Global Warming

[jmjselect 0]

it always amazes me how those who bring up 'god' the most are aethists(sp?)

i'll just leave the dicussion on global warming with this:

scientists of the past were shunned and beaten and imprisoned and sometimes killed for throwing up the ideas that deviated from the norm. today we see 'man made' global warming scientists deniers sent death threats.  it's reminds me of how the world was flat, those that denied it were shunned, beatened, imprisoned, and killed for criticizing that thought.

link to stories on how scientists who deny 'man made' global warming are sent death threats and other forms of threats.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+scientists+threatened&btnG=Google+Search

you never hear of global warming scientists who believe it is caused by man threatened like this

[CltcDrgn 0]

Here is an interseting thought that basically proves the Sun has far more impact on Global Warming than humans ever could. NASA recently finished analyizing data from Mars that put out a suprising result: The Polar Ice Caps on Mars are shrinking at the SAME RATE as on Earth. NASA researchers were quite stunned. It was also noted recently by a scientist that does research for NASA on climatology that all of the models used concerning Global Warming leave out one very important factor: the role of precipitation in regulating global tempatures. It basically boiled down to this simple, but often ignored by Global Warming alarmists, we have no way of predicting global precipitation. There is one cavaet pertaining to the ice caps, and that is that Antartica's ice sheet is actually expanding and getting thicker.

[coolotter88 2]

it's because they want to prove they're right. The only topic I feel strongly against religion is evolution because people who believe in creationism are just belittling god and I don't like it. okay last post on religion, no more comments on religion

those environmental extremists are really being annoying aren't they? they can get pretty mad at people who don't agree with them. What's there to be mad about? I mean, fine, ice caps will melt yada yada yada, and then what? what are you going to do? use a bicycle as your form of transportation to try and save the planet? that won't save the planet...

then there's

"oh no, we'll cause the extinction of some bug"

first of all, no one likes bugs, second of all, the job of different species is to become extinct, if the animal/plant/organism can't cope with changing climates, tough luck, unfortunately, polar bears may become a victim of natural selection. like my friend said before, we should have a day to get animals off the endagered species list....going to other way.

[JanYpe 17]

It's also amazing how useless some posts can be. Here's a novel idea: If you "can't be bothered commenting", then don't hit the reply button. What makes you think that anyone wants to read a "stand" without any sort of logical argumentation behind it, that even it's author couldn't be arsed to put half a thought into?

Posted by: Darko.Words...words...words.quote>

He meant that you might behave like a decent person if you followed the ten commandments or their equivalents and used a bit of common sense. He meant religion as a cruise control of reasonable morality. He didn't promote any faith or pass any judgment or say that you should start a crusade or a jihad. So pack up your righteous indignation and get on topic.

no, i actually wanted to set readers straight on the definition of a "theory"quote>

Fair enough. Both man made global warming as a theory, and natural global warming as a theory then.

CltcDrgn: That link with the sun seems interesting from what I've read, but not too substantial yet. Saying that it instantly disproves man made global warming would go a bit far.Link.

[Palpatine001 57]

Hmmm another thread on global warming...

Can't be bothered commenting this time

I take my stand in the global warming is a scare tactic (Shame of you Al Gore) and that Climatic Change is 95% Natural

Its amazing what we fear that we dont understand

oh and its amazing the lack of common sense in this world...

-Edit-

Looks like I am going to be challenged so I'll take it up in a post below

[DARKO 3]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 well, I don't know what my religion is but I just want to say, stop bashing the people who believe in a god. Religion is great, even if there is no god, you lived a good, moral life if you follow religion.quote>

 

This is False.

If you follow some sort of human manifestation of faith, you've automatically lived a good. moral life?

Why is religion great?  I could give just as many reasons why it isn't as I could that it is.

I agree that the "bashing" could stop,but your last sentence doesn't sit well with me at all.

[MrVegetable 2]

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Hmmm another thread on global warming...

Can't be bothered commenting this time

I take my stand in the global warming is a scare tactic (Shame of you Al Gore) and that Climatic Change is 95% Natural

Its amazing what we fear that we dont understand

oh and its amazing the lack of common sense in this world...quote>

 

I thinkexactly the same way...but you still bothered to comment when you said you wouldn't !

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: JWUT I understand that theories are considered as fact until proven otherwise, but that is precisely my point. I don't seek to discredit the theory of global warming, per se. I simply believe that, because of the constantly changing nature of scientific understanding, it is unwise to take a position on a scientific issue and then work to dismiss or discredit the work of those with a different position, just because you happen to hold the more popular position. We still don't know exactly what goes on at the deepest subatomic levels, do we? Do we know for certain what actually causes gravitational forces? Do we know, for absolute certainty, that reality is limited to what human beings, being physically limited, can detect with their five senses? Ah ha! we actually do know that there is a lot we don't know yet, possibly that there is more that we don't know than we do! It's going to be a very, very long time before we do know everything, so until then, let's be objective about things, shall we? This of course goes for those who take the less popular position, as well: your opponents just may end up being correct, rather than you!

I hope you'll all pardon my unrealistic idealism.quote>

I don' t think it's unwise to take a scientific position after you've read some books, articles and research on the subject. As long as your opinion isn't based on uncorroborated evidence, that is.

