The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[edd17 1]

The reason that the worlds population is growing so fast is that infant mortality has fallen, but in developing countries they are still having large families as they would have when the extra children were needed as insurance so some would survive. In more developed countries birthrates have fallen and population growth has levelled off. There is always going to be some population growth but the biggest problem is that more people in developing countries are starting to want to live like we do, and there are not enough resources for everyone on the planet to do that.

[Gozer_Jep 0]

but do we have the right to use those recources, more than the developing countries?

[John94538 0]

There are natural resources left, guys, but we're actually depleting it... (Take oil, for example)

I don't know, by the way, if we can have the power to take more resources than what we need from this world. Developing countries should be able to have enough resources such as food, shelter, and clothing.

^Which reminds me, this thread's somewhat going to the issue of moral corruption, evil, and human fault. However, its us thats causing our extinction by global warming...

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

No religious/ conspiracy theorist content? Hmmmm.... Enviromentalism has become a religion all it's own, with Algore as its messiah, and the us-vs-them viewpoint common to many religions. The with-us-or-against us philosophy, etc. Try radioliberty.com, it might explain some things. Ever heard of the Georgia Guidestones? The eco-types want to eliminate 5.5 BILLION people to save the enviroment; not many would be left to enjoy it....

[Easy Bakes 253]

5.5 Billion?

Thats what 90% of the worlds population?

that would curtail a whole lot of the polution problems we have, although its not a real practicle solution.

[coolotter88 2]

yeah, killing 5.5 billion people isn't the brightest idea...especially when all the corpses start decaying and releasing methane gas into the atmosphere...I think the "eco-types" need to think of a new plan.

[edd17 1]

Originally posted by: manticorefan No religious/ conspiracy theorist content? Hmmmm.... Enviromentalism has become a religion all it's own, with Algore as its messiah, and the us-vs-them viewpoint common to many religions. The with-us-or-against us philosophy, etc. Try radioliberty.com, it might explain some things. Ever heard of the Georgia Guidestones? The eco-types want to eliminate 5.5 BILLION people to save the enviroment; not many would be left to enjoy it....quote>

There has been no religious or conspiracy theories because most people here are debating the scientific validity of the theory of anthropogenic global warming while some only seem to be here do air their dislike of Al Gore. Trying to invalidate our arguments by comparing us with some of the more excitable groups on the internet isn't going to work, and I'm not going to say what that says about your position (though i would hate to group genuine sceptics with those who simply refuse to acknowledge the facts).

I haven't heard of the Georgia Guidestones because they are a fringe group with some strange ideas, few people think that this kind of thing is necessary but it seems convenient for people ignoring the fact that they are damaging the ability of the environment to regulate itself and harming others through their overconsumption of the planets finite resources to simply dismiss people who are concerned about this as tree huggers with nothing better to do and possessing some sort of mental incapacity.

Originally posted by: coolotter88 the "eco-types"quote>

Again, lumping people with genuine concerns about the state of the environment into the same group and considering them all  enviro-hippy-commi-nazis isn't  going to make the facts go away.

[manimal_uk 0]

Originally posted by: MrFingers CO2 starts to be toxic to animals at around 5%, and at that point the only sympton is increased prespiration.  5% is 100 times higher than our current 0.05%.  Point being, we have plenty of space for more CO2 with no adverse effects on animals.

Vegetation literally experiences a 1:1 link between CO2 and bioproductivity.

fresh water problems is something humans have had to deal with since the beginning of time.  The Sahara desert has shrunk by 300,000 square kilometers in 20 years.  Why?  Because of the increased CO2 in the air.  The hurricane strength relation to global warming is complete BS. 

As for your car, stick to making your own decisions.  Don't let someone else tell you what car to buy, and don't tell anyone else what car to buy.quote>

Funny how a quick google came up with a statement that "The Sahara Desert expanded 350 km. southward in the past 20 years"

The level of CO2 is already making the oceans more acidic and affecting fish and corals.

Warmer oceans means hurricane strength will increase, so its hardly BS.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: manimal_uk

Funny how a quick google came up with a statement that "The Sahara Desert expanded 350 km. southward in the past 20 years"

quote>

If you read more closely you would have found that that expansion is because of deforestation and that despite it the Sahara is still shrinking.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2811

The level of CO2 is already making the oceans more acidic and affecting fish and corals.

quote>

Carbonic acid is about the only negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere that I can think of.  And, unfortunately for the animals who will have their habitats destroyed, I consider my life a higher priority than theirs.

