NationStates Jolt Archive

So infra red radiation is absorbed by carbon the same way that microwave radiation is absorbed by hydrogen. What this actually means is that more carbon in the atmosphere will result in more energy retention by the atmosphere. We call this global warming. The problem is that by calling it "global warming" we imply that the effect of this energy retention will be that the earth will get warmer in a blanket sort of way meaning that every place will get warmer by approximately the same degree. Anyone familiar with the theory knows that this is not the case. Global warming, in fact, may result in a mini ice age in Europe as the Atlantic conveyor belt slows down and stops bringing warm, tropical air to Europe. The problem is that with the name "global warming" it allows a people to say things like, "If we're experiencing global warming then why are there record cold temperatures right now I the western States?" Or, "If there's global warming then why is the ice sheet in certain places thickening?" Anyone think they should have thought of a better name? They used to just call it the greenhouse effect. maybe they should have stuck with that.

How about Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life

MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL...easy to remember!

How about Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life

MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL...easy to remember!

Actually, you did hit on it. Would have ben better if they had just stuck with "climate change." It's more accurate and harder to assail with bad science.

Actually, you did hit on it. Would have ben better if they had just stuck with "climate change." It's more accurate and harder to assail with bad science.

Yup. It's generally what I say anyway, because some people like to make jokes about how they can't wait for global warming to cause Alberta to have winters like New Mexico.

Global Meltdown. But I have some doubts about the validity of the arguements for it.

How about Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life

MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL...easy to remember!

You can MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL me anytime.

I personally, don't want to completely object to the realities of "Global Warming" however, I personally feel that this is just another way to bring yet another fear tactic to the people on how this world will end. Kinda like Y2K the year we were all supposed to be dead and now it's what...year is 2007 Oh my... oh well.

I'm going to continue to live my life day to day. I'm going to continue to work between 40 and 70 hrs per week and be the Homebody I am when I'm not working. I do think this "Global Warming" is overrated with practically everything else we Humans do and cause.

How about Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life

MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL...easy to remember!
Or the even easier SWAPh; "Significant Weather Alteration Phenomenon". Which has the immortal mnemonic: "Shit, We're All Phucked."

climate change is far more accurate than simple global warming and people are behind it. It could very well be the greatest threat facing man today. I know cause I saw this thing on the history channel last night about it. nuclear war and astrocomets were close behind. The End is NIGH!

I personally, don't want to completely object to the realities of "Global Warming" however, I personally feel that this is just another way to bring yet another fear tactic to the people on how this world will end. Kinda like Y2K the year we were all supposed to be dead and now it's what...year is 2007 Oh my... oh well.

I'm going to continue to live my life day to day. I'm going to continue to work between 40 and 70 hrs per week and be the Homebody I am when I'm not working. I do think this "Global Warming" is overrated with practically everything else we Humans do and cause.

its that sort of attitude that will destory man kind.

You can MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL me anytime.

Keehehehehe...you know it baby!

I personally, don't want to completely object to the realities of "Global Warming" however, I personally feel that this is just another way to bring yet another fear tactic to the people on how this world will end. Kinda like Y2K the year we were all supposed to be dead and now it's what...year is 2007 Oh my... oh well.

I'm going to continue to live my life day to day. I'm going to continue to work between 40 and 70 hrs per week and be the Homebody I am when I'm not working. I do think this "Global Warming" is overrated with practically everything else we Humans do and cause.
It's certainly easy to be so overwhelmed by it that you just shrug it off, and live life...but if anything, you should look at the seriousness of the situation as an incentive to reflect on your lifestyle, and the general lifestyle of the majority of people in your nation. It's good to reexamine your priorities, especially in regards to consumerism, rather than accept consumerism at the current Western level as inevitable...no need to go around thinking the world is going to end and you can't do squat about it. Try making the 'norm' shift towards something more ecologically sustainable by making small changes in your habits. It's something at least.

climate change is far more accurate than simple global warming and people are behind it. It could very well be the greatest threat facing man today. I know cause I saw this thing on the history channel last night about it. nuclear war and astrocomets were close behind. The End is NIGH!

We had to write a letter as a person from 2059 on global warming and to warn present day people about its dangers, I wrote thanking them for their forsight and not bending to its will

We had to write a letter as a person from 2059 on global warming and to warn present day people about its dangers, I wrote thanking them for their forsight and not bending to its will

I wasn't aware Global Warming had a will it could bend us to.....

How about Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life

MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL...easy to remember!
Perfect!

We could also just call it Global Climate Change.

lets call it “super happy igloo temperature” or S.H.I.T for short :p

with bad science.

where would we be without bad science (http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/ear/mayer1a.jpg)

its that sort of attitude that will destory man kind.

Sorry, I must have missed "that sort of attitude" I must have...

The attitude of continueing to live my life to the fullest I can.....that didn't sound to bad to me.

If everybody only focused on the end of time or Doomsday then hell, we wouldn't get anything accomplished whether for the good or bad. I choose to continue my daily life as is and to the best of my ability to move myself forward and to continue to help anybody out that I possibly can even if it costs the shirt off my back. This is who I am, this is who I'll continue to be, and when I die this'll be what I'm remembered for.

What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet ...

Act 2, Scene II

Anthropogenic climate change is a complex subject with complicated ramifications and far more questions than answers.

Trying to come up with a short soundbyte-like name that will make it easily comprehensible to the majority of people is, in my opinion, a hopeless task.

Unless you call it the We're Fucked Climate Change. For short, you can say We"re Fucked!

C'mon guys we have too save Holland! Grab a bucket!

*Bails water*

It's certainly easy to be so overwhelmed by it that you just shrug it off, and live life...but if anything, you should look at the seriousness of the situation as an incentive to reflect on your lifestyle, and the general lifestyle of the majority of people in your nation. It's good to reexamine your priorities, especially in regards to consumerism, rather than accept consumerism at the current Western level as inevitable...no need to go around thinking the world is going to end and you can't do squat about it. Try making the 'norm' shift towards something more ecologically sustainable by making small changes in your habits. It's something at least.

If your asking me to give up my Full size Ford Bronco 4x4...I refuse. I love my Bronco, it's comfortable, has some luxury to it, and is very safe and stylish. Definately a keeper and this is coming from a Chevy Man...:p

Sorry, I must have missed "that sort of attitude" I must have...

The attitude of continueing to live my life to the fullest I can.....that didn't sound to bad to me.

If everybody only focused on the end of time or Doomsday then hell, we wouldn't get anything accomplished whether for the good or bad. I choose to continue my daily life as is and to the best of my ability to move myself forward and to continue to help anybody out that I possibly can even if it costs the shirt off my back. This is who I am, this is who I'll continue to be, and when I die this'll be what I'm remembered for.

You want to be remembered as ridiculously stubborn?

Perfect!

We could also just call it Global Climate Change.

Yes, if you're too simple-minded to appreciate the genius of what I suggested. *pouts*

If your asking me to give up my Full size Ford Bronco 4x4...I refuse. I love my Bronco, it's comfortable, has some luxury to it, and is very safe and stylish. Definately a keeper and this is coming from a Chevy Man...:p

And with any luck you'll have to pay green taxes through some orifice or other, to offset the damage your beloved Bronco does to the enviroment :)

If your asking me to give up my Full size Ford Bronco 4x4...I refuse. I love my Bronco, it's comfortable, has some luxury to it, and is very safe and stylish. Definately a keeper and this is coming from a Chevy Man...:p

That must have taken a lot of balls, going over to Ford as a self-proclaimed Chevy Man. You should be proud of yourself. Well, I'm off to not see the forest for the trees now.

Anthropogenic climate change is a complex subject with complicated ramifications and far more questions than answers.

Trying to come up with a short soundbyte-like name that will make it easily comprehensible to the majority of people is, in my opinion, a hopeless task.

Unless you call it the We're Fucked Climate Change. For short, you can say We"re Fucked!

Of course a name cannot tell you much about what it is naming, but "global warming" is misleadingly simplistic.

How about, "Hotsy Totsy Coldsy Frozy"?

So infra red radiation is absorbed by carbon the same way that microwave radiation is absorbed by hydrogen. What this actually means is that more carbon in the atmosphere will result in more energy retention by the atmosphere. We call this global warming. The problem is that by calling it "global warming" we imply that the effect of this energy retention will be that the earth will get warmer in a blanket sort of way meaning that every place will get warmer by approximately the same degree. Anyone familiar with the theory knows that this is not the case. Global warming, in fact, may result in a mini ice age in Europe as the Atlantic conveyor belt slows down and stops bringing warm, tropical air to Europe. The problem is that with the name "global warming" it allows a people to say things like, "If we're experiencing global warming then why are there record cold temperatures right now I the western States?" Or, "If there's global warming then why is the ice sheet in certain places thickening?" Anyone think they should have thought of a better name? They used to just call it the greenhouse effect. maybe they should have stuck with that.
The names don't matter. It's people like you that renamed swamps as wetlands and bums as homeless people.

You want to be remembered as ridiculously stubborn?

That's my dad's fault....Damn...

Well, although I'm very stubborn I do mean well and do good among others. I'm always helping practically anybody who needs it out no matter how many times I get screwed over I still show other excess of compassion. No matter how many times I tell myself I need to stop and start helping myself out more than I do I still end up helping out others and putting others' needs over my own. I'll probably continue to tell myself this too and doing the opposite. Hopefully, one day I'll listen to myself for a change, we'll see...

That must have taken a lot of balls, going over to Ford as a self-proclaimed Chevy Man. You should be proud of yourself. Well, I'm off to not see the forest for the trees now.