As far as the subatomic levels is concerned, our lack of knowledge is due to the fact that this subject is on the fringe of scientific discovery. We don't throw out our conceptions of the atomic level just because we don't understand the level below. Likewise, we don't dismiss gravity as fact when we don't understand the actual process of how these forces are created. Gravity and atomic physics are both quanitfiable and measurable, and backed up by decades and centuries of research. Lastly, the concept of "reality" is a metaphysical and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.

(Also, on a philopsophical note, I believe that it is impossible to know everything, ever.)

Originally posted by: CltcDrgn Here is an interseting thought that basically proves the Sun has far more impact on Global Warming than humans ever could. NASA recently finished analyizing data from Mars that put out a suprising result: The Polar Ice Caps on Mars are shrinking at the SAME RATE as on Earth. NASA researchers were quite stunned. It was also noted recently by a scientist that does research for NASA on climatology that all of the models used concerning Global Warming leave out one very important factor: the role of precipitation in regulating global tempatures. It basically boiled down to this simple, but often ignored by Global Warming alarmists, we have no way of predicting global precipitation. There is one cavaet pertaining to the ice caps, and that is that Antartica's ice sheet is actually expanding and getting thicker.quote>

Some questions I pose to you:

How many fossil fuels are being burned on Mars? Have they measured Mars' historical CO₂ record, or a historical record of any gases in Mars atmosphere? Lastly, the question I pose to you: How does Mars = Earth? Mars orbits the Sun at roughly 1.5 times the distance Earth is from the Sun. You don't suggest that the sun is the sole cause of global warming on Titan or Uranus, do you?

"A" scientist doesn't necessarily make a consensus, but I digress. I don't know where this information comes from, but I'd love to see some article(s) to back it up. And all the research I've seen says exactly the opposite about the ice sheets in Antartica, or any ice anywhere in the world. (And I can get sources for you, if you like.)

Originally posted by: jmjselect it always amazes me how those who bring up 'god' the most are aethists(sp?)

i'll just leave the dicussion on global warming with this:

scientists of the past were shunned and beaten and imprisoned and sometimes killed for throwing up the ideas that deviated from the norm. today we see 'man made' global warming scientists deniers sent death threats.  it's reminds me of how the world was flat, those that denied it were shunned, beatened, imprisoned, and killed for criticizing that thought.

link to stories on how scientists who deny 'man made' global warming are sent death threats and other forms of threats.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=global+warming+scientists+threatened&btnG=Google+Search

you never hear of global warming scientists who believe it is caused by man threatened like thisquote>

A few death threats from environmental extremists, whose tactics I do not condone, is not surprising. However, I haven't heard of any oil researchers murdered by the hands of extremists. You don't think a scientist in the oil industry is threatened, albeit in a different manner, to produce reports that toe the line for their products? I'm sure it was similar to the way Bush's science advisor's felt when their reports on gobal warming were edited to remove any support for such ideas.

Originally posted by: coolotter88

[Religious content deleted]

those environmental extremists are really being annoying aren't they? they can get pretty mad at people who don't agree with them. What's there to be mad about? I mean, fine, ice caps will melt yada yada yada, and then what? what are you going to do? use a bicycle as your form of transportation to try and save the planet? that won't save the planet...

then there's

"oh no, we'll cause the extinction of some bug"

first of all, no one likes bugs, second of all, the job of different species is to become extinct, if the animal/plant/organism can't cope with changing climates, tough luck, unfortunately, polar bears may become a victim of natural selection. like my friend said before, we should have a day to get animals off the endagered species list....going to other way.quote>

Those oil executives and energy conglomerates are really annoying aren't they? They can get pretty mad at people who don't agree with them. What's there to be mad about? I mean fine, the world will have a cleaner atmosphere yada yada yada then what? What are you going to do? Drive your energy-effecient car to work and save thousands of dollars you would have previously spent on gasoline? That won't destroy the planet...

Then there's

"Oh no, we'll prevent the extinction of some bug."

First of all, entymologists and lots of other people love bugs and appreciate their significance. Second of all, the job of different species is to support unique and sometimes fragile food chains and ecosystems. If they are destroyed by changing climates, then new technologies and cures from obscure species from all around the world may never be discovered and invasive and sometimes harmful species can move in.

Originally posted by: Palpatine001 Hmmm another thread on global warming...

Can't be bothered commenting this time

I take my stand in the global warming is a scare tactic (Shame of you Al Gore) and that Climatic Change is 95% Natural

Its amazing what we fear that we dont understand

oh and its amazing the lack of common sense in this world...quote>

You are completely entitled to your opinion.

It is not lack of understanding that causes my "fear" of global warming, it's precisely the opposite. I understand the science, it makes sense to me, and it is backed up by a library of scientific research. How's that for common sense?

[Ntq€310 1]

It's true the earth goes through cooling and warming cycles but we as humans are speeding up the natural process at a dedly rate, it's also not helping that many people say global warming is not happening or just ignore the signs of global warming, or they just dont know. the public needs to hear every thing about the subject, and the goverment needs to tell the public everything, and how they plan to help the promblem.

[coolotter88 2]

well, that's too bad, we can't have a compilation on the information of everything (even though we try). if there's the extinction of an organism, will it mess-up the ecosystem? probably not, will it change it significantly? maybe. extinction is extinction if it's natural or not, it happens all the time, something will fill the niche that was left by a dead organism. and no, we can't destroy any planet so stop talking. you're just afraid of change thats all.