Warmer oceans means hurricane strength will increase, so its hardly BS.quote>

It's actually not as simple as that.  But don't take my word for it, here's William Gray's, widely considered the world's leading authority on tropical storms;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray

"A top hurricane forecaster called Al Gore "a gross alarmist" Friday for making an Oscar-winning documentary about global warming.

"He's one of these guys that preaches the end of the world type of things. I think he's doing a great disservice and he doesn't know what he's talking about," Dr. William Gray said in an interview with The Associated Press at the National Hurricane Conference in New Orleans, where he delivered the closing speech."

"Over the past 24 years, Gray, 77, has become known as America's most reliable hurricane forecaster; recently, his mentee, Philip Klotzbach, has begun doing the bulk of the forecasting work.

Gray's statements came the same day the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved a report that concludes the world will face dire consequences to food and water supplies, along with increased flooding and other dramatic weather events, unless nations adapt to climate change.

Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent uptick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years."

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Carbonic acid is about the only negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere that I can think of.  And, unfortunately for the animals who will have their habitats destroyed, I consider my life a higher priority than theirs.

quote>

I can give you five more detrimental effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:

Warmer temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere, caused by increased levels of CO2, will:

1) create larger and more devastating weather patterns

2) more extreme droughts and floods

3) cause an exponential increase in melting rate in the world's land ice

4) eliminate thousands of species, and disrupt the global food chain

5) not bother you in the least

I wonder what you would say if an alien species were to decide your extinction didn't matter because they considered their lives a "higher priority" than yours. How unfortunate that would be, indeed.

The fact is, you can cherry-pick the several dozen scientists in the world who actually think that global warming is not happening, and show their credentials and all that, but you can't ignore the vast volume of data that has led the rest of the world's scientists to a different and  conclusion.

As for the Saharan issue, the last line of the article you quoted speaks volumes:

"But there is confusion over why the Sahel is becoming green. Rasmussen believes the main reason is increased rainfall since the great droughts of the early 1970s and 1980s. But farmers have also been adopting better methods of keeping soil and water on their land."

Similar to other strange patterns that have yet to be explained (such as increased snow fall in Antartica) do not refute what is going on in the rest of the world. Furthermore, the reasons which could explain these events do not necessarily strike discord with Global Warming Theory. These elements need and require further study to determine their causes before we can jump to conclusions and point them out as contradictions in theory.

[xxbydesign 1]

People who belive something very strongly will always be able to find sources to support thier beliefs, and that goes for both sides of this argument. So in essence the main correspondents on this board will never admit defeat or accept the other's argument; they will always look for a loophole or a scapegoat. I think the main thing we can do on this board is to stick with just the facts, and ALL the facts, not just the parts of the story that seem to hold up our opinions and omiting what doesn't. We also need to quit trying to find someone to blame; I'm sick of "Al Gore did this and Al Gore did that." Al Gore is one person out of 6 Billion and some change, so lets not give one man too much credit, shall we?

All and all, there's been some great debate with many views represented. I'd also be interested in hearing people's opinions on our current methods of dispelling the fear of global warming, including such things as florecent lightbulbs, hybrid cars, ethonol, wind farms, and the like, and even what people think should and should not be done in the future, if they think anything needs to be done. But perhaps that should be a seperate topic...

[SystemUK 0]

Although I do not totally believe that Global Wamring is increased humans, I do belive that it is good to keep our planet greener and healthier.

Recycling, less poluution etc. will lead to a better life and better management of resources so I'm all for it.

As for xxbydesign:

Florescent lightbulbs are useless. They may use less energy but that surely must come from the amount of light they produce as it is absultelly pathetic.

Hybrid cars are not really renewable but if it cuts down on car exhaust fumes, sure, why not?

Ethanol I'm not too sure of as I haven't read neough on it.

Wind farms are the worst power plants ever!! Germany has about 60% of Europes windfarms but they only give it something like 0.6% of it's power needs. They spoil the landscape as well.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: SystemUK Although I do not totally believe that Global Wamring is increased humans, I do belive that it is good to keep our planet greener and healthier.

Recycling, less poluution etc. will lead to a better life and better management of resources so I'm all for it.

quote>

but if anything, CO2 is GOOD for the environment.

As for xxbydesign:

Florescent lightbulbs are useless. They may use less energy but that surely must come from the amount of light they produce as it is absultelly pathetic.

quote>

I hate the light too because it has a narrow frequency (mostly bluish), but realise that it is less wasteful because 90% of energy used in an incandescent light bulb is *waste* heat.  waste, only in the sense that the heat emitted is not useful, which is sometimes not true.

