A discussion of Global Warming

[Reveilled]

Thanks for your input 213374U, I definitely agree to most of what you said.  But I would like to clarify that while direct effect of acidty of ocean water would probably be very small, it still make the ocean envirionment slightly less suitable for marine life (and marine life in general is very sensitive to pH changes).  But I think the biggest concerns though, is that the over-fishing, pollution, oil-dump, oil-spills, etc already put enough stress onto the ecosystem already, we do not need acidified ocean water to make it even more difficult to cope with the current challenges.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps, though, if CO2 isn't such of a problem, we might be able to make a bigger difference by taking the huge amount of resources we use to tackle carbon emissions and instead using them to combat water pollution and better control of oil.

[WITHTEETH]

Life can adapt, as im sure you already know this. life finds a way. but when the change is to rapid chances are slimmer. I agree with many of you and appreciate your expertise so that i can have this learning experience :D someone mentioned a over population problem and i would agree with that. is it wrong to think of people limiting how many children they should have? that seems like a tough call to regulate life for the greater cause.

 

Edit: we are goiong over this stuff for my next exam. so this is great for reinforcing my memory.

[random evil guy]

it is known for a fact that humans affect the climate. the temperature is rising and this is most likely largely due to human activity. what is uncertain, are the effects of such changes.

 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....ties.html#known

[213374U]

it is known for a fact that humans affect the climate.

True, if only literally.

 

 

the temperature is rising and this is most likely largely due to human activity.

"Proof, please?"

 

[random evil guy]

it is known for a fact that humans affect the climate.

True, if only literally.

 

 

the temperature is rising and this is most likely largely due to human activity.

"Proof, please?"

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

did u even read the link?

 

"Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

[Rosbjerg]

of course we influence it, but the question is how much .. I hate the fact that goverments use this theory to instill fear into the population and blows it out of proportion.. and alot of evidence contradicts the world famous "greenhouse theory"! It has become such a pop-icon of science and everyone who agrees are automatically considered intelligent and "in"! People are just taking these kind of things as facts without actually taking the time to research it through..

[213374U]

did u even read the link?

 

"Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

No, that is not proof. In fact, you copied that from "what's likely but not certain?", meaning those are just theories, justified under certain interpretations of data. The validity of that data, and the validity of the interpretations and therefore the conclusions themselves, is highly debatable.

 

Again, show me proof.

[random evil guy]

did u even read the link?

 

"Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

No, that is not proof. In fact, you copied that from "what's likely but not certain?", meaning those are just theories, justified under certain interpretations of data. The validity of that data, and the validity of the interpretations and therefore the conclusions themselves, is highly debatable.

 

Again, show me proof.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

a proof of what? are you retarded?

 

i said:

"the temperature is rising and this is most likely largely due to human activity."

 

then you replied:

"Proof, please?"

 

i gave you where i got it from. i don't know if you're a total moron or not, but you really should pay more attention. i never claimed this was a proven fact. i said it was "LIKELY". get it...?

[random evil guy]

of course we influence it, but the question is how much .. I hate the fact that goverments use this theory to instill fear into the population and blows it out of proportion.. and alot of evidence contradicts the world famous "greenhouse theory"! It has become such a pop-icon of science and everyone who agrees are automatically considered intelligent and "in"! People are just taking these kind of things as facts without actually taking the time to research it through..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, why listen to scientists who actually know what they're talking about, when we have geniuses like yourself telling us otherwise... i mean, it is not 100% certain. let's just say "screw the environment". what happens, happens...

[WITHTEETH]

Relax Random Evil guy, lets keep this thread frlom not getting "Moderated" ok?

[The Elite_elite]

of course we influence it, but the question is how much .. I hate the fact that goverments use this theory to instill fear into the population and blows it out of proportion.. and alot of evidence contradicts the world famous "greenhouse theory"! It has become such a pop-icon of science and everyone who agrees are automatically considered intelligent and "in"! People are just taking these kind of things as facts without actually taking the time to research it through..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, why listen to scientists who actually know what they're talking about, when we have geniuses like yourself telling us otherwise... i mean, it is not 100% certain. let's just say "screw the environment". what happens, happens...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh. I forgot that when you're a scientist that means you always know what you're talking about and therefore makes everything you say most likely true.