[jcabassa 20]

This is bull*****! How do you know that this "information" isn't just propaganda? After all, government agencies are working hand in hand with most of the oil industries and most of the other polluting factors in the world. I don't know where you live, but the american government is barely charging anyone taxes in efforts to cut co2 emissions, in fact, they aren't doing enough. The world is NOT colder now than it has been for thousands of years, that's an outrageous statement! It has been proven that we've had record breaking hot temperatures in the past few years than in recorded history! There is overwhelming evidence proving that we are causing Global Warming. It's plain to see that our pollution is damaging the earth and its environment. Even if we aren't causing global warming, which I truly believe that we are, we are still destroying our environment with pollution and it must be stopped. The bottom line is, we MUST find cleaner alternatives to do things, it's as simple as that.

[coolotter88 2]

record breaking temperatures doesn't mean it's global warming, it could be the urban heat island effect.

[jmjselect 0]

Originally posted by: DARKO

Originally posted by: coolotter88 well, I don't know what my religion is but I just want to say, stop bashing the people who believe in a god. Religion is great, even if there is no god, you lived a good, moral life if you follow religion.quote>

 

This is False.

If you follow some sort of human manifestation of faith, you've automatically lived a good. moral life?

Why is religion great?  I could give just as many reasons why it isn't as I could that it is.

I agree that the "bashing" could stop,but your last sentence doesn't sit well with me at all.quote>

religion is a relatively new.  because good religious people(in contrast to bad religous people) have in general run the world over the past couple of thousands of years today is the product of that.

I believe we live in the best period man has ever lived even with all the bad stuff going on, man has never lived as great.

[jglei701 8]

One of the striking things about all of the global warming "science" going on is that it is politically motivated nearly entirely across the board. And those in favor of the theory that our planet is getting warmer are making statements such as there is a "consensus among scientists" that global warming is infact caused by humans.

I've spoken with numerous scientists that, at the very least, are skeptical about global warming being linked at all to human use. None of us were around 20,000 years ago. None of us were around 20 million years ago. And the science that is used to piece together snippets of the past is so young, how do the scientists know what they're doing is producing correct results?

The sample size we have of scientific observation about things like weather are limited to, at the most 100 years. There are local cultures that have chronicled hurricanes or typhoons (Notably in China) but these observations (even observations over 3000-4000 years) show ebbs and flows in hurricanes and typhoons, which seem to prove that our weather changes on cycles, as well. Our world has had ice ages and warming spells, and scientists really don't know why. Our weather is one the most complex and unpredictable things about our unique planet. Hurricane "experts" predicted a year in which there were more hurricanes in 2006 than even 2005, which was the most active on record. Thankfully for those in the Gulfcoast region, their prediction was off, way off. There were only 9 named storms, and only 4 hurricanes. Only Alberto and Ernesto caused much damage, but not even damage equalling $1 million dollars.

The fact of the matter is this. Human caused global warming is a theory, at best, and mankind does not know enough about our weather to be able to determine that ANY changes are caused by ourselves.

One final question... if Al Gore is so concerned about the Global Warming he feels is caused by mankind, how is he changing his lifestyle to decrease his consumption and decrease his waste? And how is flying around the country in a private jet decreasing his consumption and doing anyting BUT increasing to the downfall of our civilization by our own actions, due to Global Warming...?

[beebs 129]

Originally posted by: jcabassaThe world is NOT colder now than it has been for thousands of years, that's an outrageous statement! It has been proven that we've had record breaking hot temperatures in the past few years than in recorded history! quote>

Accurate recorded history goes back to at the earliest, the 1800's. The past 200 years is a little blip on the timeline of this planets history.

And lets just phase out religion from this thread completely, ok guys?

[Palpatine001 57]

Originally posted by: jglei701 One of the striking things about all of the global warming "science" going on is that it is politically motivated nearly entirely across the board. And those in favor of the theory that our planet is getting warmer are making statements such as there is a "consensus among scientists" that global warming is infact caused by humans.

I've spoken with numerous scientists that, at the very least, are skeptical about global warming being linked at all to human use. None of us were around 20,000 years ago. None of us were around 20 million years ago. And the science that is used to piece together snippets of the past is so young, how do the scientists know what they're doing is producing correct results?

The sample size we have of scientific observation about things like weather are limited to, at the most 100 years. There are local cultures that have chronicled hurricanes or typhoons (Notably in China) but these observations (even observations over 3000-4000 years) show ebbs and flows in hurricanes and typhoons, which seem to prove that our weather changes on cycles, as well. Our world has had ice ages and warming spells, and scientists really don't know why. Our weather is one the most complex and unpredictable things about our unique planet. Hurricane "experts" predicted a year in which there were more hurricanes in 2006 than even 2005, which was the most active on record. Thankfully for those in the Gulfcoast region, their prediction was off, way off. There were only 9 named storms, and only 4 hurricanes. Only Alberto and Ernesto caused much damage, but not even damage equalling $1 million dollars.

The fact of the matter is this. Human caused global warming is a theory, at best, and mankind does not know enough about our weather to be able to determine that ANY changes are caused by ourselves.

One final question... if Al Gore is so concerned about the Global Warming he feels is caused by mankind, how is he changing his lifestyle to decrease his consumption and decrease his waste? And how is flying around the country in a private jet decreasing his consumption and doing anyting BUT increasing to the downfall of our civilization by our own actions, due to Global Warming...?quote>

 

I couldn't agree more with you on your statement and the point I stand by when I make my claim about Global Warming being nothing more than hot air (and again Shame on you Al Gore, you should lead by example)

The point being we just don't know anything and I mean ANYTHING on climate, and what we do is like a drop in the Pacific Ocean, our best forecasters only have a 40% accuracy in predicting climate if that.