Hybrid cars are not really renewable but if it cuts down on car exhaust fumes, sure, why not?

quote>

hybrid cars are a joke, they are 30% more expensive, and almost equal in fuel efficiency to a lot of cars.  do not buy them, they are for gullbile fools.

Ethanol I'm not too sure of as I haven't read neough on it.

quote>

A gimmick that will hurt poor people most.  much like everything else in the global warming arena.

Wind farms are the worst power plants ever!! Germany has about 60% of Europes windfarms but they only give it something like 0.6% of it's power needs. They spoil the landscape as well.quote>

plus windfarms are 164 times more dangerous than nuclear power, much less efficient, very low energy density, unsightly as you say, basically they are a grotesque waste of money.... much like most things the bloody government has to show us.

[MrFingers 0]

Originally posted by: schm0

Originally posted by: MrFingers

Carbonic acid is about the only negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere that I can think of.  And, unfortunately for the animals who will have their habitats destroyed, I consider my life a higher priority than theirs.

quote>

I can give you five more detrimental effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere:

Warmer temperatures in the oceans and atmosphere, caused by increased levels of CO2, will:

1) create larger and more devastating weather patterns

2) more extreme droughts and floods

3) cause an exponential increase in melting rate in the world's land ice

4) eliminate thousands of species, and disrupt the global food chain

5) not bother you in the least

quote>

This all hinges on the assumption that corrupt agenda ridden IPCC is right, and Al Gore is not infact a lying scum-bag sniffing for money.

I wonder what you would say if an alien species were to decide your extinction didn't matter because they considered their lives a "higher priority" than yours. How unfortunate that would be, indeed.

quote>

My species has control.  My species is superior.  Tough.

The fact is, you can cherry-pick the several dozen scientists in the world who actually think that global warming is not happening, and show their credentials and all that, but you can't ignore the vast volume of data that has led the rest of the world's scientists to a different and  conclusion.

quote>

More than just several dozen mate, we've got petitions with 17,000 scientists (2,400 of them in relevant fields) proclaiming their opposition to the global warming myth.  On the opposite you've got the IPCC with 2,500 supposed scientists supporting their agenda, but none of them wrote the summary which is stuffed with crap, many of them have since retracted their support, and some have even had to threaten legal action to get their names removed from the list.  Stop trotting about the "scientific consensus", it simply does not exist.

[confused04 14]

To be fair, the 17,000 "detractors" of anthropogenic global warming is technically a sampling bias. The petition draws upon the fact that the minority (whether it is perceived or genuine) will be galvanized to speak up. Where as the silent majority, satisfied by the status quo doesn't feel the need to sign petitions SUPPORTING A.G.W. Quite simply, these numbers mean nothing. 17,000 people signing it doesn't necessarily make it the larger side of the argument. Does anyone not remember the exit polls for the Presidential 2004 where it looked as though Kerry was going to sweep through Iowa and Ohio? What ended up happening was that the Democratic base was more willing to answer an exit poll and skewed reality.  This is just another form of sampling bias.

EVEN if we took the numbers at face value, most of them are as you have pointed out not in the relevant fields, and secondly, their data are quite lacking. A simple literature review and research will show that there are hardly ANY anti-AGW studies to begin with. Detractors tend to pick and choose PIECES of each study to claim support and while I do support scrutiny of every study, picking and choosing is hardly science (from both aspects). If detractors want to be taken seriously, they need to actually provide more in depth studies. You must admit that even if the data is question on the PRO side, at least they have far more mountains of data.

Regarding the whole corrupt agenda-ridden IPCC... you can say the same with non-supporters making this argument a completely useless point. I can come up with any crap-shot agenda theory and find some convoluted way to make any of them look like they are supported by Big Oil (which some are) and destroy their validity.

[Haljackey 17,398]

LOL Just watch this clip on Youtube from Al Gore.  Hes talking about climate change and about Live Earth.

He's at it again LOL!

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: MrFingers

but if anything, CO2 is GOOD for the environment.

quote>

... in the sense that is has been vital to providing life on this planet and helping shape the balance in our atmosphere that gave birth to our civilization. We are tinkering with the ratio of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the point in which they have increased global mean temperature by an entire degree.

