For those Anti-Earth people who don't believe in Global Warming....

Thank you for this topic. I have only read the first couple of pages of this post so I appogize if I have said the same thing some one else has said. When I have more time I will come back and read the whole thread. When I was young I felt very passionate about this topic. Many people back in the 60's felt very passionate about pollution and what it is doing to the environment. The people with money and power just poo pooed us.

The thing is Mother Earth is changing this change may seem destructive to many. Homes will be lost people will die. Have we as human beings contributed to this change? Yes of course we have. Can we reverse this change? Probably not...

What can we do about it? Will changing to renewable energy sources help? Maybe and maybe not. The Earth is on it's course of change and we are going to have to go along for the ride. The universe is changing too and the earth being a part of the universe is going along with the changes. Change is the only thing I know of that is consistent.

I used to know a geologist who said that we are coming up on a new Ice Age. I order for this to happen the polar caps that we now know will melt the earth will shift in space and what once was tropical may be frozen over what once was frozen may become tropical. I am not all so sure of the mechanics of this and the geologist talked like this was going to happen over the course of thousands of years.

Changing the size of our personal carbon foot prints might make us feel better about what we are doing the government may find a way to tax the size of it but...I don't know if it will help anything except to perhaps make the government get more of our money if we do not make the carbon foot print smaller.

 

There seems to be an assumption that manmade global warming is something "the government", "the powers that be" are telling us about. This gets linked in with a sort of kneejerk distrust of anything the government tells you you need to be doing - particularly among Americans.

But this is just not so. Anthropogenic effects on climate change have been something we have been talking about for a couple of decades, trying desperately to get governments to see what the problem is and get legislative change enacted. Only now, very late in the day, when manmade global warming is an undeniable reality have governments started to catch on and started to say the right things - but too little, too late. But because the government is now saying it, people are starting to distrust it...

This assumption that manmade global warming is something foisted upon us by governments is just nonsense, a view held by those with very short memories or no understanding of its scientific basis.

 

You know, wether you believe in global warming or not, you should still follow the advice of the people who do belive in it...like walking to places close to your house, use less electricity, etc. because there is proof that there is a thing called "pollution". Driving alot will cause pollution, using lots of electricity will cause pollution, cutting down forests will increase pollution, etc. etc. All of the things people are advised to do to help prevent global warming do infact help prevent pollution. So if you dont belive in global warming, thats ok, but you should still do your part to prevent pollution wich is already proven to exist.

 

I agree with you completely. I cannot understand why people use the argument: "well the government is endorsing it so it HAS to be fake." Hence the argument I was making when it comes to the "conspiracy theorists" being those that are skeptics of man-made global warming.

The idea of man contributing to climate change is nothing new. Neither is the idea of co2 being a contributing factor. The idea seemed to come about (from what I've read) in the late 1800s.

 

Absolutely. The greenhouse effect was discovered in the 1820s, we have 800,000 years of ice core records of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and we have carbon isotype proof of the source of the excess 30+% of atmospheric CO2 since 1750. It is basic science.

 

Global warming is defiantly not news to scientist.

 

Human contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere are indeed tiny compared to natural sources. Often this is fact is quoted as being contrary to the theory of ACC, but it's not. CO2 from plant life and the oceans far, far outweighs the anthropogenic contribution of CO2 but these natural sources of CO2 are balanced by reabsorption. The ocean expels something like 300 GT CO2, more than ten times what human activity produces, but in fact acts as a net carbon sink - it absorbs more CO2 than it expels. Because of this the oceans have steadily been absorbing some of the human 'excess' of CO2; we would've seen a much, much greater rise in concentrations of atmospheric CO2 if this were not the case. Humans have produced far more CO2 than is accounted for by current atmospheric concentrations. But the continuing and rising excess of anthropogenic CO2 is nonetheless producing more than these natural carbon sinks can absorb and consequently we have seen over 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1750, higher than at any point in the past half a million years.

The hockeystick graph was not perfect but findings within its original error margins have been confirmed by a dozen or so independently published and peer-reviewed reports. No we are not absolutely 100% certain that human activity is forcing climate change, if you read the IPCC reports you'll discover that we are about 95% certain...

 

I believe in you thinking this idea has not been proven, you're resting on the information of one person that has studied the current warming of the earth (Goddard was your example, correct?). There have been several people to study the effect that man could possibly be contributing to the warming. Like I said in a post before (and have others) this is not NEW science. From my studies, I have found that there were people observing a trend with man-made co2 contributes and temperature as far back as the late 1800s.

You're going to use Bill Nye as a source to prove how man is not contributing to global warming? That's questionable.

Well, let me see. When it comes to the Global Converyor belt, we're talking about the ocean currents. If global warming goes the way as predicted (which is continual increase of temperature) it could possibly melt the ice caps. The streams of freezing water can alter the warm currents throughout the oceans halting the conveyor belt. I don't see how Bill Nye was incorrect. You don't need the rotation of the Earth to halt for the Global Conveyor to be altered; I'm not sure it "shut downs" the conveyor belt persay, but it most certainly will create problems for us if the flow changes or is altered.