All we can do until we get enough knowledge to CREATE AN INFORMED OPINION is to mitigate for climatic change

That is get the population under control

REALISE that building on a very dynamic coast line is ASKING for trouble especially from storms and Hurricanes

Oil, Coal, Gas and Nuclear are going to be around for a very long time to come, alone there is 1 billion barrels of oil, 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and enough coal in New Zealand her self to last 300+ years and all that is just in our Economic Zone - so god knows what the America's have in potential

The top 4 green house gases from most are:

WATER VAPOUR (1%)

CO2 (0.16%)

Methane (a coolant most Days) (0.08%)

O3 - which is Ozone (0.5% approx)

   The % figures are given as % of total gas volume in the Atmosphere with N2 and O2 forming 96-98% of the atmosphere

REALISE that building on a flood plain is going to = damaging floods

REALISE removing vegetation and urbanisation increases run off which increases errosion, gums up rivers causing them to flood more often and brings the hills into your homes

REALISE this planet has been without ice caps more than once, they are relicts of the last Grand Ice Age

KNOW  that Sea levels gom up and down and that the Pacific and Indian Oceanic Islands are sinking because of geological reasons - their central volcanos are collapsing

KNOW THAT sea levels are increasing by 1.8mm a year on average and populations flooding to the coast are asking for it

KNOW that we KNOW VERY LITTLE about our planet, but we can insure ourselves against the worst of it - SO PREPARE AND MITIGATE and STOP CREATING HOT AIR from this debate and then lives and property will be saved - think about the poor people in New Orleans if all that money spent on "other issues abroad" were spent fortifying the defences from the storm EVERYONE KNEW was going to happen.

That is my piece for now...

[coolotter88 2]

WHOA people, scientific discussion going on here, global warming is caused by humans is a hypothesis, not a theory, i'm being [Edited for content. It just wasn't needed. ] Marc about this because the incorrect usage of the word theory is what screws people up.

I have more breaking news for you guys, it turns out global warming really is happening and it is being caused by humans, how? from all the hot air people are emitting over this topic.

wikiality is not reality

the break off of a chunk of sea ice the size of rhode island is not significant, it was sea ice.

in canada, a gigantic piece of sea ice broke off, not because of global warming though, so this rhode island piece of "evidence" can be defenestrated.

well, we just need to live in the mountains close to the ocean and we'll wait for the water to come up to us.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: jglei701 One of the striking things about all of the global warming "science" going on is that it is politically motivated nearly entirely across the board. And those in favor of the theory that our planet is getting warmer are making statements such as there is a "consensus among scientists" that global warming is infact caused by humans.

I've spoken with numerous scientists that, at the very least, are skeptical about global warming being linked at all to human use. None of us were around 20,000 years ago. None of us were around 20 million years ago. And the science that is used to piece together snippets of the past is so young, how do the scientists know what they're doing is producing correct results?

The sample size we have of scientific observation about things like weather are limited to, at the most 100 years. There are local cultures that have chronicled hurricanes or typhoons (Notably in China) but these observations (even observations over 3000-4000 years) show ebbs and flows in hurricanes and typhoons, which seem to prove that our weather changes on cycles, as well. Our world has had ice ages and warming spells, and scientists really don't know why. Our weather is one the most complex and unpredictable things about our unique planet. Hurricane "experts" predicted a year in which there were more hurricanes in 2006 than even 2005, which was the most active on record. Thankfully for those in the Gulfcoast region, their prediction was off, way off. There were only 9 named storms, and only 4 hurricanes. Only Alberto and Ernesto caused much damage, but not even damage equalling $1 million dollars.

The fact of the matter is this. Human caused global warming is a theory, at best, and mankind does not know enough about our weather to be able to determine that ANY changes are caused by ourselves.

One final question... if Al Gore is so concerned about the Global Warming he feels is caused by mankind, how is he changing his lifestyle to decrease his consumption and decrease his waste? And how is flying around the country in a private jet decreasing his consumption and doing anyting BUT increasing to the downfall of our civilization by our own actions, due to Global Warming...?quote>

It is only natural that a scientific consensus concerning matters as serious and globally life-altering as this become a politicized issue. I think it's healthy for people and governments to debate the merits of such science.

Were any of the scientists you spoke to studying global warming, perhaps?

The scientists know they are producing the correct results because they can compare their results to other studies producing the same conclusions. Nobody refutes that the world is getting warmer, rather they dispute the causes.

So we can't predict the weather to absolute certainty. I can't tell you what tonight's winning LOTTO numbers will be, either. Meterologists work with probablility, which is why on the evening forecast you will see a percentage, not a psychic prediction. To follow the logic that we could not possibly know enough about our planet and the things that influence it is an insult to science itself. We have put men on the moon, traveled to the bottom-most depths of the ocean, and completely colonized an entire planet. We've made nuclear weapons, medicines that cure disease, and dissected and recorded the entire human genome. But for some reason, when it comes to the environment, every scientist, article or element of research that points to a similar conclusion could not possibly be correct?

As for your last point, I completely agree. I propose that Al Gore heretofore walk across the country and swim both oceans (with his laptop!) should he choose to ever give his presentation again.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 record breaking temperatures doesn't mean it's global warming, it could be the urban heat island effect.quote>

I doubt the reflective properties of concrete metropolises and the increased temperatures they create in the immediate vicinity could break off a piece of the Antartic ice sheet the size of Rhode Island.