Actually, I paid $2000 lower than the blue book value and got a personal loan thru my boss interest free. Funny thing how you mention "that must have taken a lot of balls," My truck has a set. I don't have them on though, waiting until I get my 33" tires.

The names don't matter. It's people like you that renamed swamps as wetlands and bums as homeless people.

Really? Swamps are wetlands and I still call them bums. :confused:

And you are proof that it does matter because either you simply don't understand the science or you were attempting to deliberately mislead people with your post about the ice sheets. If the phenomenon were just called climate change then pointing out a chage in climate, as you did, wouldn't be a refutation of the science.

The names don't matter. It's people like you that renamed swamps as wetlands and bums as homeless people.

So you don't understand that most homelessness is caused by mental instability and protecting entire eco-systems is not important to you. Not surprising.

The names don't matter. It's people like you that renamed swamps as wetlands and bums as homeless people.

Both good moves actually, proving that names do in fact have an impact. I'm going to pretend that you meant it that way, and applaud your intelligence.

How about Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life

MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL...easy to remember!

To me that reads as "MUNCH-MUNCH-MUCH-ROFL" so I couldn't have taken that seriously ;)

If your asking me to give up my Full size Ford Bronco 4x4...I refuse. I love my Bronco, it's comfortable, has some luxury to it, and is very safe and stylish. Definately a keeper and this is coming from a Chevy Man...:p

Actually, soon enough you'll be giving it up wether you like it or not.

Really? Swamps are wetlands and I still call them bums. :confused:

And you are proof that it does matter because either you simply don't understand the science or you were attempting to deliberately mislead people with your post about the ice sheets. If the phenomenon were just called climate change then pointing out a chage in climate, as you did, wouldn't be a refutation of the science.

I'm not convinced that he was trying to mislead people about the ice sheets. It brings important questions to the table. If that map is accurate, I seen much larger area thickening than I did melting by far.

The attitude of continueing to live my life to the fullest I can.....that didn't sound to bad to me.

If everybody only focused on the end of time or Doomsday then hell, we wouldn't get anything accomplished whether for the good or bad. I choose to continue my daily life as is and to the best of my ability to move myself forward and to continue to help anybody out that I possibly can even if it costs the shirt off my back. This is who I am, this is who I'll continue to be, and when I die this'll be what I'm remembered for.
How about, instead of focusing on the end of time or Doomsday, you focus on your children and your grandchildren? You know, the ones who will suffer in the long term because you refuse to do even just a little to try to change things now?

Actually, soon enough you'll be giving it up wether you like it or not.

Why? Is there an SUV/Truck ban about to become law I don't know about? or are you talking gas prices?

I'm not concerned with gas prices considering the fact I only live 4 miles from work. I have a decent paying job 40hrs/wk guaranteed plus I have side jobs that I work which fluctuates some but is completely in my control So totally I work anywheres from 40-70 hrs per week (average is atleast 50hrs/wk) and with me working as much as I do (friends call me a work-aholic) I'm a home body when I'm not working. Not sure I see where you can claim that I'm going to have to give it up by force whether I like to or not.

The only thing I foresee is when I go to buy my dream truck the New Chevy Silverado 4x4 Full size Truck but that isn't going to be for some time...

So, none of this could be caused by normal cyclical effects, such as el nino or la nina, which occurs on the average every 20 years or so? If I remember right, el nino and la nina have been documented to have world wide weather impacts. El nino is nothing new. It was named el nino by the Spanish Conquistadores in the western hemisphere, because they noticed that it starts around Christmas time. It was called el nino after the child Christ.

Also, wasn't ice covered Greenland called that by the Vikings a very long time ago, due to the way the warm climactic conditions. So, when I hear that global warming is the cause for the ice shelves in Greenland to be melting, all I can think of is, from Wikipedia.com, search for Greenland.

"The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland,"

"After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost."

Same for the Atlantic hurricane seasons. There are years that have little activity, and there are years that are terrible. These hurricane cycles are also every twenty years or so.

Of course, being 47 years of age, I have seen a lot of weather patterns that repeat themselves every so often, so I could be wrong. I have also heard for the last 30 years that we are either going thru global warming, or entering a new ice age.

The planet has a way to balance itself. If you look at the melting of the ice shelf in the South Pole or the Greenland ice shelf, you will notice that on one side it seems to the melting, but on the opposite side it seems to be growing. It is the way that the planet uses to balance its actions. Look at the hurricane seasons. If you have a nasty busy one in the Atlantic, the Pacific one is sort of tame.

I'm not convinced that he was trying to mislead people about the ice sheets. It brings important questions to the table. If that map is accurate, I seen much larger area thickening than I did melting by far.

It doesn't bring any questions to the table at all. Look to the thread about it for an explanation, but to put it simply, the thickening is caused by global warming. Which is the entire point of this thread. Global Warming is a bad name, because it's not just everywhere getting hotter.

I'm not convinced that he was trying to mislead people about the ice sheets. It brings important questions to the table. If that map is accurate, I seen much larger area thickening than I did melting by far.

though the total is actually a net loss (approx 152 cubic kilometers between 2002 and 2005).

also, the rapid and dramatic decreases are occurring in the west antarctic ice sheet, which is particularly troubling due to the geographic features over there. essentially it is grounded on the sea floor - if it weren't there the ocean would be. and it rises much higher above sea level than it would if it were floating. so even if it didn't melt, but merely came 'unstuck' from the sea floor, it would raise sea levels worldwide by something on the order of 5 meters.

I'm not convinced that he was trying to mislead people about the ice sheets. It brings important questions to the table. If that map is accurate, I seen much larger area thickening than I did melting by far.

And if you read the article you'll see that it is a predicted effect of global warming so either he didn't bother to read the article or he did, found that the thickening of polar ice supports planetary warming and then didn't post it because he wanted to deliberately mislead people.

Why? Is there an SUV/Truck ban about to become law I don't know about? or are you talking gas prices?

I'm not concerned with gas prices considering the fact I only live 4 miles from work. I have a decent paying job 40hrs/wk guaranteed plus I have side jobs that I work which fluctuates some but is completely in my control So totally I work anywheres from 40-70 hrs per week (average is atleast 50hrs/wk) and with me working as much as I do (friends call me a work-aholic) I'm a home body when I'm not working. Not sure I see where you can claim that I'm going to have to give it up by force whether I like to or not.

The only thing I foresee is when I go to buy my dream truck the New Chevy Silverado 4x4 Full size Truck but that isn't going to be for some time...

This thread is about global warming so we can move to a different thread if you want to talk about Peak Oil.

This thread is about global warming so we can move to a different thread if you want to talk about Peak Oil.

Don't people blame a lot of the Global Warming on SUVs and Trucks? :confused:

Don't people blame a lot of the Global Warming on SUVs and Trucks? :confused:

Because they waste a lot of oil.

(Who will complete this circle??)

Also forgot to mention;

How about the fact that the eruptions of Mount Saint Helens in the US ant Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed out hundreds of times more green house gases in those two little 'Earth" hiccups, than all the green house gases that mankind has produced over the last century or so?

Of course, we need to punish India also. Since all those cows over there are farting, which is a form of methane gas, which is another green house gas.***More burgers***

Vic

Of course, being 47 years of age, I have seen a lot of weather patterns that repeat themselves every so often, so I could be wrong. I have also heard for the last 30 years that we are either going thru global warming, or entering a new ice age.
You are aware that both things could happen at the same time, no?

The planet has a way to balance itself.
Oh, the planet will be fine. Humans and civilization, however...

How about the fact that the eruptions of Mount Saint Helens in the US ant Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed out hundreds of times more green house gases in those two little 'Earth" hiccups, than all the green house gases that mankind has produced over the last century or so?

technically, in order to be a fact something must be true. falsehoods cannot be facts. care to try again?

Don't people blame a lot of the Global Warming on SUVs and Trucks? :confused:

Sure, but that's not why you'll be giving up your SUV.

http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/aspo_oil_and_gas.png
http://www.energybulletin.net/image/primer/discovery_gap.gif

Besides, I think we're still considered to be in part in an Ice Age. This has been going on, scientifically speaking, for millions of years. We have our Glacial periods for many thousands of years which scientists claim we are still expected to have and they use the term "Snowball Earth" and then we have periods of Interglacial which occurs within an Ice Age which we currently are in an Interglacial period. There are just so many factors that need to be considered. Fact is "Global Warming" is very contraversial and highly debated on both sides of the ball. These warming periods is absolutely nothing new it is found through History over millions of years.

Fact is "Global Warming" is very contraversial and highly debated on both sides of the ball.

only by morons and people selling something

Also forgot to mention;

How about the fact that the eruptions of Mount Saint Helens in the US ant Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed out hundreds of times more green house gases in those two little 'Earth" hiccups, than all the green house gases that mankind has produced over the last century or so?

Of course, we need to punish India also. Since all those cows over there are farting, which is a form of methane gas, which is another green house gas.***More burgers***

Vic

Well if there a greenhouse gases in nature then it obviously doesn't matter how much there are, so we can add to them all we like, and it'll have no difference.
:rolleyes:

You are aware that both things could happen at the same time, no?

Yes, I am very aware of that. That explains why ice freezes inside my freezer when the freezer is over 32 degrees F.....also the same way that I loose weight while gaining weight.

Oh, the planet will be fine. Humans and civilization, however...

The same way that the planet got rid of the dinosaurs, the planet will get rid of us whenever it feels like it.

