My conclusion based on polling and personal experience is yes it is among the countries polled many would likely call you an idiot for your disbelief in AGW.

      http://people-press.org/report/280/l...global-warming

      Earth itself is responsible for 99.9% of the carbon released into the atmosphere
      Furthermore, mother earth itself contributes 99.5% of the so called carbon emissions with no help from any of us.
      Your number keeps changing so I looked for actual number and found 95% of co2 is naturally occurring. That number is however inclusive of human agriculture the percentages produced by farming and herding are much harder to quantify as farms both contribute to and reduce co2 in the atmosphere.

      I'll admit actually finding a percentage was more difficult so either of your numbers could be just as valid.

      The issue is not that we add CO2 to the atmosphere. The issue is there is a natural carbon cycle The earth can handle the percentage it produces through natural processes. Data shows it can even handle more then it naturally produces but it can not handle the current output of human society.

      A simple example If the earth can absorb 100 units of co2. The earth itself produces 95 units. Humanity produces 6 units. That leaves 1 unit in the atmosphere that can not be absorbed and will contribute to greenhouse gasses. Many have concluded that we need to regulate human activity down to at least 5 units because the earth isn't going to act on our advice concerning it's 95 units.

      I kinda of like the approach outlined in SuperFreakonomics. Which is accept we can't change the course humanity has chosen and develop new technologies to remove the excess. ie take 2 units and shove it somewhere other then the atmosphere. I support that route over conservation but until we develop such technologies or are even willing to do so, I have to er on the side of conservation.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: global warming

        Those that believe the globe is warming, that it is the result of CO2, that mankind is the reason for the CO2, and that we can have a real affect on it may want to peruse the following site for some scientific discussion on how much we know and don't know about the above:

        http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

        Examples of the questions posited are:

        Why was the global temp warmer in the mid 900s and during the Renaissance than now when CO2 levels were much lower?

        Why did CO2 levels start increasing before the industrial age and the invention of automobiles?

        What affect is the amount of solar radiation have on the temp and the CO2 amounts?

        What effect does fluctuations in Atlantic and Pacific tectonic plate boundary volcanic activity have on ocean/global temps?

        Just food for thought

        Go
        Practicing at practical wood working

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: global warming

          Originally posted by Gofor View Post
          Those that believe the globe is warming, that it is the result of CO2, that mankind is the reason for the CO2, and that we can have a real affect on it may want to peruse the following site for some scientific discussion on how much we know and don't know about the above:

          http://biocab.org/MGW_to_2006.html

          Examples of the questions posited are:

          Why was the global temp warmer in the mid 900s and during the Renaissance than now when CO2 levels were much lower?

          Why did CO2 levels start increasing before the industrial age and the invention of automobiles?

          What affect is the amount of solar radiation have on the temp and the CO2 amounts?

          What effect does fluctuations in Atlantic and Pacific tectonic plate boundary volcanic activity have on ocean/global temps?

          Just food for thought

          Go
          Mankind has seemed to have developed a need for "God Complex".

          It's cold in N.C.!

          J.C.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: global warming

            Okay, I looked at the biocab.org site. Interesting thoughts. Some more convincing than others.

            This article dismantles the 'consensus on global warming' claim and pretty much shows the IPCC to be a greatly flawed institution. Link.
            Last edited by SpiffPeters; 01-09-2010, 02:08 PM.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: global warming

              Originally posted by JCsPlumbing View Post
              Mankind has seemed to have developed a need for "God Complex".

              It's cold in N.C.!

              J.C.
              Roger the "God Complex". As far as the Earth is concerned, we are just another puny temporary inhabitant. If mankind's intelligence equaled its hubris and ego, we would probably be exploring the neighboring galaxies by now.

              And yes, its cold. They said we may get up into the 40's for the first time this year by next Wednesday. If we just used this place as an indicator, it would say we are headed for another Ice Age!!

              Go
              Last edited by Gofor; 01-09-2010, 07:10 PM.
              Practicing at practical wood working

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: global warming

                "But I do think the scientific community, the progressive community, environmentalists and media are making a serious mistake by using the word "consensus" to describe the shared understanding scientists have about the ever-worsening impacts that human-caused greenhouse gas emissions are having on this planet. When scientists and others say there is a consensus, many if not most people probably hear "consensus of opinion," which can -- and often is -- dismissed out of hand. I've met lots of people like CNBC anchor Joe Kernen, who simply can't believe that "as old as the planet is" that "puny, gnawing little humans" could possibly change the climate in "70 years."
                Well, Joe, it is more like 250 years, but yes, most of the damage to date was done in the last 70 years, and yes, as counterintuitive as it may seem, puny little humans are doing it, and it's going to get much, much worse unless we act soon. Consensus of opinion is irrelevant to science because reality is often counterintuitive -- just try studying quantum mechanics.