Originally posted by: Palpatine001

I couldn't agree more with you on your statement and the point I stand by when I make my claim about Global Warming being nothing more than hot air (and again Shame on you Al Gore, you should lead by example)

The point being we just don't know anything and I mean ANYTHING on climate, and what we do is like a drop in the Pacific Ocean, our best forecasters only have a 40% accuracy in predicting climate if that.

All we can do until we get enough knowledge to CREATE AN INFORMED OPINION is to mitigate for climatic change

That is get the population under control

REALISE that building on a very dynamic coast line is ASKING for trouble especially from storms and Hurricanes

Oil, Coal, Gas and Nuclear are going to be around for a very long time to come, alone there is 1 billion barrels of oil, 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and enough coal in New Zealand her self to last 300+ years and all that is just in our Economic Zone - so god knows what the America's have in potential

The top 4 green house gases from most are:

WATER VAPOUR (1%)

CO2 (0.16%)

Methane (a coolant most Days) (0.08%)

O3 - which is Ozone (0.5% approx)

   The % figures are given as % of total gas volume in the Atmosphere with N2 and O2 forming 96-98% of the atmosphere

REALISE that building on a flood plain is going to = damaging floods

REALISE removing vegetation and urbanisation increases run off which increases errosion, gums up rivers causing them to flood more often and brings the hills into your homes

REALISE this planet has been without ice caps more than once, they are relicts of the last Grand Ice Age

KNOW  that Sea levels gom up and down and that the Pacific and Indian Oceanic Islands are sinking because of geological reasons - their central volcanos are collapsing

KNOW THAT sea levels are increasing by 1.8mm a year on average and populations flooding to the coast are asking for it

KNOW that we KNOW VERY LITTLE about our planet, but we can insure ourselves against the worst of it - SO PREPARE AND MITIGATE and STOP CREATING HOT AIR from this debate and then lives and property will be saved - think about the poor people in New Orleans if all that money spent on "other issues abroad" were spent fortifying the defences from the storm EVERYONE KNEW was going to happen.

That is my piece for now...quote>

Yes, it has been discovered recently that all climatologists are actually chimpanzees in lab coats. For decades, they have been purporting their "science" as fact, when in reality they have been mindlessly thumping on typewriters to produce (incredibly) research and studies in the field of climatology. The truth is out: we know NOTHING about climate.

The position that we could not possibly effect our environment or have a lasting impact has been the assumption of all the guilty polluters ever to exist in human history. Nobody ever thought that environmental regulations exist because, indeed, we can have an impact on our environment and we have done so in the past with detrimental results. Why make the same mistake with our own planet? Does it seem so improbable that 6 billion people could have a lasting impact on our planet's atmosphere and climate? I dare you to collect 6 billion of ANYTHING, put it in a warehouse, look at it, and tell me that the world's civilization is a drop in the bucket. We can and do have an impact on the earth.

RealiZe that civilizations have been existing in coastal areas since the dawn of human civilization for a very good reason. Do you suggest they all relocate to Nebraska to avoid their dire fate?

You also point out, although I contest your figures, that we have a finite limit to the amount of biofuel energy, meaning that we will run out eventually. A renewable source would not only be more effecient, but last virtually forever.

This is a quote from the Wikipedia article on "Greenhouse Gases":

[begin quote]

The major natural greenhouse gases are water vapour, which causes about 36-70% of the greenhouse effect on Earth (not including clouds); carbon dioxide, which causes 9-26%; methane, which causes 4-9%, and ozone, which causes 3-7%. It is not possible to state that a certain gas causes a certain percentage of the greenhouse effect, because the influences of the various gases are not additive.

and:

The concentrations of several greenhouse gases have increased over time. Human activity increases the greenhouse effect primarily through release of carbon dioxide, but human influences on other greenhouse gases can also be important. Some of the main sources of greenhouse gases due to human activity include:

* burning of fossil fuels and deforestation leading to higher carbon dioxide concentrations;

* livestock and paddy rice farming, land use and wetland changes, pipeline losses, and covered vented landfill emissions leading to higher methane atmospheric concentrations. Many of the newer style fully vented septic systems that enhance and target the fermentation process also are major sources of atmospheric methane; 

* use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in refrigeration systems, and use of CFCs and halons in fire suppression systems and manufacturing processes.

* agricultural activities, including the use of fertilizers, that lead to higher nitrous oxide concentrations

.

 Greenhouse gas emissions from industry, transportation and agriculture are very likely the main cause of recently observed global warming.

[end quote]

You can check the references there, if you like.

RealiZe that building on a coast != you should have to build your hut 20 feet above sea level.

RealiZe that said "urbanization" and the effects of rain forest depletion decrease the ecosystem's natural capacity to recycle CO₂, as well as causing increased erosion.

RealiZe that I just researched the topic of the lack of ice sheets at a point in history and couldn't find anything, anywhere. Most scientists theorize we have had, since the formation of the modern atmosphere and after the earth had cooled significantly, ice caps and sheets, but in a state of flux as to their size and coverage.

Know that your point about the Indian Ocean doesn't say anything about ocean levels rising due to global warming, and only points out that the opposite is happening in that region due to reasons that aren't global warming, thus proving... nothing?

Know that you point out that global sea levels are rising, but you don't cite a cause. You merely suggest that anyone living near the ocean is "asking for it." (I assume you live inland.)

