Don't know about you, but the climate is getting fu...d up!

[oldagerocker]

You can't take a view on an issue from a fictional book and any 'truths' the author talks about throughout. An author will always research their evidence one way or the other to make the story and give the story some credibility and believability for the reader. Everyone jumped on the Da Vinci Code bandwagon, when its been prooved false.

You cant just take global temperatures over the last 100 years and say, 'look, its warming up we're all doomed' or 'its cooling down we're all doomed'. Because there are other indicators of increased global warming, the increase in co2 in the atmosphere itself is a sign of an increase of temperature, whereever it manifests itself according to the atmosphere.

 

[GhostFox]

the increase in co2 in the atmosphere itself is a sign of an increase of temperature

Let's say you are correct. OK?

Would you also agree that there is more CO2 now then ever before in the atmosphere? With all the polluting from our cars and such, right?

So then would you please explain why the 13th century, for instance, was so much warmer then the 20th? After all, if CO2 is the cause, shouldn't the planet be getting warmer as more is added to the atmosphere?

 

[oldagerocker]

There are more reasons than CO2 for an increase or decrease in temperature. Can you give accurate temperature measurements for the 13th century? The first themometer was invented in the 1700's.

Its unknown what increased CO2 emmisions will do, the most logical answer is warming through the greenhouse effect, but there are variables and unknown, how much of this Co2 will be taken up by Vegetation? Oceans? and other sinks?... we dont really know for sure. Although warmer oceans store less CO2, so an increase in temperature within the ocean would make it a less efficient sink of Carbon, and more in the atmosphere... increasing the temperature.

Climate change is happening, but how we arent entirely sure. Increased global warming is our best bet at the moment and such an influence the human population has on the world has to be having some effect from the normal cycle.

 

[GhostFox]

There are more reasons than CO2 for an increase or decrease in temperature.

Ah, so you are admitting that if Global Warming does occur, it is entierly likely that it is wholly natural and not because of CO2? I'm glad to see you came around.

 

[Blakeb155]

This thread is full of intelligent things so I thought I'd add 4 un-intelligent words:

The Day After Tomorrow.

 

[KoreBolteR]

i notice aswell that the UK has had very little rain in 2005, this is rather strange, since we normally recieve loads at the start of the year....

how will we be able to prevent the oceans rising?
how could we prevent another tsunami (possibly going 3000 kph)?
how can we save lives from earthquakes striking urban and rural communities?


if we dont start doing something.. and fast, we are gonna be in trouble in 30 or so years time...

 

[Calanen]

I read somewhere that the Mann Hockey Curve or whatever it was which showed the spike in the temperature, was flawed data. Someone recently found that whatever temperatures u plugged into his mathmatical model,led to the same conclusion, that the temperature was rising. I can't find that article, but post another critique of it.

If u can stand the science, look at http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/hockey.htm

 

[kirovman]

Global Warming is a global thing, not a local thing.

Whereas the average global temperature may increase 1C , that is not to say the Earth is uniformly increased 1C everywhere.

One example of the effects of a cooling as a result of global warming is the assertion that polar ice will melt, disrupting the flow of the north Atlantic Gulf Stream, causing North Europe to be much colder, comparable with Siberia, which is on the same latitude.

also check out the met-office (respected, high profile) http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html

Of course you will have temperature cooling in localities. It is inevitable (unless our atmosphere superheated)

 

[kmack]

Fat Tony, please don't discuss a topic you know nothing about. In the last 150 years, most weather stations have shown a decline in tempature, not an increase. The threat of global warming is a myth perpatrated by enviromentalists. DDT will give you cancer too, right?

Guess what, global warming leads to an overall increase of temperature, thanks for not only disproving your point, but also proving YOUR lack of research.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Would be nice if we got snow over here in New Mexico.

Its not nice, your balls shrink in the cold weather

Its unusual here. Its snowing in the east side of the UK but not in the west.

 

[Razor]

Ghostfox, i would love to ask how you know so much about the temperature in the 13th Century?

Ghostfox, it does seem that the http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/Articles/2000/hockey.htm link supports your claims of a warm early millenia, cold later millenia, and then heating over the past 90years or so. But if this is correct and the results on the website are correct, why is it that scientists still say the global warming is artificially made by man?

 

[kmack]

Ghostfox, i would love to ask how you know so much about the temperature in the 13th Century?

Tapes from weather forecasts from 1245? A lot of that comes from studies of the polar icecaps, those same studies lead researchers to believe in global warming hmmmmm

 

[kirovman]

The 13th Century warming is attributed to a high level of dust in the atmosphere, from one of the biggest volcanic explosions known in history. I think the volcano was in Indonesia, but skies were reportedly darkened in Europe.