I hate the light too because it has a narrow frequency (mostly bluish), but realise that it is less wasteful because 90% of energy used in an incandescent light bulb is *waste* heat.  waste, only in the sense that the heat emitted is not useful, which is sometimes not true.

quote>

LEDs are the future.

hybrid cars are a joke, they are 30% more expensive, and almost equal in fuel efficiency to a lot of cars.  do not buy them, they are for gullbile fools.

quote>

The technology is continually improving, just as it had with early automobiles. You have to learn how to walk before you can run. Gas mileage from hybrids is a battle between technology, cost-effectiveness, and consumer demand. The people who are bleeding from their wallets trying to afford gas are not likely to be able to buy a new car any time soon. Government subsidies and new CAFE and environmental standards should provide a path for the auto companies to produce these cars for an affordable price in the future. Your argument is akin to telling someone in 1910 to forget about buying a Model-T because a horse can go just as fast and you don't have to crank-start it. How could someone back then have possible imagined such technology would bring us the vehicles we see today?

A gimmick that will hurt poor people most.  much like everything else in the global warming arena.quote>

I agree with the first statement. Bio-fuels are short-term solutions. The utopian result will be a fossil-fuel-free and pollution-free energy source. Your second statement is without merit.

plus windfarms are 164 times more dangerous than nuclear power, much less efficient, very low energy density, unsightly as you say, basically they are a grotesque waste of money.... much like most things the bloody government has to show us.quote>

Dangerous to whom, I ask? Birds? Seriously, 164 times as dangerous as Chernobyl? I'd like to see the news coverage of the wind turbine that did that damage! What is more efficient than free, infinite and renewable nature-propelled energy? Which will last longer: a wind turbine on a hillside, or all the world's coal burning in a heap? You're telling me that the cost of putting up a wind turbine is more than digging, transporting, housing and extracting energy from coal or uranium?

Originally posted by: MrFingers

This all hinges on the assumption that corrupt agenda ridden IPCC is right, and Al Gore is not infact a lying scum-bag sniffing for money.

quote>

I could just as easily dismiss any scientific concept by calling it's theorists, experts, scientists, data and findings are all part of some global conspiracy, but instead I support my arguments with fact. To be completely frank, your continued insistence that the world's leading scientists and most of the world's civilized governments are united in a global conspiracy is completely ludicrous. You have no basis for any such argument, nor have you ever offered one. Your intense focus on one man is similarly incredulous; the environmental movement isn't all about Al Gore.

My species has control.  My species is superior.  Tough.

quote>

I would love to see you say that in the face of a 60-foot tsunami, a 10,000 ton mudslide or a 120mph hurricane. Just grab on to a tree, close your eyes, and keep telling yourself that.

More than just several dozen mate, we've got petitions with 17,000 scientists (2,400 of them in relevant fields) proclaiming their opposition to the global warming myth.  On the opposite you've got the IPCC with 2,500 supposed scientists supporting their agenda, but none of them wrote the summary which is stuffed with crap, many of them have since retracted their support, and some have even had to threaten legal action to get their names removed from the list.  Stop trotting about the "scientific consensus", it simply does not exist.quote>

I have disputed that "petition" in previous posts and it was found to lack any real evidence that the signatories were real or even in fields related to global warming. The petition to which you refer has never been shown to be valid.

Your claim of "many" people wishing to retract their names is actually only a handful of people. As far as the consensus, scientists and the general public alike agree that global warming is a real threat and that action must be taken to confront it.

Furthermore, I have re-read the summary and the word "crap" isn't mentioned. Not even once.

GPO Poll on Global Warming

"A very strong majority of the US public embraces the idea that global warming is a real and serious problem even though only a slight majority perceives that there is a consensus in the scientific community on this question. The majority endorsing action divides on whether the problem is pressing and should include steps with significant costs or whether the problem can be dealt with more gradually through low-cost steps. However, when asked to assume that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of global warming, support for taking high cost steps increases to a majority. A majority rejects the argument that taking action is too economically onerous and is optimistic that in the long run reducing greenhouse gas emissions will actually benefit the economy by increasing efficiency. In a multilateral context support for taking action becomes overwhelming with very large majorities wanting to do as much as other developed countries to reduce emissions. Awareness of global warming is quite high."

There were many others to be found with similar results. Occasionally, you will find a poll here or there that will show a deviation from this trend, but an overwhelming majority (hmmm, a consensus perhaps?) all agree that Global Warming exists, is caused by man, and will affect the future of the earth's climate and the way we live.

[confused04 14]

Glaciers account for majority of sea level rise

According to this article based on some unspecified study, approximately 60 percent of sea level rise is due to melting glaciers (i.e., not Greenland or Antarctic Ice Sheets).  I would really appreciate reading the study to see what their methodology was. But if they are indeed right, then writing off these glaciers as "insignificant" can be a huge mistake.

Thought I'd update a little.