Comedian George Carlin said it best. The Earth will take care of itself. It is constantly regenerating itself. When Mother Earth decides that it no longer needs the humans, it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

Yes, I am very aware of that. That explains why ice freezes inside my freezer when the freezer is over 32 degrees F.....also the same way that I loose weight while gaining weight.



The same way that the planet got rid of the dinosaurs, the planet will get rid of us whenever it feels like it.

Comedian George Carlin said it best. The Earth will take care of itself. It is constantly regenerating itself. When Mother Earth decides that it no longer needs the humans, it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

See, this is what the thread is about. Global Warming=/=the overall temperature of the globe rising. Which is why the name is bad.

The same way that the planet got rid of the dinosaurs, the planet will get rid of us whenever it feels like it.

Comedian George Carlin said it best. The Earth will take care of itself. It is constantly regenerating itself. When Mother Earth decides that it no longer needs the humans, it will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.

Exactly. This is why we need to understand how nature works and modify our technologies to suit nature, so that nature does not destroy us because we tried to destroy nature. I'm beginning to hate this Carlin person. Why everyone quotes a comedian when debating is beyond me.

Fact is "Global Warming" is very contraversial and highly debated on both sides of the ball.

Yes. Scientists who study the Earth's climate on one side and people who know nothing about it on the other.

Yes. Scientists who study the Earth's climate on one side and people who know nothing about it on the other.

don't forget about those that really do know something about it but figure they can make a lot of money pretending otherwise.

don't forget about those that really do know something about it but figure they can make a lot of money pretending otherwise.

There are fewer and fewer of those these days.

There are fewer and fewer of those these days.

i wonder if we're reaching a tipping point where there is more money to be made off of actually working to fix the problem than lying about its existence

There are fewer and fewer of those these days.

Do I want quick cash or do I want a steady job?

i wonder if we're reaching a tipping point where there is more money to be made off of actually working to fix the problem than lying about its existence

No, I think there were climate scientists that honestly had doubts about it but the science is just getting harder and harder to deny. In the eighties and nineties we were talking about predictions that the Earth would warm. Now we're talking about the fact that the Earth is warming.

Besides, I think we're still considered to be in part in an Ice Age. This has been going on, scientifically speaking, for millions of years. We have our Glacial periods for many thousands of years which scientists claim we are still expected to have and they use the term "Snowball Earth" and then we have periods of Interglacial which occurs within an Ice Age which we currently are in an Interglacial period. There are just so many factors that need to be considered. Fact is "Global Warming" is very contraversial and highly debated on both sides of the ball. These warming periods is absolutely nothing new it is found through History over millions of years.

*sigh*

Exactly. This is why we need to understand how nature works and modify our technologies to suit nature, so that nature does not destroy us because we tried to destroy nature. I'm beginning to hate this Carlin person. Why everyone quotes a comedian when debating is beyond me.

Because comedians are very good observers of human behaviour.

And you are proof that it does matter because either you simply don't understand the science or you were attempting to deliberately mislead people with your post about the ice sheets. If the phenomenon were just called climate change then pointing out a chage in climate, as you did, wouldn't be a refutation of the science.
The global warming alarmists repeatedly try to mislead people by presenting anecdotal evidence. All I did was present a fact and leave the interpretation up to the viewer.

only by morons and people selling something
Like people selling us on higher taxes to implement a politically motivated "solution".

And if you read the article you'll see that it is a predicted effect of global warming so either he didn't bother to read the article or he did, found that the thickening of polar ice supports planetary warming and then didn't post it because he wanted to deliberately mislead people.
How can I be blamed for misleading people when I presented only true statements?

Any inferences are the reader's fault.

So you don't understand that most homelessness is caused by mental instability and protecting entire eco-systems is not important to you. Not surprising.
No, I'm arguing that the changing of the names wasn't necessary.
Both good moves actually, proving that names do in fact have an impact. I'm going to pretend that you meant it that way, and applaud your intelligence.
Names are simply pointers. They direct us to a defintion. Names need not be descriptive.

Insisting that they do only dumbs down the entire society.

lets call it “super happy igloo temperature” or S.H.I.T for short :p


i prefer

Frequent Unpredictable Climatological Knotted Empirical Data

No, I think there were climate scientists that honestly had doubts about it but the science is just getting harder and harder to deny. In the eighties and nineties we were talking about predictions that the Earth would warm. Now we're talking about the fact that the Earth is warming.
Of course the earth is warming (unless you accept McKitrick's point that the concept of an average global temperature is meaningless, something which warrants investigation). But the dispute is over the degree to which we really understand what's going to happen going forward. How will the earth react to the warming? I don't think we know that, and I think the scientists should be honest about that huge gap in our knowledge.

So infra red radiation is absorbed by carbon the same way that microwave radiation is absorbed by hydrogen. What this actually means is that more carbon in the atmosphere will result in more energy retention by the atmosphere. We call this global warming. The problem is that by calling it "global warming" we imply that the effect of this energy retention will be that the earth will get warmer in a blanket sort of way meaning that every place will get warmer by approximately the same degree. Anyone familiar with the theory knows that this is not the case. Global warming, in fact, may result in a mini ice age in Europe as the Atlantic conveyor belt slows down and stops bringing warm, tropical air to Europe. The problem is that with the name "global warming" it allows a people to say things like, "If we're experiencing global warming then why are there record cold temperatures right now I the western States?" Or, "If there's global warming then why is the ice sheet in certain places thickening?" Anyone think they should have thought of a better name? They used to just call it the greenhouse effect. maybe they should have stuck with that.

Well, yeah. My dad doesn't believe in global warming, but betweeen, you, me, and the rest of NSG, he'd follow the GOP off a bridge, despite being intelligent as he is.

Like people selling us on higher taxes to implement a politically motivated "solution".

You get a tax cut if you get a hybrid! Whee!!

You get a tax cut if you get a hybrid! Whee!!
I don't own a car. Give me an even bigger tax cut for that.

I personally, don't want to completely object to the realities of "Global Warming" however, I personally feel that this is just another way to bring yet another fear tactic to the people on how this world will end.
How you feel is probably based on (wilful, considering your political views) ignorance.

I'm going to continue to live my life day to day.
This is good. Given the altitude of Florida, your home may be the first to go.

I think it's better to be cautious, I mean, what if the dire predictions are the correct ones? Tomorrow will not be the same as today, just because today was the same as yesterday.

The attitude of continueing to live my life to the fullest I can.....that didn't sound to bad to me.

If everybody only focused on the end of time or Doomsday then hell, we wouldn't get anything accomplished whether for the good or bad.
Must you speak in such vague, elusive terms? :rolleyes:

This isn't about looking forward to the apocalypse. It's about changing our ways in order to continue to be able to live our lives to the fullest we can.

If your asking me to give up my Full size Ford Bronco 4x4...I refuse. I love my Bronco, it's comfortable, has some luxury to it, and is very safe and stylish. Definately a keeper and this is coming from a Chevy Man...:p
Your attachement to your material goods is, in my opinion, an affront to God. (I'm appealing to religion because I know that nobody else will)

Our Lord showed that riches are the death of the soul, and that is it liberated by the abscence of them.

Driving such a car, given its emissions, also damages His creation, earth.

These things are more important than some "traditional comfortable lifestyle".

That's my dad's fault....Damn...

Well, although I'm very stubborn I do mean well and do good among others.
Spare me the self-righteous, hypocritical and frankly irrelevant bullshit and start practicing as you preach.

Why? Is there an SUV/Truck ban about to become law I don't know about? or are you talking gas prices?
Gas prices, green taxes, you name it.

The only thing I foresee is when I go to buy my dream truck the New Chevy Silverado 4x4 Full size Truck but that isn't going to be for some time...
How can you be so short-sighted and hedonistic?

Also forgot to mention;

How about the fact that the eruptions of Mount Saint Helens in the US ant Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed out hundreds of times more green house gases in those two little 'Earth" hiccups, than all the green house gases that mankind has produced over the last century or so?
What are we to do about them?

Of course, we need to punish India also. Since all those cows over there are farting, which is a form of methane gas, which is another green house gas.
We should kill the cows. :D

Fact is "Global Warming" is very contraversial and highly debated on both sides of the ball. These warming periods is absolutely nothing new it is found through History over millions of years.
I've never seen such pathetic excuse-making.

Driving such a car, given its emissions, also damages His creation, earth.
Whoa, there, Nelly. That's a huge logical error, right there.

First, if it damages God's creation, it does so in a way that God fully foresaw, and may have intended. After all, God knew full well what we'd do with fossil fuels.

Second, why do you think that's damage? God created the earth with these fuels in it, and we're simply availing ourselves of the earth's bounty. We're just moving parts of his creation around; we're not adding anything new. How is that damage?

Of course the earth is warming (unless you accept McKitrick's point that the concept of an average global temperature is meaningless, something which warrants investigation). But the dispute is over the degree to which we really understand what's going to happen going forward. How will the earth react to the warming? I don't think we know that, and I think the scientists should be honest about that huge gap in our knowledge.

I've heard numerous speculations from scientists about what will happen and they've admitted they don't know, so they are being honest. Weather prediction at normal times is difficult, predicting the weather in 10,20, 50 or 100yrs is reallying asking for a lot. Of some of the predictions they have made they were correct such as the melting of arctic ice cap, they were only wrong about how long it would take, it's happening faster than predicted.

Another prediction I've heard, if the oceans(not the atmosphere) heats up 5 degree's were all done for.

Whoa, there, Nelly. That's a huge logical error, right there.