I'll give you a brief explanation of the greenhouse effect.

The surface of the earth is heated by the sun. The Earth's atmosphere is pretty much transparent to Solar radiation, but Infra-red radiation emitted by the Earth's surface is easily absorbed, by water vapour, CO2, and a few other gases.

Without an atmosphere, our planet's surface would be -15C on average, but it is higher in reality, due to heating of the atmosphere, from the earth's surface.

Venus should be -46C (sounds weird yes, but it has a much higher albedo than Earth). But it is about 420C in reality. That is all oweing to greenhouse gases, there is a high proportion of CO2 compared to other gases, which absorbs a great deal of the heat.

So the fear is that we are increasing the proportions of greenhouse gases, so we may encounter a "runaway" effect like Venus.

It is either that or we will create a negative feedback effect and descend into another ice age.

Nuclear Winter theory suggests that a high proportion of "soot" or dust particles in the atmosphere will block out all of the sun, so the earth's surface will not be heated at all. That would be extreme coal burning though, that is not likely to happen.

But it's very nieve to sit here and say that we are not having any effect on the planet, and to suggest we should throw caution to the wind.

The radiation balance of earth is in question, it seems we are gradually getting a net influx, which could become less gradual and more runaway in the future, if energy demands continue without shifting to cleaner fuels.

PS I am not an environmentalist, I love oil slicks and dead seagulls on the beach. My views are of excessive global warming are simply based on my lecture notes which I have in front of me.

 

[GhostFox]

Ghostfox, i would love to ask how you know so much about the temperature in the 13th Century?

Data from enviromental records is as good as a thermometer.

But if this is correct and the results on the website are correct, why is it that scientists still say the global warming is artificially made by man?

Because they believe in a cause regardless of the evidence. Enviromentalism is not a science. It is a religion. These people will defend global warming against all evidence like a devout catholic would defend the existance of god. Again, I ask why DDT is banned? It is less harmful then the chemical that replaced it, and it was much more effective. 50 million people have died of mosquito born diseases unnecessicaily since DDT was black balled by enviromentalists.

Start doing some reseach there. Then once you realize these people are religious fanatics, not scientists, move on to global warming.

In the end I am not saying that global warming is impossible. There is just no science to back up it's existence today. Only "faith". I recogize the theory behind greenhouse gasses as basically correct. However there is one problem with it. We all know that oil spills are damaging to the ocean and enviroment, right? Does that in turn mean that if I put a teaspoon of oil into the atlantic, the whole east coast will suffer terrible effects? No you say? But my theory was correct. Oil spills are damaging. How could I be wrong? What could I be missing here?

 

[The Mullinator]

Data from enviromental records is as good as a thermometer.



Because they believe in a cause regardless of the evidence. Enviromentalism is not a science. It is a religion. These people will defend global warming against all evidence like a devout catholic would defend the existance of god. Again, I ask why DDT is banned? It is less harmful then the chemical that replaced it, and it was much more effective. 50 million people have died of mosquito born diseases unnecessicaily since DDT was black balled by enviromentalists.

Start doing some reseach there. Then once you realize these people are religious fanatics, not scientists, move on to global warming.

In the end I am not saying that global warming is impossible. There is just no science to back up it's existence today. Only "faith". I recogize the theory behind greenhouse gasses as basically correct. However there is one problem with it. We all know that oil spills are damaging to the ocean and enviroment, right? Does that in turn mean that if I put a teaspoon of oil into the atlantic, the whole east coast will suffer terrible effects? No you say? But my theory was correct. Oil spills are damaging. How could I be wrong? What could I be missing here?

The only "science" you have even shown us are those graphs that don't help your point at all because of reasons already described in this thread. You keep on saying that the science is out there but you havn't even shown any of it. You keep on saying that global warming is impossible but you have provided absolutely no reason for us to believe you aside from your word which until you show some actual evidence or credible sources has no meaning whatsoever.

You are no expert in the subject and as a result you can't just say something and expect everyone to believe you until you provide some support for your opinion.

 

[Shamrock]

I still say its Global Warming.

 

[GhostFox]

You are no expert in the subject and as a result you can't just say something and expect everyone to believe you until you provide some support for your opinion.

I already stated before that there is nothing to debate here. You could find hundreds of publications supporting my assertions in 15 seconds if you wanted to. However, like I said before, this isn't about science. Enviromentalism is a religion. You can present all the evidence in the world to someone that God doesn't exist and they will still believe. So there is no point in posting the scientific backing, because if you don't want to believe it, you won't. The graph's prove this. Indisputible proof taken from all over the planet that the average tempature is cooling, and you just brush it off. I am not going to do your research for you, because you will brush it off the same.