Know that we know quite a bit about our planet, and I consider the human race rather intelligent for a group of primates. If everyone knew it was going to happen, then why did nobody do anything about it? Hurricane Katrina was a disaster, not a planned event.

Ok, time for bed. It's 3 am.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 WHOA people, scientific discussion going on here, global warming is caused by humans is a hypothesis, not a theory, i'm being [Edited for content. It just wasn't needed. ] Marc about this because the incorrect usage of the word theory is what screws people up.

I have more breaking news for you guys, it turns out global warming really is happening and it is being caused by humans, how? from all the hot air people are emitting over this topic.

wikiality is not reality

the break off of a chunk of sea ice the size of rhode island is not significant, it was sea ice.

in canada, a gigantic piece of sea ice broke off, not because of global warming though, so this rhode island piece of "evidence" can be defenestrated.

well, we just need to live in the mountains close to the ocean and we'll wait for the water to come up to us.quote>

From Webster's dictionary:

hypothesis: 1 a: an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument  b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action

2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences

3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

theory: 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION

3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

synonym see HYPOTHESIS

Please note the last sentence in the definition of theory. When global warming is referred to as a theory, it is not in the abstract definition found after 2 (speculation), but rather in the scientific sense of the word (either the first or fifth definitions.) Perhaps you'll dispute Webster, as well?

If you have a problem with the article, please dispute the sources contained within. Look up any scientific, legal or factual topic on Wikipedia and you will find an accurate description of the topic.

I resent the fact that discussing this issue in any detail is merely blowing "hot air" and would suggest you open up your ears to what the world and it's people, scientists, and governments are trying to say. This is not a waste of time; rather, dismissing this topic as trifling, is.

Do you even know how big Rhode Island is? This is not normal. It is unprecedented. And global warming has caused, as would be expected, a rise in the temperature of the world's oceans. This warm water is what broke the ice's back, to borrow a metaphor.

Sure. Chunks of ice nearly 3,144 km²  break off all the time. That's why it made headlines, right? "Also today, reports are coming in that it is raining somewhere on earth."

Please move to the mountains immediately. The sooner, the better.

[JWUT 2]

Originally posted by: schm0

I don' t think it's unwise to take a scientific position after you've read some books, articles and research on the subject. As long as your opinion isn't based on uncorroborated evidence, that is.

As far as the subatomic levels is concerned, our lack of knowledge is due to the fact that this subject is on the fringe of scientific discovery. We don't throw out our conceptions of the atomic level just because we don't understand the level below. Likewise, we don't dismiss gravity as fact when we don't understand the actual process of how these forces are created. Gravity and atomic physics are both quanitfiable and measurable, and backed up by decades and centuries of research. Lastly, the concept of "reality" is a metaphysical and philosophical issue, not a scientific one.quote>

 

I'd just like to clarify my position, here. What I said was that "it is unwise to take a position on a scientific issue and then work to dismiss or discredit the work of those with a different position, just because you happen to hold the more popular position."

What I meant was that it's perfectly right to take positions on things, with evidence to back you up, as you said, schmO, but that It isn't right to completely attack your opponent. We certainly can have rational debates about the merits of each position, but what I see happening is that anti-warming and anti-human-influence scientists are being ostracised and dimissed as crackpots, on the payroll of oil companies, while others are claiming that the pro-warming and pro-human influence scientists are just falling in line with what's popular to avoid that sort of rejection, or that they're on the payroll of some political party, or that they get some sort of visceral thrill out of frightening peole with doom and gloom climate predictions! [Takes a breath...] Surely we can agree that such name calling is useless and serves only to discredit the one doing the calling.

As for my ramblings on gravity and the subatomic, I did'nt mean to give the impression that I was questioning the validity of those theories (I like that gravity still works, thanks!), but rather, I was using these as examples to demonstrate that we don't fully understand all the processes that make the universe work the way it does, including the climate systems of our own Earth.

And yes, perhaps bringing up the subjective nature of "reality" was a silly idea on my part.

My point in posting on this forum though, is just to show that while there is much that we do know and understand about this particular issue, it would be folly to presume that there isn't much more yet to discover. In the meantime, it would be wise to maintain an objective stance, along with one's personal convictions.

[confused04 14]

Originally posted by: hymewales "The temperature decrease observed during the post WWII era is not evidence of Global Warming being a farce. In fact, in somewhat supports it."

Your words when talking about the CFC's. Somewhat is a very weak statement.

I think you miss the point I made regarding Solar activity, Milankovitch cycles, and the weaking of the magnetic field which you avoided...You are basing your assumptions on one thing...one thing called the internationally media recognized increase in CO2; Basically placing all of your eggs in one basket.  You are seeing only one tree when you should be seeing the forest. You cannot use one set of  data and make a conclusion based on it when many other factors are at work on this beautiful thing we call Earth. Basically you are saying you're favorite team is going to win the World Cup (or whatever your sport is) based on the assumption the team consists of the best players from around the world (analogy).  This is your CO2 theory.

You have to factor in other events like the known fact that we are currently in the closest orbit to the sun (Milankovitch cycle) and the fact that we are in an unprecedented heightedned increase in solar activity in recorded history. Not to mention the weakened magnetic field which is also fact. The video shown supports the fact that solar activity plays a better role than CO2 in the increase in temperatures. There is not a 100 percent match in the graphs in the the comparison to CO2 and temperature increase. I don't know why there is a drop in temperature and the the CO2 levels remain the same. You cannot say it is becuase of reduction in CFC's or anything else. It is not fact. The graphs match when compared to the recorded solar activity and temperatures. Basically you are convinced you have the World Cup winner even though the team does not have chemistry (Earth's orbit), the coach is having a difficult  time with his family and is not focused (solar activity), and one your main players is hiding an injury (weakened magentic field).