First, if it damages God's creation, it does so in a way that God fully foresaw, and may have intended. After all, God knew full well what we'd do with fossil fuels.

Second, why do you think that's damage? God created the earth with these fuels in it, and we're simply availing ourselves of the earth's bounty. We're just moving parts of his creation around; we're not adding anything new. How is that damage?

...that's just ridiculous. (Hey, Canadians, is Llewdor here one of those crazy Albertans I keep hearing about? The kind that act like our bible-thumpers?)

Those who kept pointing out that we're not pumping as much into the atmosphere as volcanic eruptions are correct. Those who pointed out that the Earth has developed through its existance a method of coping with such emissions is correct. What you are not realizing, however, is that everything we're adding is on top of what would normally be produced. Sure, the Earth could handle, pound for pound, more than what we're putting in, but what we're adding is, again, in addition to what's already there. Remember that old saying, "the straw that breaks the camel's back"? That's what we are, basically.

...that's just ridiculous. (Hey, Canadians, is Llewdor here one of those crazy Albertans I keep hearing about? The kind that act like our bible-thumpers?)

Those who kept pointing out that we're not pumping as much into the atmosphere as volcanic eruptions are correct. Those who pointed out that the Earth has developed through its existance a method of coping with such emissions is correct. What you are not realizing, however, is that everything we're adding is on top of what would normally be produced. Sure, the Earth could handle, pound for pound, more than what we're putting in, but what we're adding is, again, in addition to what's already there. Remember that old saying, "the straw that breaks the camel's back"? That's what we are, basically.

no he's not, I'm sure he claimed he was an atheist on another thread.

Those who kept pointing out that we're not pumping as much into the atmosphere as volcanic eruptions are correct.

no they aren't. we put about 150x more co2 into the atmosphere each year than volcanoes. never ever ever trust a climate change denialist - they're the new creationists.

I think "Well, fuck" would be a good title for it.

no they aren't. we put about 150x more co2 into the atmosphere each year than volcanoes. never ever ever trust a climate change denialist - they're the new creationists.

climate change can occur without anyhelp from humans. Take the Laki fissure eruption in Iceland in 1783. Caused some impressive changes in the climate. Or the Tambora eruption in 1815 which caused the "year without a summer" in 1816? Or even more recently the Pinatubo eruption 1991?

climate change can occur without anyhelp from humans. Take the Laki fissure eruption in Iceland in 1783. Caused some impressive changes in the climate. Or the Tambora eruption in 1815 which caused the "year without a summer" in 1816? Or even more recently the Pinatubo eruption 1991?

yep. now combine that with the fact that we are pumping out 150x more stuff than all the volcanic eruption on the entire planet each year.

yep. now combine that with the fact that we are pumping out 150x more stuff than all the volcanic eruption on the entire planet each year.

I wont deny the fact that we are adding CO2 levels at a larger pace then ever in history, but what caused all of the other climate changes in Earth's past? You do know that the Sahara used to be a nice tropical place with lots of forests and water?
And it has been shown that there used to be levels of CO2 much, much higher than today in the Earths recent geological past.

plus what could have caused the Little Ice Age from the 1400s till the mid 1800s?

I wont deny the fact that we are adding CO2 levels at a larger pace then ever in history, but what caused all of the other climate changes in Earth's past? You do know that the Sahara used to be a nice tropical place with lots of forests and water?
And it has been shown that there used to be levels of CO2 much, much higher than today in the Earths recent geological past.

Right, and during that time we had an ocean in the middle of much of the North American continent and ocean levels were much higher overall, and we had tropical conditions everywhere. A much hotter, wetter climate.

Also, you don't understand what a climate constitutes. Those examples you mentioned, such as Tambora? Those are temporary changes, not even a slight movement of the Earth's eyelid, let alone an eyeblink on a geological timescale. Those are not shifts in climate at all.

And if you want to know all this stuff, why not research into it? Why is it that so many climate change deniers keep asking questions that have been answered in significant detail and refuse to look at the information that exists if only they'd bother actually looking at it instead of denying it just because they don't want to hear it? Why can't they just trust the word of people who have spents years, decades even researching and examining all the facts at hand? Why not take the word of people who actually know what they're talking about?

what caused all of the other climate changes in Earth's past?

various things - it depends on what particular climate shifts we're talking about. for example, the tectonic movement that opened the drake passage approx 41 mya is the reason why antarctica is so damn cold.

Right, and during that time we had an ocean in the middle of much of the North American continent and ocean levels were much higher overall, and we had tropical conditions everywhere. A much hotter, wetter climate.

Also, you don't understand what a climate constitutes. Those examples you mentioned, such as Tambora? Those are temporary changes, not even a slight movement of the Earth's eyelid, let alone an eyeblink on a geological timescale. Those are not shifts in climate at all.

And if you want to know all this stuff, why not research into it? Why is it that so many climate change deniers keep asking questions that have been answered in significant detail and refuse to look at the information that exists if only they'd bother actually looking at it instead of denying it just because they don't want to hear it? Why can't they just trust the word of people who have spents years, decades even researching and examining all the facts at hand? Why not take the word of people who actually know what they're talking about?

It may shock you but I am an Earth Science major, and this stuff has facinated me for a long while. Trust me, I know all about climate and climate change. Youre right, those were temporary changes. one thing is, on what scale are we looking at this "situation"? Is this a permanent change, one that we will never recover from? Or is it a change that will change back after a short while? You cant just go run around screaming "GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING!! RUNN!!!" It used to be a heck of a lot warmer thousands of years ago, then it got cold , now its getting warmer again. We are now on the uptick of the climatic temperature pendulum. Its been doing that for millenia. TO just say we are causing it and we will bring about the end of the world because some fat ass wants to drive an SUV is just rediculous! In the 50's global temperatures actually went down for a little while. There is also evidence that there is a correlation between the amount of solar activity and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plus cows produce more methane than all of the SUVs combined in one year!! you see, this is not a clear cut view and topic. There are many factors.

I wont deny the fact that we are adding CO2 levels at a larger pace then ever in history, but what caused all of the other climate changes in Earth's past? You do know that the Sahara used to be a nice tropical place with lots of forests and water?
And it has been shown that there used to be levels of CO2 much, much higher than today in the Earths recent geological past.

You're right. The last serious warming event related to CO2 levels was called the Permian Triassic Thermal Maximum. It is also referred to as "The Great Dying."

The Permian-Triassic (P-T or PT) extinction event, sometimes informally called the Great Dying, was an extinction event that occurred approximately 251 million years ago (mya), forming the boundary between the Permian and Triassic geologic periods. It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with about 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct.

The eruptions took place in an area which was rich in coal, and the heating of this coal would have released vast amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the air, causing severe global warming. Ward reports a massive increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide immediately before the "Great Dying".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Triassic_extinction_event

There was another, more recent CO2 related global warming event, but it wasn't quite as bad. It was called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum.

The end of the Paleocene (55.5/54.8 Ma) was marked by one of the most significant periods of global change during the Cenozoic, a sudden global climate change, the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), which upset oceanic and atmospheric circulation and led to the extinction of numerous deep-sea benthic foraminifera and on land, a major turnover in mammals.

In an event marking the start of the Eocene, the planet heated up in one of the most rapid and extreme global warming events recorded in geologic history, currently being identified as the 'Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum' or the 'Initial Eocene Thermal Maximum' (PETM or IETM). Sea surface temperatures rose between 5 and 8°C over a period of a few thousand years, but in the high Arctic, sea surface temperatures rose to a sub-tropical ~23°C/73°F.[1] In 1990, marine scientists James Kennett and Lowell Stott, both then at the University of California, Santa Barbara, reported analysis of marine sediments showing that, not only had the surface of the Antarctic ocean heated up about 10 degrees at the beginning of the Eocene, but that the entire depth of the ocean had warmed, and its chemistry changed disastrously. There was severely reduced oxygen in deep sea waters, and 30 to 40% of deep sea foraminifera suddenly went extinct. Geologist Jim Zachos of the University of California, Santa Cruz has connected the Eocene heat wave to drastic changes in ocean chemistry that caused the massive worldwide die-off. More recently a synchronous drop in carbon isotope ratios has been identified in many terrestrial environments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petm

So, you're right. The Earth has warmed in the past as a result of increased levels of CO2. Can't argue with you on that. ;) Score one for you! :)

It may shock you but I am an Earth Science major, and this stuff has facinated me for a long while. Trust me, I know all about climate and climate change. Youre right, those were temporary changes. one thing is, on what scale are we looking at this "situation"? Is this a permanent change, one that we will never recover from? Or is it a change that will change back after a short while? You cant just go run around screaming "GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING!! RUNN!!!" It used to be a heck of a lot warmer thousands of years ago, then it got cold , now its getting warmer again. We are now on the uptick of the climatic temperature pendulum. Its been doing that for millenia. TO just say we are causing it and we will bring about the end of the world because some fat ass wants to drive an SUV is just rediculous! In the 50's global temperatures actually went down for a little while. There is also evidence that there is a correlation between the amount of solar activity and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plus cows produce more methane than all of the SUVs combined in one year!! you see, this is not a clear cut view and topic. There are many factors.

You're lying. You are not an Earth Science major. If you were you'd know that SUVs don't emit any methane at all.

You're lying. You are not an Earth Science major. If you were you'd know that SUVs don't emit any methane at all.

I love the smell of ownage in the morning.

How about Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life

MCCULHCMHENMNIOFL...easy to remember!