While I encourage you to do research on your own and discover the truth about the "science" behind global warming, you are also perfectly welcome to continue being a pawn to the enviromentalists. I'm not here to convince you. Only to make you aware.The information is out there. The choice to use it is yours.

 

[The Mullinator]

I already stated before that there is nothing to debate here.

If there was nothing to debate then there wouldn't be any scientific debate right now which unless you have been living under a rock for the last few years would be made plainly obvious that there is plenty of debate.

You could find hundreds of publications supporting my assertions in 15 seconds if you wanted to.

Ya I did find a few publications and all of them were written by people who weren't climatologists (the people who actually study the science we are looking at here) and after a bit of searching I found that all of them were working for intitutes and private interest groups who just so happen to recieve funding from oil companies. Ya that is a non-biased opinion I can trust. :upstare:

However, like I said before, this isn't about science. Enviromentalism is a religion. You can present all the evidence in the world to someone that God doesn't exist and they will still believe.

Unless you havn't noticed I have been posting articles that use data collected BY SCIENTISTS. None of the articles I posted come from environmentalist websites or groups so I don't know why you insist on thinking that its just environmentalists.

So there is no point in posting the scientific backing, because if you don't want to believe it, you won't.

You mean like how I have been posting plenty of scientifically backed articles that you have simply ignored or refuse to believe?

The graph's prove this. Indisputible proof taken from all over the planet that the average tempature is cooling, and you just brush it off.

:sigh: remember we already disproved your graphs for you. You have simply ignored it. Here it is another source of information for you (an extremelly non-biased sourced too) to show why your graphs don't mean anything at all:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century.

I am not going to do your research for you, because you will brush it off the same.

Yet I HAVE done the research for you and yet you have brushed every single piece of it off. The only stuff I can find to support your ideas like I already said come from special interest groups who usually get funding from oil companies. They are not un-biased scientists.

While I encourage you to do research on your own and discover the truth about the "science" behind global warming, you are also perfectly welcome to continue being a pawn to the enviromentalists. I'm not here to convince you. Only to make you aware.The information is out there. The choice to use it is yours.

So the majority of un-biased scientists out there are also "pawns" of environmentalists? Give me a break.

 

[Scoobnfl]

So what!!!!!

If the earth is warming who cares? If it's cooling who cares?

It's been warming up and cooling down throughout the entire life of the planet.

I mean the earth positively had to go through a period of global warming to end the ice ages that occur every 100,000 thousand years or so, and then there must be some sort of cooling period after the warming period so that in roughly another 100,000 years we get another ice age.

Our effect on this planet is miniscule.

 

[kirovman]

So what!!!!!

If the earth is warming who cares? If it's cooling who cares?

It's been warming up and cooling down throughout the entire life of the planet.

I mean the earth positively had to go through a period of global warming to end the ice ages that occur every 100,000 thousand years or so, and then there must be some sort of cooling period after the warming period so that in roughly another 100,000 years we get another ice age.

Our effect on this planet is miniscule.

And species have been wiped out through climate change.

Our significance to the planet is miniscule, the world doesn't care if we live or survive.
So we need take care of ourselves.

Also future generations (if life survives that long) will not be comforted by the knowledge that "hey who cares if the sun goes supernova, every star does it" (although that's something we don't have an influence over.)

Out impact to this planet maybe miniscule (as one humourous website put it:

The Earth was built to last. It is a 4,550,000,000-year-old, 5,973,600,000,000,000,000,000-tonne ball of iron. It has taken more devastating asteroid hits in its lifetime than you've had hot dinners, and lo, it still orbits merrily. So my first piece of advice to you, dear would-be Earth-destroyer, is: do NOT think this will be easy.

So sure the earth is not easy to destroy. Destroying the biosphere is another matter though, or at least seriously altering it.

We could probably kill all life on earth if we detonated enough nukes in the right way. Although you're not going to make a fraction of a difference to the physical earth itself.

 

[Fat Tony!]

There is evidence from Ice cores that temperature naturally fluctuates from ice age to ice age every 10000 years or so, however a significant change in this pattern has started to occur...

Either way you can't argue either way, human knowledge on climate and weather is poor so either of the arguements could be correct but you find the majority of scientists support global warming, the majority of evidence points to global warming however many don't want to agree with it because they can't be bothered and there is a chance that it is wrong, well sure thats true but pollution has many other side effects too: acid rain, asthma, lung cancer, etc...
Deforestation means: loss of habitat, increased flooding, loss of tourism, loss of a "water purification plant", loss of potenial for research and medicine.

So either way supporting it is a good thing and it's most likely true, so try and take a less biased view and look at the evidence instead of blanking it

 

[kmack]

2004 was the fourth warmest year in recorded history.

scientists attribute the warming to an overall trend in increasing greenhouse gasses.

oh, thats right, global warming doesnt exist.