Sure you can try and discredit them one by one, tree by tree; fact by fact. But when you look at the trees together (the forest/facts), the evidence is compelling that we humans may not be the cause of Global Warming but that it is a natural cycle of mother Earth.

Global warming is happening. I know I cannot convince anyone to change thier beliefs because I feel that is not right. You will believe what you want to believe. You will tell me to research my facts and I advise YOU to do that. I'm not changing your mind, only putting doubt  in the theory.  Nor am I changing mine. Someone said earlier he/she used a common sense check...use common sense...common sense dictates to research all of the facts and attempt to factor in every part of the equation, not just one unproven theory.  I have yet to see anyone here or scientist factor anything other than CO2 into the current theory.  The equation only contains one thing...CO2 in the atmosphere. A bunch of world class players on the same team does not make a champion. A theory does not make something fact.quote>

A) My assumptions are indeed based on C02.  However, thats not because I refuse to look at the other data, but its because the other data has been routinely debunked.  Recent studies of which I can procure if you so desire, have placed global warming by solar forcing at no more than 30% (still significant, but puts a majority of the blame on humans) but having read the report, their assumptions were in favor of overestimating solar input.  The Milankovitch cycles take significantly larger spans of time to register changes that were much smaller than those we've seen recently.  The cycle might explain differences in temps between 2004 and 1704, but the position of Earth is not different enough between 1974 and 2004 to explain a rise of 0.8 C.  The Sun has indeed been at an elevated level of activity, but this has been true since 1880 and in fact, the activity has level off around the 1950's.  The changes in temperature prior to 1950's can be linked for well with solar changes, but after 1950 it suddenly doesn't work.  Might mean something else is at work.  Models using solar data can't explain the rise in temperature, but many models that rely mostly (but not entirely) on CO2 concentrations seem to be able to explain it.  Granted these are models and no matter how robust they might be, that'll never convince anyone.

Point being, no matter how much evidence is procured to debunk the other forcings that MIGHT be responsible for Global Warming, it will never be enough.  Its a similar problem that Evolution has with Intelligent Design and Creationists.  They will point out the problem of "transition fossils" and if one were to be found, they'll claim there's no transition between the first fossil and the new transition fossil and they'll keep asking for ever decreasing transitions.  You can use a number line to illustrate this.  If 0 were one fossil and 1 a descendant fossil, a transition fossil could fall at 0.5, but I.D. supporters will ask for transition fossils between 0 and 0.5 and they'll keep asking for transition fossils even if it were between 0.02332112312 and 0.02332112313.  There will never be enough evidence to convince I.D. advocates.  This same problem exists with anthropogenic forcings of Global Warming.  You say that all the evidence comes from a few tree rings which is simply not true.  Evidence has been taken from ancient rock formations, trees (which you've pointed out), ice cores, sediment cores, and all from around the world.  Trees admittingly are the weakest pieces of evidence but a collection of evidence from around the world is enough to at least paint a disturbing picture.

Agreed, this debate will never sway anyone who has an opinion already.  Thats just human stubborness for you, and as I fall in the "human category", I too am at fault.  But I have done countless hours of research (as I might be going to gradschool for astrobiology and climate change is one significant thing I might need to know).  After tirelessly looking up peer reviewed studies for both sides and even the rebuttle studies for both sides, I'm still convinced that solar radiance, orbital cycles, and the weaking magnetic field are only small factors for what has been observed. 

I'm gonna have to agree with whoever brought up the "financing these researchers" problem.  Having to compete for research money myself, I know what kinda benefits (or lack there of) University staff receives to do the research.  If its from a University, I will rarely ever doubt the intentions of the author.  By anyone else, and I will doubt it immediately.  Unfortunately, this leads to a lot of legitimate anti-anthropogenic forcing supporters being grouped with what I will for now call "false" scientists.  There is legitimate research projects by the opposition, but there image is marred by "corporate scientists".

Just a quick side note, can you post something in regards to a weaking magnetic sphere (and please don't let it be that scientologist).

[confused04 14]

To be fair, there have been several (at least 4) instances of Rhode Island to Delaware size chunks breaking off in my life time. But the rate of melting is alarming none the less.

[coolotter88 2]

but geez, it's an ice shelf, stop going bananas over it. Like I said, it's happened before (on an even larger scale) let it go.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 but geez, it's an ice shelf, stop going bananas over it. Like I said, it's happened before (on an even larger scale) let it go.quote>

Huh? When did this larger-than-Rhode-Island ice chunk depart from the ice shelf? Stop giving one liners and post with sustenance before claiming some grandiose suggestion. Some enlightenment would be appreciated on my part.

JWUT: Excellent reply. I suppose I misread the tenor of your argument. My apologies for tossing your well-written post (both of them, actually) in with the likes of the lesser. (By lesser, I am merely referring to grammar. ) Your point is well-heard, but surely such logic might be used against the nay-sayers?

[coolotter88 2]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061229-arctic-ice.html

it's not very large but still. sea ice breaking off has absolutely no impact on sea levels.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 no , sea ice, not glaciers on land.

now for a simple experiment

take a cup, put some ice cubes in it

fill the cup with water until it's full to the top

place cup on *insert person here*'s head

tell them that the water level won't rise

wait until the ice melts...did the water level in the cup rise? I didn't think so.