                Fortunately Kernen wasn't around when scientists were warning that puny little humans were destroying the Earth's protective ozone layer. Otherwise we might never have banned chlorofluorocarbons in time"

                Joseph Romm


                Last edited by SpiffPeters; 01-09-2010, 07:39 PM.

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: global warming

                  The problem with the word "consensus" is that it basically is saying "case closed" no reason to investigate further.
                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: global warming

                    This is nothing more than religious extremism.

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

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: global warming

                      Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                      The problem with the word "consensus" is that it basically is saying "case closed" no reason to investigate further.
                      Perhaps to you.

                      My interpretation of consensus is that a majority agree in principle.

                      It isn't as if someone decided that global warming was occurring and fixed a government report or two. The volume of data, the scope of the data sources (glacier melt, ocean temperature -surface and depths, atmospheric temperatures, sunlight, land temperatures, ocean currents...) the number of concurrent independent studies and peer reviews satify me that no conspiracy is taking place. In light of the staggering volume of information available from independent sources, to not believe global warming is occurring and is primarily caused by human activity, I find the only way to deny it is to subscribe to a conspiracy theory. A theory of a theory.

                      I would disagree with the religious extremism remark. But I would agree that when it comes to religious extremism, the only people that recognize it are those on the outside looking in or having to live with the attitudes and actions of those wrapped up in the throes of the god.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: global warming

                        I'm getting older. Along with losing my looks, my teeth have left and my hair. I can't work like I used to. The earth is no different. Are you proposing that I drive a gas powered jelly bean to thwart this? My take is that vision is askew through religious theory.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: global warming

                          Stoke - I'm not suggesting you change your lifestyle in the least bit.

                          Claims that the science community is politicized or is full of zealots are not persuasive arguments to me. It boils down to nothing more than shooting the messenger. And when you look at those making the claim, it is obvious that politicization by zealots is their stoke in trade.

                          I am no more qualified to say that global warming is real than you or anyone else is qualified to say it is false. We all have our own opinion on the matter.

                          I base my opinion on the findings of the international science community.

                          Opposing opinions are based on findings offered by persons funded by entities with a vested interest in the status quo or by independent scientists that have unsuccessfully disproved the myriad mountains of evidence.

                          Let's put the deniers claims through the peer review system and see if it is still standing.
                          Last edited by SpiffPeters; 01-10-2010, 04:23 PM.

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: global warming

                            Originally posted by SpiffPeters View Post
                            Stoke - I'm not suggesting you can your lifestyle in the least bit.

                            Claims that the science community is politicized or is full of zealots are not persuasive arguments to me. It boils down to nothing more than shooting the messenger.

                            I am no more qualified to say that global warming is real than you or anyone else is qualified to say it is false. We all have our own opinion on the matter.

                            I base my opinion on the findings of the international science community.

                            Opposing opinions are based on findings offered by persons funded by entities with a vested interest in the status quo or by independent scientists that have unsuccessfully disproved the myriad mountains of evidence.

                            Let's put the deniers claims through the peer review system and see if it is still standing.
                            Many of us are old enough to remember when the findings of the international science community warned of Global Cooling. Who knows, perhaps if we wait another 100-years the trend will switch to cooling again.

                            Mark
                            "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

                            I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: global warming

                              Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
                              Many of us are old enough to remember when the findings of the international science community warned of Global Cooling. Who knows, perhaps if we wait another 100-years the trend will switch to cooling again.

                              Mark
                              I believe I have the reason global warming is easier to sell to the public than global cooling. JUST A THEORY. we are completely unacclimated to the heat now that air conditioning is so available.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: global warming

                                Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
                                Many of us are old enough to remember when the findings of the international science community warned of Global Cooling.
                                Actually, this is incorrect.

                                Global cooling had little support in the scientific community. The hype was perpetrated by the media. In fact the very term (global cooling) wasn't even in much use before the global warming came to the fore. The term was introduced by global warming skeptics.
                                In order to understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X