Minor correction

Massive Climate Change Ultimately Leading to Horrific Conditions for the Majority Of Humans on Earth, Not to Mention the Negative Impacts on Other Forms of Life, And The Destruction of Civilization, But Only After I've Grown Old And Died

You're lying. You are not an Earth Science major. If you were you'd know that SUVs don't emit any methane at all.

Thank you. I felt like I was banging my head against a wall with this guy. It's so typical for people denying one thing or another to ask questions that could be easily answered if they just did a little research instead of sitting on their bums laughing it off because they think asking such a question means they just proved it wrong.

I don't own a car. Give me an even bigger tax cut for that.

I'm not in charge of these things. :(

You're lying. You are not an Earth Science major. If you were you'd know that SUVs don't emit any methane at all.

hehe, zing. nothing gets past you!
What I ment to say, is that cow methene is far more damaging than SUV CO2. I am sorry to earlier miswrite, but I was writing it with only three hours of sleep!
Also, plants exhale methane as well. And so do termites. In fact termites create 1/5 of the methane production every year!
GO ahead and check that as well.

I think "Well, fuck" would be a good title for it.

here we go



Frequent Unpredictable Climatological Knotted Empirical Data

"A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide."

So,
check and mate!

Stop global Warming now! Go eat a cow!

I wont deny the fact that we are adding CO2 levels at a larger pace then ever in history, but what caused all of the other climate changes in Earth's past? You do know that the Sahara used to be a nice tropical place with lots of forests and water?
And it has been shown that there used to be levels of CO2 much, much higher than today in the Earths recent geological past.

how long ago was that?

how long ago was that?

a few thousand years ago.
Right around the time when the Sphinx was built. Which was well before the Egyptians as we know them today existed. Don't remember exactly when, but evidence on the Sphinx shows evidence of flowing water that could only have been produced in a much wetter climate.

plus what could have caused the Little Ice Age from the 1400s till the mid 1800s?

and then the industrial revolution really got going...

It used to be a heck of a lot warmer thousands of years ago, then it got cold , now its getting warmer again. We are now on the uptick of the climatic temperature pendulum. Its been doing that for millenia. TO just say we are causing it and we will bring about the end of the world because some fat ass wants to drive an SUV is just rediculous! In the 50's global temperatures actually went down for a little while. There is also evidence that there is a correlation between the amount of solar activity and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plus cows produce more methane than all of the SUVs combined in one year!! you see, this is not a clear cut view and topic. There are many factors.

so there was a small ice age that ended when the industrial revolution got going and its been getting warmer since?

"A United Nations report has identified the world's rapidly growing herds of cattle as the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife. And they are blamed for a host of other environmental crimes, from acid rain to the introduction of alien species, from producing deserts to creating dead zones in the oceans, from poisoning rivers and drinking water to destroying coral reefs.

The 400-page report by the Food and Agricultural Organisation, entitled Livestock's Long Shadow, also surveys the damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But in almost every case, the world's 1.5 billion cattle are most to blame. Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

Burning fuel to produce fertiliser to grow feed, to produce meat and to transport it - and clearing vegetation for grazing - produces 9 per cent of all emissions of carbon dioxide, the most common greenhouse gas. And their wind and manure emit more than one third of emissions of another, methane, which warms the world 20 times faster than carbon dioxide."

So,
check and mate!

Stop global Warming now! Go eat a cow!

I agree that human agricultural activity is one of the other major reasons we are responsible for global warming so why would I argue with this? :confused: Not just from cattle, either. Cutting down forests, which act as sinks for CO2, for grazing livestock is another reason our activities are causing the globe to warm.

and then the industrial revolution really got going...



so there was a small ice age that ended when the industrial revolution got going and its been getting warmer since?

yes.
But what CAUSED the Little Ice Age?
No one has answered me this question yet.
The temperature is now somewhere right around what it was before
the start of the Little Ice Age.

Plus, the Industrial Revolution started in the early mid 1800s and then started ramping up after that, bringing us to temps right around what they used to be before the Little Ice Age!

I agree that human agricultural activity is one of the other major reasons we are responsible for global warming so why would I argue with this? :confused: Not just from cattle, either. Cutting down forests, which act as sinks for CO2, for grazing livestock is another reason our activities are causing the globe to warm.

Because, many people only argue that we are causing GW by driving SUVs and coal fired electric plants. They are the ones who scream we should all resort to only wind and solar energy because that will stop Global Warming. And plants and termites also play a big role in producing methane!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0111_060111_plant_methane_2.html

hehe, zing. nothing gets past you!
What I ment to say, is that cow methene is far more damaging than SUV CO2. I am sorry to earlier miswrite, but I was writing it with only three hours of sleep!
Also, plants exhale methane as well. And so do termites. In fact termites create 1/5 of the methane production every year!
GO ahead and check that as well.

I don't believe for one second that you are an Earth Science major. I don't beieve that you are majoring in any science at all. Your posts exhibit too poor of an understanding of the science behind climte change - even as a doubter. In anycase, if you are an Earth Science major I'd be interested in what your professors think about the science. What university do you attend and what specific discipline are you majoring in? Usually, when people talk about their college major they are much more specific. They don't say, "I'm an Earth sciences major." They say, "I'm a paleogeology major," or, in my case, "a petrology major."

Because, many people only argue that we are causing GW by driving SUVs and coal fired electric plants. They are the ones who scream we should all resort to only wind and solar energy because that will stop Global Warming. And plants and termites also play a big role in producing methane!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0111_060111_plant_methane_2.html

Oh, no. We are causing climate change in a whole number of ways - from our use of fossil fuels to our methods of agriculture to deforestation. Burning oil, gas and coal are huge contributors, but certainly not the only contributors.

a few thousand years ago.
Right around the time when the Sphinx was built. Which was well before the Egyptians as we know them today existed. Don't remember exactly when, but evidence on the Sphinx shows evidence of flowing water that could only have been produced in a much wetter climate.

ah that. i'm familiar with the theory. Although the evidence is not conclusive regarding the water marks on the sphinx. So you saying that the area of giza was tropical around the 3000/2500BC period?

Because, many people only argue that we are causing GW by driving SUVs and coal fired electric plants. They are the ones who scream we should all resort to only wind and solar energy because that will stop Global Warming. And plants and termites also play a big role in producing methane!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/01/0111_060111_plant_methane_2.html

Yes, because if there's already some greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it doesn't matter how much we add by digging up fossil feuls and burning them, because there's already loads there already.

That's like saying you won't cause water to spill out of a full to capacity glass if you only a small amount.

yes.
But what CAUSED the Little Ice Age?
No one has answered me this question yet.
The temperature is now somewhere right around what it was before
the start of the Little Ice Age.

Plus, the Industrial Revolution started in the early mid 1800s and then started ramping up after that, bringing us to temps right around what they used to be before the Little Ice Age!

As an Earth Science major you should know that the little ice age was caused by a slow down in the Atlantic conveyor belt that bring warm, tropical waters up o northern Europe.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gcp/ocean/images/image2.gif

There is evidence that warm temperatures can slow or halt this conveyor belt which is why global warming may actually cause European temperatures to plunge.

I wont deny the fact that we are adding CO2 levels at a larger pace then ever in history, but what caused all of the other climate changes in Earth's past? You do know that the Sahara used to be a nice tropical place with lots of forests and water?
And it has been shown that there used to be levels of CO2 much, much higher than today in the Earths recent geological past.
www.wikipedia.org

It may shock you but I am an Earth Science major
It may shock you but I think you're lying.

Stop global Warming now! Go eat a cow!
And increase the demand for beef? :rolleyes:

yes.
But what CAUSED the Little Ice Age?
No one has answered me this question yet.
The temperature is now somewhere right around what it was before
the start of the Little Ice Age.

Plus, the Industrial Revolution started in the early mid 1800s and then started ramping up after that, bringing us to temps right around what they used to be before the Little Ice Age!

so the planet is getting warmer. Also the industrial revolution started in the 18th century, not the 1800s. Factories had been burning large amounts of coke since the 1715 i beleive

As an Earth Science major you should know that the little ice age was caused by a slow down in the Atlantic conveyor belt that bring warm, tropical waters up o northern Europe.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gcp/ocean/images/image2.gif

There is evidence that warm temperatures can slow or halt this conveyor belt which is why global warming may actually cause European temperatures to plunge.

There was a television show about this ocean conveyor belt thing this morning, though I can't remember what channel, or what it was called, cos I was only watching for a few minutes.

Apparently England could expect winters like the one in 63(IMS), which came with a funderful 8 meters of snow in some places. Or 8 feet. Like I said, I was only watching for a few minutes, and I was only just up. The point was: lots of snow, and very cold(obviously).

Global Warming is a farce. For every scientist screaming about it there is another calling him a crackpot, and vice versa. It's a vicious cycle. Personally the only people who have a right to try and convince anyone for or against it are people who have degrees and years of experience researching this. May I see all of YOUR credentials please? Because it's the only way you can come close to convincing people like me that Global Warming is real.

Earths climate has changed for millions of years and will continue to warm and cool. It's quite egotistical of us, as humans, to think that we can have such an impact on the planet as to affect whole weather cycles. That's just my opinion though. Untill you can proove that my fireplace is gonna kill all of mankind, I'm going to continue to use it to keep me warm in the winter. Like now because it's damn cold outside.

I don't believe for one second that you are an Earth Science major. I don't beieve that you are majoring in any science at all. Your posts exhibit too poor of an understanding of the science behind climte change - even as a doubter. In anycase, if you are an Earth Science major I'd be interested in what your professors think about the science. What university do you attend and what specific discipline are you majoring in? Usually, when people talk about their college major they are much more specific. They don't say, "I'm an Earth sciences major." They say, "I'm a paleogeology major," or, in my case, "a petrology major."