Section within quote Edited for content. Mr. C.quote>

There's really no need to insult me. I was merely trying to prove a point. I apologize for the confusion.

I just don't understand how someone can be so non-chalant about something like this:

And besides, a huge majority of the ice in Antarctic region resides in ice caps or ice sheets.

The following is from the Wikipedia article on the topic of the "ice sheet." I have highlighted the most important fact in italics for you:

[begin quote]

The Antarctic ice sheet is the largest single mass of ice on Earth. It covers an area of almost 14 million km² and contains 30 million km³ of ice. Around 90% of the fresh water on the Earth's surface is held in the ice sheet, and, if melted, would cause sea levels to rise by 61.1 metres. In East Antarctica the ice sheet rests on a major land mass, but in West Antarctica the bed is in places more than 2,500 meters below sea level. It would be seabed if the ice sheet were not there.

[end quote]

The importance of this ice illustrates it's importance when examining the way  the warming and cooling cycles of the earth's climate dictate global weather patterns, among other things. This is illustrated in a video produced by NASA entitled "A Tour of the Cryosphere." I suggest you all watch this video. (And I highly recommend downloading the higher resolution video. Although it's a bit big at 200 MB, the quality is much better.)

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: coolotter88 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061229-arctic-ice.html

it's not very large but still. sea ice breaking off has absolutely no impact on sea levels.quote>

This sheet is nowhere near the size or scope of the one recorded in Antartica.

I typed two words in the search engine at the top right hand on the very page of that link.

Here's the first story that popped up after typing "sea level."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0420_040420_earthday.html

On the second page of the article, a short segment caught my interest:

A recent Nature study suggested that Greenland's ice sheet will begin to melt if the temperature there rises by 3 degrees Celsius (5.4 degrees Fahrenheit). That is something many scientists think is likely to happen in another hundred years.

The complete melting of Greenland would raise sea levels by 7 meters (23 feet). But even a partial melting would cause a one-meter (three-foot) rise. Such a rise would have a devastating impact on low-lying island countries, such as the Indian Ocean's Maldives, which would be entirely submerged.

Densely populated areas like the Nile Delta and parts of Bangladesh would become uninhabitable, potentially driving hundreds of millions of people from their land.

A one-meter sea level rise would wreak particular havoc on the Gulf Coast and eastern seaboard of the United States.

"No one will be free from this," said Overpeck, whose maps show that every U.S. East Coast city from Boston to Miami would be swamped. A one-meter sea rise in New Orleans, Overpeck said, would mean "no more Mardi Gras."

Absolutely no impact? Personally, I don't want to wait to find out.

If you like smog, acid rain, devastated ecosystems, pollution in our water, air and soil, high oil prices, and a small number of countries holding the world hostage by controlling most of the oil on the globe, then perhaps doing something good for the environment isn't your thing.

Do a simple science expirement for me. You'll need three things: A household glass or cup, some water, and an ice cube.

1. Take the glass and fill it to the top with water.

2. Put it on your girlfriend's/mother's/boss's head.

3. Assure her that the level in the glass won't rise.

4. Gently place the ice cube in the glass.
5. Theory proved.

There is a very simple premise behind my reasoning to stop global warming. Creating a clean, energy-efficient solution to fossil fuels will create new technologies, more jobs and improve the economy. I believe the intial cost will be expensive, but in time will reinvigorate the stifled economies of the energy and auto industries by providing things like effecient cars to consumers (which in turns turns profits and employs people.) I would gladly pay several thousand dollars more for a car if it got 40 miles per gallon. So would most people in my area, as long as it doesn't mean any more job loss. In return, we would produce less CO₂, thus reducing the impact we have on the warmth of the globe.

And on a lighter note, I direct you to my myspace videos page. If you love Will Ferrell, then check him out in this hilarious clip from Earth to America.

[coolotter88 2]

no, sea ice, not glaciers on land.

now for a simple experiment

take a cup, put some ice cubes in it

fill the cup with water until it's full to the top

place cup on *insert person here*'s head

tell them that the water level won't rise

wait until the ice melts...did the water level in the cup rise? I didn't think so.

Edited for content. Mr. C.

[meowza 230]

I've taken up more than 12 units of earth sciences in my university, and all my doctorate professors claim one thing that is true -GW (being human generated) is an absolute fact. This is backed up with scholarly journals from all around the world. Though media gives people some insight on what GW is (pro or con), it is not sufficient. Some even deviate from the whole truth in order to gain profit, which is sad. Watching a documentary is like looking at the point of view of the film producer, and not of the scientist.

I suggest you people try google scholar, though that is still not enough. It would be better if you go to your local collegiate library and look up in their electronic references for journals regarding gw.

If there are any doctorates in the house that are experts in the field, I would appreciate if we conduct a panel discussion regarding the topic so the people of ST could truly understand. This would not be a debate, since there is no reason for debating.

[Barbarossa 51]

coolotter88 said:

it's not very large but still. sea ice breaking off has absolutely no impact on sea levels.quote>

If anything is... um... , it is this statement. You seem to fail to realize that this sea ice was NOT in the water. That is why it is called a SHELF. Shelves are typicaly ABOVE things, that is why they are shelves (unless we are discussing reefs). Please consider the facts and your terminology before you begin insulting other members.

Barbarossa

Edited. Mr. C.