[WITHTEETH]

of course we influence it, but the question is how much .. I hate the fact that goverments use this theory to instill fear into the population and blows it out of proportion.. and alot of evidence contradicts the world famous "greenhouse theory"! It has become such a pop-icon of science and everyone who agrees are automatically considered intelligent and "in"! People are just taking these kind of things as facts without actually taking the time to research it through..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, why listen to scientists who actually know what they're talking about, when we have geniuses like yourself telling us otherwise... i mean, it is not 100% certain. let's just say "screw the environment". what happens, happens...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh. I forgot that when you're a scientist that means you always know what you're talking about and therefore makes everything you say most likely true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That is a valid point! And one of the only downsides of science. are there any other downsides of scince, i can't seem to remember.

 

i know people tend to think if its not scientifically proven then its not possible. and what this person stated above.

[Rosbjerg]

of course we influence it, but the question is how much .. I hate the fact that goverments use this theory to instill fear into the population and blows it out of proportion.. and alot of evidence contradicts the world famous "greenhouse theory"! It has become such a pop-icon of science and everyone who agrees are automatically considered intelligent and "in"! People are just taking these kind of things as facts without actually taking the time to research it through..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah, why listen to scientists who actually know what they're talking about, when we have geniuses like yourself telling us otherwise... i mean, it is not 100% certain. let's just say "screw the environment". what happens, happens...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I just want you to think for yourself .. guess that's too much to ask for?

I provided you with alot of information and a link to page where 17000+ scientists are claiming that The Greenhouse Theory is an exaggeration and that indications are that a higher concentration of CO

[random evil guy]

ok, the article was interesting until i read this:

 

"David Holcberg, a former civil engineer, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute"

 

are you f*cking kidding me? a guy from the ayn rand institute....? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

edit:

heartland.org is a consevative think tank? you don't think they could be biased? i will check out your last link later, but by the looks of it, it seems pretty biased as well(look at the articles)...

[213374U]

a proof of what? are you retarded?

 

i said:

"the temperature is rising and this is most likely largely due to human activity."

 

then you replied:

"Proof, please?"

 

i gave you where i got it from. i don't know if you're a total moron or not, but you really should pay more attention. i never claimed this was a proven fact. i said it was "LIKELY". get it...?

Oh. I get it now. Well, you see, judging from your posting, it's likely you are just a frustrated assmaster. See, since it's just "likely", and not a proven fact (but it should be pretty evident to anyone with half a brain) I don't need to prove it, or even back it up any further.

[Scrogdog]

One could say that they do not beleive that humans are a major influence to global warming. But you can't say that you disbelieve in global warming itself, because it's a documented fact.

 

What is not understood are the MECHANISMS of global warming.

 

Now, what I'm about to say does not mean that I am a wanton polluter. My case is made in the interest of what is proper science ONLY.

 

The scientific method goes like this;

 

Obeservation (such as; an apple falls to the ground)

 

Question or idea (like; why does an apple fall to the ground)

 

Theory (maybe some force is pulling it down)

 

Experimentation.

 

We have seen all from climatologists EXCEPT experimentation. Is it thier fault? No way. You show me how to set up an expirement in our atmosphere that shows that X parts per billion of C02 causes N effect. Can't be done right now. So, we turn to the use of models.

 

But, wait a sec. Weather and climate are poorly understood systems. They MAY even be chaotic systems - no one is sure. So, what are we modeling, exactly? And how can we make dire predictions based on that?

 

Answer: we can't. And strictly speaking, global warming models are not science.

 

Look at it this way, I know arsenic is poison and can demonstrate it. Let's say that I did not yet know that the dose makes the poison, but I had a theory that if diluted, I could take arsenics power as a poison away. But wait, how would I prove my theory if there were no water around in which to do it? Does knowing the properties of arsenic help us?

 

Same thing with C02. We know the properties in a lab, but are unable to conduct experiment in the proper environment. We can't say that we know what happens when you add C02 in to the "solution" known as our atmosphere.