Well, I am sorry that I am not as articulate and histerical as "Dr." Al Gore.

Northeastern Illinois University. Fourth year of Earth Science program. and yes, it is a real degree, and just as challenging as say a geology degree, volcanology degree, or whatever. Meteorology will be my masters program after graduation with a Bachelors Degree in Earth Science.

by the way? What are your credibilities? Do you have any? Or are you just parroting what your lefty hippy teachers spew in high school about global warming?

The Sphinx by the way, has been shown to have water marks on it that can only be created by flowing water.
Now where did that flowing water come from? Also, satellite imagery also shows that there are dried up river beds all over the Sahara.

Global Warming is a farce. For every scientist screaming about it there is another calling him a crackpot, and vice versa.
Not true. For every climate scientist screaming that global warming is a farce there are hundreds screaming the opposite. The consensus is overwhelming.

It's a vicious cycle. Personally the only people who have a right to try and convince anyone for or against it are people who have degrees and years of experience researching this. May I see all of YOUR credentials please? Because it's the only way you can come close to convincing people like me that Global Warming is real.That's why I turn to climate scientists for evidence. I don't claim to have done my own research.

Earths climate has changed for millions of years and will continue to warm and cool. It's quite egotistical of us, as humans, to think that we can have such an impact on the planet as to affect whole weather cycles. That's just my opinion though. Untill you can proove that my fireplace is gonna kill all of mankind, I'm going to continue to use it to keep me warm in the winter. Like now because it's damn cold outside.

Look around you. How can you say we don't have an impact? Look at the scale of the things we build and do. Hell, it is estimated that 25% of the air polution in Los Angeles comes from China! China! That sounds like a global impact to me. We're turning places that were savanahs and forrests into deserts. We've turned deserts into farms. We've turned once active, productive fisheries into oceanic dead zones. We do have global impacts.

so the planet is getting warmer. Also the industrial revolution started in the 18th century, not the 1800s. Factories had been burning large amounts of coke since the 1715 i beleive

but how many existed throughout the world during the 1715?
are you also going to suggest that its because of the cavemen's fire that also helped warm our earth?

For every scientist screaming about it there is another calling him a crackpot

here's a question - do you know that you are being untruthful and are therefore a liar, or is your failing that you should know such and just refuse to learn?

I personally, don't want to completely object to the realities of "Global Warming" however, I personally feel that this is just another way to bring yet another fear tactic to the people on how this world will end. Kinda like Y2K the year we were all supposed to be dead and now it's what...year is 2007 Oh my... oh well.

I'm going to continue to live my life day to day. I'm going to continue to work between 40 and 70 hrs per week and be the Homebody I am when I'm not working. I do think this "Global Warming" is overrated with practically everything else we Humans do and cause.

Yhea? Well, I just experienced the first snow-free Swedish winter in my entire life, and never before has so many floods and storms struck down upon us. If you weren't so busy fucking up the world, supportin Israel's apartheid and poisoning our atmosphere with the biggest amount of carbon dioxide ever seen, perhaps you would have noticed the changes to.
But after some more Katrinas, I think you will realise to. I just hope, for the sake of our children, that it won't be too late.

Well, I am sorry that I am not as articulate and histerical as "Dr." Al Gore.

Northeastern Illinois University. Fourth year of Earth Science program. and yes, it is a real degree, and just as challenging as say a geology degree, volcanology degree, or whatever. Meteorology will be my masters program after graduation with a Bachelors Degree in Earth Science.

by the way? What are your credibilities? Do you have any? Or are you just parroting what your lefty hippy teachers spew in high school about global warming?

The Sphinx by the way, has been shown to have water marks on it that can only be created by flowing water.
Now where did that flowing water come from? Also, satellite imagery also shows that there are dried up river beds all over the Sahara.

At 38 I'm a long way from highschool and I dropped out anyway. My degree is in film, but I never claimed to have any personal credentials, I just read and quote from people who do. I'm also a conservative, pro-border patrol, open markets, we're-at-war-with-islamofascists, Republican voter. I'm am back at school now to get a Master's in petrology, that's petroleum geology in case you were wondering, but I haven't started the actual program yet. I'm taking Math and some undergrad that I have to complete before I can get admitted to teh master's program. As for the leftist, hippy teachers spewing global warming shit, no I don't. Look back at the thread and my sources are right there. I post them.

As an Earth Science major you should know that the little ice age was caused by a slow down in the Atlantic conveyor belt that bring warm, tropical waters up o northern Europe.

http://www.iitap.iastate.edu/gcp/ocean/images/image2.gif

There is evidence that warm temperatures can slow or halt this conveyor belt which is why global warming may actually cause European temperatures to plunge.

yeah so?
But you still have not told me anything but the effect. What was the cause? The trigger for it to happen? What slowed down the Atlantic conveyor belt. Please don't just post pictures of stuff that is in my textbook. Yes, global warming can cause the slowdown of the conveyor belt. Now tell me how that comes about. And tell me how the conveyor belt slowed down when the Little Ice Age came about?
And please, dont refer to Wikipedia!

Well, I am sorry that I am not as articulate and histerical as "Dr." Al Gore.

Northeastern Illinois University. Fourth year of Earth Science program. and yes, it is a real degree, and just as challenging as say a geology degree, volcanology degree, or whatever. Meteorology will be my masters program after graduation with a Bachelors Degree in Earth Science.

by the way? What are your credibilities? Do you have any? Or are you just parroting what your lefty hippy teachers spew in high school about global warming?

The Sphinx by the way, has been shown to have water marks on it that can only be created by flowing water.
Now where did that flowing water come from? Also, satellite imagery also shows that there are dried up river beds all over the Sahara.


since meteorology will be your masters, (whereas i have no formal education on the topic) isn't it the case the flow of nile has changed over the millenia? that's why there are those dry river beds? Oenile? Oenile? think it was called something like that.

Global Warming is a farce. For every scientist screaming about it there is another calling him a crackpot, and vice versa. It's a vicious cycle. Personally the only people who have a right to try and convince anyone for or against it are people who have degrees and years of experience researching this. May I see all of YOUR credentials please? Because it's the only way you can come close to convincing people like me that Global Warming is real.

Earths climate has changed for millions of years and will continue to warm and cool. It's quite egotistical of us, as humans, to think that we can have such an impact on the planet as to affect whole weather cycles. That's just my opinion though. Untill you can proove that my fireplace is gonna kill all of mankind, I'm going to continue to use it to keep me warm in the winter. Like now because it's damn cold outside.
So, you won't listen to scientists(who wouldn't be scientists without some kind of degree in some kind of science), but you then demand credentials before you'll listen to us?
Well, I am sorry that I am not as articulate and histerical as "Dr." Al Gore.

Northeastern Illinois University. Fourth year of Earth Science program. and yes, it is a real degree, and just as challenging as say a geology degree, volcanology degree, or whatever. Meteorology will be my masters program after graduation with a Bachelors Degree in Earth Science.

by the way? What are your credibilities? Do you have any? Or are you just parroting what your lefty hippy teachers spew in high school about global warming?

The Sphinx by the way, has been shown to have water marks on it that can only be created by flowing water.
Now where did that flowing water come from? Also, satellite imagery also shows that there are dried up river beds all over the Sahara.
Well if you say so then you clearly are. Welcome to the internet, where nobody will ever believe anything you claim about yourself.

Credentials, not credibilities.

yeah so?
But you still have not told me anything but the effect. What was the cause? The trigger for it to happen? What slowed down the Atlantic conveyor belt. Please don't just post pictures of stuff that is in my textbook. Yes, global warming can cause the slowdown of the conveyor belt. Now tell me how that comes about. And tell me how the conveyor belt slowed down when the Little Ice Age came about?
And please, dont refer to Wikipedia!

Aren't you the one with a text book?

Yes, because if there's already some greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it doesn't matter how much we add by digging up fossil feuls and burning them, because there's already loads there already.

That's like saying you won't cause water to spill out of a full to capacity glass if you only a small amount.

oh, did you fail to read that methane is not only produced by burning the plants, but by plants "exhaleling it" as well?

yeah so?
But you still have not told me anything but the effect. What was the cause? The trigger for it to happen? What slowed down the Atlantic conveyor belt. Please don't just post pictures of stuff that is in my textbook. Yes, global warming can cause the slowdown of the conveyor belt. Now tell me how that comes about. And tell me how the conveyor belt slowed down when the Little Ice Age came about?
And please, dont refer to Wikipedia!

You're the Earth Science major, aren't you? :confused:

And what's wrong with Wikipedia?

In anycase, I'll help you out. You should have learned this in yoru major, though.

When the strength of the haline forcing increases due to excess precipitation, runoff, or ice melt the conveyor belt will weaken or even shut down. The variability in the strength of the conveyor belt will lead to climate change in Europe and it could also influence in other areas of the global ocean. The North Atlantic atmosphere-ocean-cryosphere system appears to have natural cycles of many timescales in switching the conveyor belt. Periodic movement of excessive ice from the Arctic into the Greenland Sea appears to be responsible for the interdecadal variability of the conveyor belt. There is no evidence yet that the influx of interdecadal switching extends beyond the North Atlantic Ocean.
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/32.htm

Aren't you the one with a text book?

nope.
In fact in a little while I'll be going into Geotechnical Engineering class. Just wanting to have a little fun before i go!

oh, did you fail to read that methane is not only produced by burning the plants, but by plants "exhaleling it" as well?