(source "Discover" magazine April 2005 edition)

 

[BirdMan]

We never had so little snow here in Quebec in I don't know how many decades. 15 years ago we used to have -25o C often in Quebec. Now we are happy if it drops less than -15oC. There is Global warming, and I'm one of those who feels it. It keeps getting worse every year in Quebec, I couldn't stand someday to have my nation without snow in November. Heck, we even had 0's in December. That's what you call ****ed up weather.

 

[WaterMelon34]

I dunno about you guys but Vancouver is having record high temperatures, and it's not just one day out of every month that's warm but it's still winter and the temperatures are reaching to almost 20 degrees celcius. Also, it hardly snowed this winter which is odd because usually we get like 2-3 feet of snow. People already started planting palm trees by the beach

man **** the snow i'm sun tanning :cheers:

actually I don't think this will last too long, doesn't the sun give off messed up heat waves every 4 centuries or something? I think it has something to do with lots of sun spots forming over the course of time...

global warming isn't the worst thing that could happen... I've heard of mega tsunami's that are made after islands collapse, and they are usually 1-3 kilometers tall. now that is ****ing scary... imagine a giant wall that you cant see past that is coming towards you and is about to cave in on you. lol and imagine all the shocked swimmers just casually laying in the water on their backs enjoying the ocean to soon find out they are laying on sand where 5 seconds ago there was 10 feet of water.

"wtf?" *turns head* "holy sh..."

well I doubt that would happen that way, you could probably see it from 100 miles away.

 

[Sprafa]

If Global Warming isn't real GhostFox, you should warn half of the World they should leave the Kyoto Protocol. Including Russia, the EU... Even the convervative hawks say they won't sign Kyoto because it would harm the economy, not because Global Warming is BS.

For the Grand Finale, lemme tell you that scientists from your side asserted that the reasons Oceans are getting warmer is UNDEANIABLY due to the increase in greenhouse gases. They found it impossible to divert to any other logical explanation.

 

[Pogrom]

In Sydney, Australia too - the climate is getting stranger and stranger.

Winter - normally our wettest time of the year. But last winter we had an average temperature of 20-25C and the lowest ever rainfall ever recorded for June/July/August.

Summer - Most days over 30C - usually 35+. But this summer we've had the odd day of heat, surrounded by plenty of days at 20C or below. Accompanied by some of the biggest storms ever (hail and whatnot).

Add to that we are still in our worst drought ever. I'd say climate change is a real and potent force. I've lived in Sydney most of my 23 years, and the weather has just gone crazy in the last couple.

 

[dfc05]

Again, I ask why DDT is banned? It is less harmful then the chemical that replaced it, and it was much more effective. 50 million people have died of mosquito born diseases unnecessicaily since DDT was black balled by enviromentalists.

Start doing some reseach there. Then once you realize these people are religious fanatics, not scientists, move on to global warming.

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/success/biologue.html

Should we threaten the survival of another species (and, potentially, further upset the ecosystem) for our precious pesticide?
Of course that's a subjective question, but then is "biomagnification" scientific or religious? How about algae blooms caused by an excess of fertilizers in the water (which has been shown experimentally by physically dividing off sections of lakes and seeing what happens)? Is that purely religious too? When that algae dies off and oxygen levels decrease from their decomposition and you end up with a lake full of dead fish floating on the water with their silvery bodies choking the water, presenting the ideal photograph for your biology textbook's chapter on Ecology... is that not scientific? Why, but then there's no fish left for people to eat! So we shouldn't fill our runoff with fertilizer! Well, then, why should we run DDT through our streams and allow it to collect in the tissues of eagles?

.....Anyways, the weather stuff here in Houston is getting pretty strange too (although I can't remember if it was just as strange fifteen years ago or not). It snowed a bit in Galveston last December (Christmas Eve actually). I don't remember it snowing any around here since maybe ten years ago. Raining gets messed up too -- seems like there's been more flooding. Of course, Houston is not so great in itself, since we have so much pollution here anyways, so much so that people get allergies when they come here and lose them when they leave. All that pollution does make for pretty sunsets though .

I don't really have anything to say about global warming. Y'all know a lot more about it than I do. All of your discussions are interesting . I just got a little upset about the DDT comments, and "environmentalism as a religion." Sure, you can lead an environmental lifestyle, but I don't see the entire field of environmentalism as a "religion." That's kind of overstepping it since there are varying levels of environmentalism. Not all "environmentalists" are extremists. Some of us just like to go around planting trees and voluntarily picking up trash at the beach (March 12, to all of you in Texas :cheese, and there's no harm in that.