[BIWDC 2,296]

MrFingers Wrote:

carbonic acid is about the only negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere that I can think of.  And, unfortunately for the animals who will have their habitats destroyed, I consider my life a higher priority than theirs.

quote>

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This kind of a statement  is a very bad way of thinking seeing as without the animals,

fish,plants,ect we all die.

[Somebody 12]

Carbonic acid is about the only negative impact of increased CO2 in the atmosphere that I can think of.  And, unfortunately for the animals who will have their habitats destroyed, I consider my life a higher priority than theirs.quote>

Well that is a pompous statement considering your food, clothing, Oxygen, and just about all of your modern items come from either the animals or the habitats the animals live in. So your so-called "only negative impact" just happens to be the worst possible impact there is.

[schm0 27]

Found an interesting article:

Are scientists overestimating -- or underestimating -- climate change? Part III

[schm0 27]

*kicks dead horse*

*shrugs*

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

La nina has arrived for this year.  The weather mavins are predicting a heavy snow winter from the west coast to the lakehead.  Great for the ski operators.

However, some of the weather guys are saying that because of the Global Warming, they are not quite as sure as they would have been in the past.  Apparently, everything is disrupted in weather-model land.

[Easy Bakes 253]

National Geograhic October issue is all about this.

[zane900 1]

Next thing you know Bush'll be suggesting that we put the US under an air tight bubble and insert  a giant air conditioner.

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

*A side note on global warming*

I live in Ohio, and we have been experiencing ridiculous temperature highs for the past several weeks. And, each time that the weathermen tell the previous record-holding year, it is sometime around 1900. I find this fact interesting, because these temperatures were recorded around the time of the industrial revolution, which, as we all know, was a boom-period for polluting industry, free of government regulation standards for pollution amounts. Thus, these companies produced vast amounts of carbon emissions and spewed them out into our atmosphere. One will notice, with the increased government regulation that preceded these events, the temperatures fell, and so did overall carbon emissions from dirty industry. That is, until the overall development and promotion of the automobile, which is the new cause of this global increase in temperature today.

Today in Ohio, the average temperature is supposed to be somewhere around fifty to sixty degrees F, it is a record 90 degrees Fahrenheit today, and these numbers have been prevailing for the past several weeks, and even months. (We have had the hottest average summer temperature on record, here) . We have also had one of the warmest winters on record, here in Ohio, with VERY little snowfall, particularly unusual for my section of Ohio, which has at least two or three big snowstorms each winter. The biggest snowfall we had last winter was a mere 4 or 5 inches. Most storms average 2 or 3 feet, not inches. [EDIT: We are also suffering from one of the worst droughts in years]

In light of reading this, if you are still not convinced that global warming is an issue, than I am not sure what it will take to convince you (other than a good beating from a democrat ).

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Allow me to further explain my point.  Listed below are links to two different sites on the NOAA website.  The first is a map for Air quality for the US, the second is a temperature readout, in ferenheit.  Take note of the ares with poor air quality, and those with high temperatures, and you will see quite a trend.  Ohio, North and South Carolina, and Colorado, all have fair and poor air quality today, and also abnormally high temperatures today.  I hope this drives the point home, here.

The Air Quality map:

http://www.weather.gov/aq/

The Temperature map:

http://www.weather.gov/climate/

[EDIT: When you look at the air quality map, have a looksee at the 11am reading, then mouse over to 5pm, you will notice that the Dayton/Springfield area of Ohio (southwest Ohio) as some of the highest concentrations in the nation right now, and we are setting record temperatures today]

Enjoy...

[saltandsauce 0]

the way it has been is temperature increases for whatever reason then carbon dioxide follows it due to the increased number of animals and such this is the same case now temperature goes up first THEN carbon dioxide emissions

plus hybrid cars are the leading polluter of smug

take the bus like a scaff

[Psycho_Teddy 25]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce the way it has been is temperature increases for whatever reason then carbon dioxide follows it due to the increased number of animals and such this is the same case now temperature goes up first THEN carbon dioxide emissions

plus hybrid cars are the leading polluter of smug

take the bus like a scaffquote>

(*cough*) Sources?

So, you mean to tell me that animals are the cause of the thirty or so degrees above average temperatures today?  Hmmm... You sound American, yeah, its not your fault, its the animals, yup, we've solved the mystery.  It was the goat in the Library with the candlestick.  Mmhmm...

Plus, if they had mass transit to Dayton from Springfield, (which they don't) I'd be more than obliged to take it, as it would cost me a lot less in gas money, however, America doesn't have such ammenities, our President is too concerned with "spreading democracy". So, before you go rattling off about events thousands of miles away from you, please, do us all a favor, and do some research.