But plants also use carbon to buld their materials so even though they emit both methane and CO2 as a product of their resperation the net effect is that they decrease atmospheric carbon. In other words, they use more than they release.

You're the Earth Science major, aren't you? :confused:

And what's wrong with Wikipedia?

In anycase, I'll help you out. You should have learned this in yoru major, though.


http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/32.htm

ok, we'll just keep going in circles.
"When the strength of the haline forcing increases due to excess precipitation, runoff, or ice melt the conveyor belt will weaken or even shut down." Now there has to be a reason why there would be more rain, or more ice melt, or precip right? So if it is steady for a long while, then all of a sudden, there is more rain and melting ice, what triggers that?

but how many existed throughout the world during the 1715?
are you also going to suggest that its because of the cavemen's fire that also helped warm our earth?

no i was correcting you on your mistake saying the industrial revolution started over a century later.
second as a person who is going to study meteorology, would you say the introduction of the by-products from coke, coal, etc... could have any sort of impact on the climate?

nope.
In fact in a little while I'll be going into Geotechnical Engineering class. Just wanting to have a little fun before i go!

You said you were going to major in meteorology. Saying that at the same time as saying you never heard of the Atlantic conveyor belt is like saying your majoring in medicine and asking, "What's this blood stuff you keep talking about?" I'm not a meteorology major. When I got my BA I got it in film and I somehow learned about it in college.

But plants also use carbon to buld their materials so even though they emit both methane and CO2 as a product of their resperation the net effect is that they decrease atmospheric carbon. In other words, they use more than they release.

They reduce CO2, while producing methane, which is just as bad as CO2.

ok, we'll just keep going in circles.
"When the strength of the haline forcing increases due to excess precipitation, runoff, or ice melt the conveyor belt will weaken or even shut down." Now there has to be a reason why there would be more rain, or more ice melt, or precip right? So if it is steady for a long while, then all of a sudden, there is more rain and melting ice, what triggers that?
Are you saying you don't know what causes ice to melt and water to evaporate and then precipitate? Earth science... :confused: I was looking at North Western for my MS, but if they could actually graduate an Earth Science major who doesn't realize heat makes ice melt and water evaporate...

They reduce CO2, while producing methane, which is just as bad as CO2.

No, Earth science guy. Methane, because it contains much more carbon than CO2, is much worse than CO2, but it's in much smaller amounts so it's net effect is smaller. In anycase, plants are still carbon sinks. They use more carbon in building themselves, especially trees, than they emit.

You said you were going to major in meteorology. Saying that at the same time as saying you never heard of the Atlantic conveyor belt is like saying your majoring in medicine and asking, "What's this blood stuff you keep talking about?" I'm not a meteorology major. When I got my BA I got it in film and I somehow learned about it in college.


Ummmmm when did I say I never heard of the Conveyor belt of the ocean floor?
In fact it was part of my Atmosphere and Oceans class two years ago. Like I said earlier, what would destabilize the climate to produce the excess rain, ice melt, and so on?

Are you saying you don't know what causes ice to melt and water to evaporate and then precipitate? Earth science... :confused: I was looking at North Western for my MS, but if they could actually graduate an Earth Science major who doesn't realize heat makes ice melt and water evaporate...

No, I know what causes it, I am asking YOU what causes it. I know that warm air causes more evaporation, which in turn causes more precipitation, and so on. And yes the ice melts when its warm. There. Ok.
You keep saying that we alone are responsible for global warming. Fine. but, what was causing the global warming hundreds of years ago BEFORE the Industrial Revolution? You still havent answered my question. What destabilized the Earth to warm up and then cause the Little Ice Age in the 1400s?

Ummmmm when did I say I never heard of the Conveyor belt of the ocean floor?
In fact it was part of my Atmosphere and Oceans class two years ago. Like I said earlier, what would destabilize the climate to produce the excess rain, ice melt, and so on?

If you're the Earth Science major, you should be the one who knows this shit. I call bullshit on your supposed 'major'.

Ummmmm when did I say I never heard of the Conveyor belt of the ocean floor?
In fact it was part of my Atmosphere and Oceans class two years ago. Like I said earlier, what would destabilize the climate to produce the excess rain, ice melt, and so on?

The ocean floor? Actually, what happens is that cold water sinks at the poles which causes surface water to fill in the void. As that engine continues to churn it keeps water moving northward - at the surface - towards the arctic. Since this water is heated in the tropics it carries its heat to Europe.

Work's done. Gotta go.

since meteorology will be your masters, (whereas i have no formal education on the topic) isn't it the case the flow of nile has changed over the millenia? that's why there are those dry river beds? Oenile? Oenile? think it was called something like that.

Well, yes and no.
yes in the fact that it has changed its course, but it wouldn't explain the dry riverbeds deeper in the Sahara.

No, I know what causes it, I am asking YOU what causes it. I know that warm air causes more evaporation, which in turn causes more precipitation, and so on. And yes the ice melts when its warm. There. Ok.
You keep saying that we alone are responsible for global warming. Fine. but, what was causing the global warming hundreds of years ago BEFORE the Industrial Revolution? You still havent answered my question. What destabilized the Earth to warm up and then cause the Little Ice Age in the 1400s?

I said we are responsible for this episode of global warming. We obviously arent' responsible for every episode of global warming. We weren't around for the PETM.

oh, did you fail to read that methane is not only produced by burning the plants, but by plants "exhaleling it" as well?

Yes, they "exhale" methane, which appeared spontaneously inside them. Thanks to pixie magic.

:rolleyes:

Oh, and burning plants is not the same as burning fossil fuels. You should know that, O Earth Science Major.

The ocean floor? Actually, what happens is that cold water sinks at the poles which causes surface water to fill in the void. As that engine continues to churn it keeps water moving northward - at the surface - towards the arctic. Since this water is heated in the tropics it carries its heat to Europe.

Work's done. Gotta go.

I ment to say the ocean in general. whatever.
Yes i know how the system works, and since you have so thoughtfully wrote it all out, you still have not answered my original question, which is, what caused the Little Ice Age (and the slowdown of the conveyor belt?) from 1400s-mid-1800? Something had to have caused the global warming which caused the slowdown of the C.B. which in turn caused the Little Ice Age.

I said we are responsible for this episode of global warming. We obviously arent' responsible for every episode of global warming. We weren't around for the PETM.

Heck maybe we are completly responsible, maybe we are in part to blaime. In either case, don't just jump on the bandwagon with Al Gore and shout the end of the world is coming because of us. And there is no "overwhelming consensous" of scientists that say we are the direct cause of it, as there is no "overwhelming consensous" of scientists that deny it! It was just one of Gore's little catchphrases.

Yes, they "exhale" methane, which appeared spontaneously inside them. Thanks to pixie magic.

:rolleyes:

Oh, and burning plants is not the same as burning fossil fuels. You should know that, O Earth Science Major.

"Previously recognized sources of methane include bacterial action in the digestive systems of ruminants such as cows and in the saturated soils of swamps and rice paddies.

Now, Keppler and his colleagues find that plants, from grasses to trees, may also be sources of the greenhouse gas. "This is really surprising," Keppler says, because most scientists assumed that methane production requires an oxygenfree environment.

In its experiments, Keppler's team scrutinized the gaseous emissions of a variety of plants and their debris at normal atmospheric oxygen concentrations. A gram of dried plant material, such as fallen leaves, released up to 3 nanograms of methane per hour when the temperature was about 30°C. Each 10°C rise above that temperature, up to 70°C, caused the emission rate to approximately double.

Living plants growing at their normal temperatures generated even larger quantities of methane, as much as 370 ng per gram of plant tissue per hour. Methane emission more than tripled when the plants, either living or dead, were exposed to sunlight.

The team's experiments took place in sealed chambers with a well-oxygenated atmosphere, so it's unlikely that bacteria that thrive without oxygen generated the methane, says Keppler. Experiments on plants that were grown in water rather than in soil also resulted in methane emissions, another strong sign that the gas came from the plants and not soil microbes.

From their data, the researchers estimate that the world's plants generate more than 150 million metric tons of methane each year, or about 20 percent of what typically enters the atmosphere. They report their findings in the Jan. 12 Nature.

"This is some pretty strange chemistry," says David C. Lowe, an atmospheric chemist with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in Wellington, New Zealand. One reason that scientists hadn't considered plants as a source of the gas is that the laws of thermodynamics don't favor methane production in an oxygen-rich environment. However, Lowe notes, many plants produce volatile hydrocarbons that contribute to haze and smog (SN: 12/7/02, p. 360: Available to subscribers at http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20021207/bob8.asp). "

Heck maybe we are completly responsible, maybe we are in part to blaime. In either case, don't just jump on the bandwagon with Al Gore and shout the end of the world is coming because of us. And there is no "overwhelming consensous" of scientists that say we are the direct cause of it, as there is no "overwhelming consensous" of scientists that deny it! It was just one of Gore's little catchphrases.

It amuses me that you're the first person to mention Gore or his "little catchphrases".

no he's not, I'm sure he claimed he was an atheist on another thread.
Religion is a crutch for the weak minded.

It amuses me that you're the first person to mention Gore or his "little catchphrases".

yeah, gotta love old Al!

I do give the guy credit for doing something positive in his life, and bringing attention to an important subject! But I dont really like him hearlding the end times all because of us and causing histeria!