 

Models and extrapolations of logic are NOT proper science. So I wish that activist scientists would stop acting like we are talking about a sure thing. Even so, I can use meaningless logical extrapolation too. Like this; according to Greenpeace, an activist organization, humans account for about 4% of all the C02 generated by all sources. Sound meaningful? How's this, 95% of Earth's greenhouse gas is a little thing called water vapor - something we can neither affect nor control. Logically, then, C02 takes up some part of the other 5%. Just to make a point, let's say it is ALL of the remaining 5%. By my fuzzy math, that still means that humans generate a FRACTION of 1% of all of the Earth's greenhouse gas! To say that has a major effect on the situation today is presumptious to the extreme.

 

Note that I'm not saying that these climatologists are wrong, just that they are WAY overstating the case IMHO.

[Rosbjerg]

exactly Scrogdog! which was my point .. to shed some light on the subject, I think too many are simply accepting it because it's illustrated logically .. but without all the data we can never know for sure!

 

I don't believe we are causing the current effects .. but we are influencing it! I mean even though it's only 1% it still has an effect, but we need to be more realistic and more precise .. I'm not saying we should pollute away, but I just want governments to stop using The Greenhouse theory as an escape goat to pull away attention from bigger problems! and the fact that they are making money on it by taxation (in Denmark) makes it even worse imo..

[213374U]

One could say that they do not beleive that humans are a major influence to global warming. But you can't say that you disbelieve in global warming itself, because it's a documented fact.

 

What is not understood are the MECHANISMS of global warming.

[...]

 

Models and extrapolations of logic are NOT proper science. So I wish that activist scientists would stop acting like we are talking about a sure thing. Even so, I can use meaningless logical extrapolation too. Like this; according to Greenpeace, an activist organization, humans account for about 4% of all the C02 generated by all sources. Sound meaningful? How's this, 95% of Earth's greenhouse gas is a little thing called water vapor - something we can neither affect nor control. Logically, then, C02 takes up some part of the other 5%. Just to make a point, let's say it is ALL of the remaining 5%. By my fuzzy math, that still means that humans generate a FRACTION of 1% of all of the Earth's greenhouse gas! To say that has a major effect on the situation today is presumptious to the extreme.

 

Note that I'm not saying that these climatologists are wrong, just that they are WAY overstating the case IMHO.

[Matt Deller]

Not an expert certainly, but I did teach AP biology for 8 years, before taking my current job with Obsidian. Human influence upon our climate at this point is debatable. Considering automobile/factory emissions, turning the rainforest into a parking lot, the excessive numbers of livestock, all of these have undoubtedly played at least a minor role in hastening the global warming trend. I'm too lazy (and busy! Did I mention busy!?) at the current moment to track down cites from relevant literature to back these claims up, but the really important thing to consider is this:

 

 

Regardless of how much we argue about whether or not humans influence climate change on our planet, we cannot overlook this simple fact...humans are in a state of exponential growth. In 1999, we hit 6 billion. It is projected that only 50 years from now, we will hit 9 billion. It is irresponsible and disingenuous, to think that this surplus of human growth will not have an additional impact of some sort, upon our climate.

[Rosbjerg]

very true .. but I don't think CO

[213374U]

Indeed. Overpopulation and deforestation are much more serious problems IMO, and they don't get half the attention. But then again, those aren't as easy to deal with as CO2 emissions.

[Scrogdog]

Matt,

 

Yes, well, the problem with projections is that even if you get the science exactly right, you

[WITHTEETH]

Primary pollutants. Just giving you guys some numbers, i hjave to memorize these so it was good practice.

 

WHAT THEY ARE

Carbon Dioxide - 49.1%

Nitros Oxides - 14.8%

Sulfer Oxides - 16.4%

Volatile Organics - 13.6%

 

WHERE THEY COME FROM

Transportation - 46.2%

Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - 27.3%

Industrial Prosesses - 15%

Solid waste Disposal- 2.5%

Miscellaneous - 9%

 

Gases Composing Dry Air ( I tried to make this accuarte from a PIE )

Nitrogen 75%

Oxygen 22%

Carbon Dioxide .5%

Argon 2

Other .5%

[WITHTEETH]

What is this "Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - 27.3%"?

 

I heard the next power sourse for carrs is going to be a tweaked coal. thats bad news for the enviro. hmm we don't learn to fast, do we? did you know the first cfars were actually electric!

[213374U]

What is this "Stationary Source Fuel Combustion - 27.3%"? 

Probably it accounts for oil and coal combustion in electric centrals, oil combustion in house blocks for heating, and that sort of stuff.