You're lying. You are not an Earth Science major. If you were you'd know that SUVs don't emit any methane at all.
And nothing he said precluded that. Note:
cows produce more methane than all of the SUVs combined
If SUVs produce no methane, then it's easy for cows to produce more methane than SUVs do. His statement holds true.

<snip>

I stand by my point. Plants don't just cause methane to spontaneously appear from nothing, they need to get that hydrogen and carbon from the atmosphere. Now anyone with even the slightest bit of scientific knowledge will realise that plants don't take X amount of carbon and hydrogen out of the atmosphere and give out Y amount, where Y>X. They are, as someone already said, carbon sinks. Carbon goes in, and stays there. Add a few million years and the plant will have died and fossilised, and all that carbon will be in :eek: fossil fuels!

I stand by my point. Plants don't just cause methane to spontaneously appear from nothing, they need to get that hydrogen and carbon from the atmosphere. Now anyone with even the slightest bit of scientific knowledge will realise that plants don't take X amount of carbon and hydrogen out of the atmosphere and give out Y amount, where Y>X. They are, as someone already said, carbon sinks. Carbon goes in, and stays there. Add a few million years and the plant will have died and fossilised, and all that carbon will be in :eek: fossil fuels!

I'm going to shoot myself in an eye with a potato gun. Wouldn't it be nice to have a debate about Global Warming that didn't end up being a lesson in basic science?


OW.

Look,
my opinion on global warming is like this:
Sure its happening. Are we to blame for it? Yes and no.
Are we helping make better the situation? Hell no.
But our entire economies rely on things that require burning
fossil fuels. Unfortunately thats the reality.

But whats the alternative? Give up your cars? your way of life? How many people (that have cars) on this forum are willing to give up their cars right now?

I stand by my point. Plants don't just cause methane to spontaneously appear from nothing, they need to get that hydrogen and carbon from the atmosphere. Now anyone with even the slightest bit of scientific knowledge will realise that plants don't take X amount of carbon and hydrogen out of the atmosphere and give out Y amount, where Y>X. They are, as someone already said, carbon sinks. Carbon goes in, and stays there. Add a few million years and the plant will have died and fossilised, and all that carbon will be in :eek: fossil fuels!

"Living plants growing at their normal temperatures generated even larger quantities of methane, as much as 370 ng per gram of plant tissue per hour. Methane emission more than tripled when the plants, either living or dead, were exposed to sunlight.

The team's experiments took place in sealed chambers with a well-oxygenated atmosphere, so it's unlikely that bacteria that thrive without oxygen generated the methane, says Keppler. Experiments on plants that were grown in water rather than in soil also resulted in methane emissions, another strong sign that the gas came from the plants and not soil microbes.

From their data, the researchers estimate that the world's plants generate more than 150 million metric tons of methane each year, or about 20 percent of what typically enters the atmosphere. They report their findings in the Jan. 12 Nature. "


I guess you didnt even bother reading the whole article. Living plants create methane that comes off of it while it is alive!!!!!! Not just fossil fuels and burning them. Please read the article first!
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060114/fob1.asp
Plus, did you ever take chemistry?

"Living plants growing at their normal temperatures generated even larger quantities of methane, as much as 370 ng per gram of plant tissue per hour. Methane emission more than tripled when the plants, either living or dead, were exposed to sunlight.

The team's experiments took place in sealed chambers with a well-oxygenated atmosphere, so it's unlikely that bacteria that thrive without oxygen generated the methane, says Keppler. Experiments on plants that were grown in water rather than in soil also resulted in methane emissions, another strong sign that the gas came from the plants and not soil microbes.

From their data, the researchers estimate that the world's plants generate more than 150 million metric tons of methane each year, or about 20 percent of what typically enters the atmosphere. They report their findings in the Jan. 12 Nature. "


I guess you didnt even bother reading the whole article. Living plants create methane that comes off of it while it is alive!!!!!! Not just fossil fuels and burning them. Please read the article first!
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20060114/fob1.asp
Plus, did you ever take chemistry?

Looks like you didn't read my post. Where did the carbon and hydrogen in that methane come from?

And I did take chemistry. I'm starting my second semester of a four year chemical engineering course if it makes a difference.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a debate about Global Warming that didn't end up being a lesson in basic science?

yes

you know what would be even nicer? if schools covered this sort of ground for us better.

Looks like you didn't read my post. Where did the carbon and hydrogen in that methane come from?

And I did take chemistry. I'm starting my second semester of a four year chemical engineering course if it makes a difference.

You really shouldn't point out that claiming something means nothing to the confused person then start claiming stuff about yourself. Makes you look like a hypocrite. Obviously you know what you're talking about, but meh, I still like to point that out.

At least he finally started asking a decent question: how do we adjust?

Look,
my opinion on global warming is like this:
Sure its happening. Are we to blame for it? Yes and no.
Are we helping make better the situation? Hell no.
But our entire economies rely on things that require burning
fossil fuels. Unfortunately thats the reality.

But whats the alternative? Give up your cars? your way of life? How many people (that have cars) on this forum are willing to give up their cars right now?
We will have to change our way of life now in order to preserve it for the future and our children. Give up cars? No, that's unrealistic. Start cycling the short journey to work, avoid needless flights, turn off lights and heat your home conservatively - these are examples of realistic steps. You're just making excuses for your laziness.

here's a question - do you know that you are being untruthful and are therefore a liar, or is your failing that you should know such and just refuse to learn?

I don't understand that question. Is it just me? Could you please rephrase that?

Not true. For every climate scientist screaming that global warming is a farce there are hundreds screaming the opposite. The consensus is overwhelming.

That's why I turn to climate scientists for evidence. I don't claim to have done my own research.

Look around you. How can you say we don't have an impact? Look at the scale of the things we build and do. Hell, it is estimated that 25% of the air polution in Los Angeles comes from China! China! That sounds like a global impact to me. We're turning places that were savanahs and forrests into deserts. We've turned deserts into farms. We've turned once active, productive fisheries into oceanic dead zones. We do have global impacts.

Please read the rest of my sentence instead of using selective parts to pick at. I said have such an impact on our weather cycle. I know we have an impact, in general, on our planet. And true you never did say you did the research yourself so I guess I have no place to judge on that. I don't however, believe that there are more who are pro-global warming. I think that group is just more vocal. Unless someone can provide me numbers to show otherwise.


So, you won't listen to scientists(who wouldn't be scientists without some kind of degree in some kind of science), but you then demand credentials before you'll listen to us?

I never said I woudln't listen to scientist. Please specifiy where I typed that. I said that the only people who could convince me otherwise are scientist and that assorted lot and took at stab in the dark that many other people are like me. A person with credentials is more crediable than someone who lacks them and can be much more convincing with data to prove their point. I, however, find the scientist who are against global warming far more convincing.

Look,
my opinion on global warming is like this:
Sure its happening. Are we to blame for it? Yes and no.
Are we helping make better the situation? Hell no.
But our entire economies rely on things that require burning
fossil fuels. Unfortunately thats the reality.

But whats the alternative? Give up your cars? your way of life? How many people (that have cars) on this forum are willing to give up their cars right now?

few people would give up their cars. But as is typical with people who believe we can't change things you bring up extremes.
How about removing fuel inneficient cars from the market?
Get people to have better insulation in their homes
Where possible, have solar panels on their roofs.
Recycle more.
Be less wasteful with packaging.
Use more recycled paper
etc....
Not leaving lights/TVs on when not in use.

I like the life i lead, my cars, my electric appliances, etc...
But most of these points mentioned above actually save people money. But doing simple, easy things makes a large difference when eveyone is doing it.

Oh and these large SUVs that do 12metres to the litre should be banned! Fucking hate the damned things.

How about removing fuel inneficient cars from the market?
That would require you manufacture extra new cars. How much waste would that produce?

Please read the rest of my sentence instead of using selective parts to pick at. I said have such an impact on our weather cycle. I know we have an impact, in general, on our planet. And true you never did say you did the research yourself so I guess I have no place to judge on that. I don't however, believe that there are more who are pro-global warming. I think that group is just more vocal. Unless someone can provide me numbers to show otherwise.


In December 2004, Science published an article by UC San Diego geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes that summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[1] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
A whole bunch more on the consensus here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Here are a bunch of former Global warming skeptics who have changed their tunes in the face of mounting evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Former_global_warming_skeptics

One of them, the editor for Reason magazine:

Bailey has described himself as a "libertarian transhumanist." To this end, he has written a book entitled "Liberation Biology: The Scientific And Moral Case For The Biotech Revolution".

In his 1993 book, Ecoscam, and other works Bailey criticised claims that CFCs contributed to ozone depletion and that human activity was contributing to global warming. However, he has subsequently revised his views, stating in 2005 [1]

Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up.

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

And indeed you provided numbers. I'd like to know, however, who 'suggested' the journals/papers to be reviewed and how biased it was. Otherwise it would seem that, for the last 10 years at least, you were right. However I still struggle with trusting anything from wikipedia as a fully credible source to cite in any debate.

I still stand by my belief though, unfortunatly for everyone in the world. The Earth has been far warmer and colder in it's past. Climatology has shown that. Even recorded climates dating back around the turn of the millennia (or maybe it was mid, I'm not sure) show that the Earth was upwards of 5 degrees warmer than it is now, before a global cooling took place. That's not speculation either, but history ... unrefutable history. The numbers I keep seeing blame us for a 1 degree raise in the last 100 years or something to that sort. Which is why I have such a hard time believing we are the sole proprietor for this increase. Now if it was something like 10, or even 4, I would be more apt to believe.