I believe Europe cooled quite a bit because of a situation such as this. The Great Lakes emptied out into the Atlantic, changing the salination of the ocean. The flood of water alter the flow of warm air and water that rotates towards Europe, throwing the area into an ice age for some time.

So again, I would think that the possiblity of altering the global converyor because of global warming is probable. It has happened before...

Here's some articles on the situation I'm speaking of:
http://www.earthinstitute.columbia.edu/news/2006/story01-10-06.html
http://www.awitness.org/column/global_warming_ice_age.html

 

If you're talking about the greenhouse effect, which the quote you quoted and commented upon was, then this is exceptionally well proven. Atmospheric CO2 acts as a radiative forcing agent. More atmospheric CO2 = greater radiative forcing. An overwhelming body of evidence demonstrates this fact.

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

The shutdown of the Atlantic current is an hypothesis, one for which there isn't that much evidence and one which consequently isn't widely accepted. It certainly is a hypothetical possibility that the current could be weakened by fresh meltwater but in the absence of evidence it does not have the status of a theory. A theory is an hypothesis for which there is convincing empirical evidence.

 

And what did they discover the reason for the cooling was? CFCS.

As for it never being proven, I suggest reading up on the subject. It seems you make assumptions without knowing what is out there. The book is caused The Discovery of Global Warming. You can read it online here: http://books.google.com/books?id=zc...ient=firefox-a&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title#PPP1,M1

Using the point that there are those "lay people" that are commenting on and "endorsing" (so to speak) global warming as proof that global warming is not man-made is not a strong argument. It's a conspiracy theory; the idea that the government invented man-made global warming in an attempt to take people's money.

So his wording was incorrect, but the idea is right on. Is it important to nitpick for the sake of nitpicking all the time?

Actually, I believe that everything we possibly believe or do has a bit of possibilty or chance, if you will. Nothing is ever concrete. When it comes down to it, with science, you have to put faith in those who claim they understand the formulas, hypotheses and experiments/observations they come up with.

In fact, take the idea of Quantum Physics...everything moves around depending on probabilities. With that, there's always a bit of uncertainty in everything. Science is no different. The only way that one can prove that the predictions of global warming are going to occur is if they actually occur...and only time will tell. To prevent such occurances one must act now, rather than later.

 

Since when are published books not proof? I suggest going back to middle school where you should have been taught the basics of what is a good source and what is not. Denying that a book is proof is absolutely absurd. If you don't want to read the book that is your problem, that does not mean, however, that there is no proof to prove you incorrect. You are just unwilling to look at it and study it.

This quote is clearly not directed at me, but if you'd be so kind as to point that out by stating the name of the person you're responding to, that would save a lot of confusion.

I disagree. I simply stated that global warming could in fact affect the ocean currents. I do not know how you came to such an abrupt conclusion.

It is quite clear that you have little understanding of what Quantum Physics is. I'm not here to teach you things I'm here to debate with you. When you can make comments on the subject at hand, get back to me. I gave you the idea of what Quantum Physics is, if you don't understand, I believe it is your job to understand...if you don't want to understand, that is also not my problem. But that does not mean that you have trumped in the debate, in fact, it seems you have given up.

 

Actually I do believe you said something along the lines of "Yes I'll take the time and trouble to read it." You continued on to say: "Please don't reference a book and say that's proof." If that means you actually will read it, you must be using a different language. Most of the time when someone comments in such a manor it means that they are unwilling to read something because it means a bit of work. That is exactly how your post was written.

You have yet to read the book, so denying that it is proof BEFORE you have even begun to study it is blatant ignorance.

Actually books on creationism describe an idea, they have yet to provide physical evidence and proof that it happened. So that is a moot point. Creationism demands a sense of faith, therefore books written of the subject demand that same faith before you can even believe what is written.

I'm not either, but it seems quite arrogant of you to deny a book just because it "troubles" you. The silly thing is, if I would've put up a website, I'm sure you wouldn't have protested. It makes me wonder if you're here to the debate the issue or attempt to get rises out of people.

As for quantum physics...it has everything to do with what I was talking about. If you understood the concept, I think maybe you would grasp how it deals with your comments of science being solid evidence. Science isn't really all about solid evidence, there is a matter of faith within it as well. Quantum physics goes deeper on this. If you do not understand the idea of Quantum physics I'm not about to give a course on it. Go read about it yourself, just because you don't understand the subject matter doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about.

 

ok...

whether or not CO2 is causing global warming is sort of beside the point. we STILL
shouldn't be releasing so much of it into the air. its just bad for the earth! and we should still be looking into new technologies and "going green." there is no reason to pollute the air and such just because you believe that global warming is natural.

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is in direct proportion to global mean temperature, but that there is some proportionate effect and that increasing concentration increases the effect. What you seem to be suggesting is that there is negligible effect no matter what the proportion of increase, which is prima facie absurd. Are you really suggesting that increasing concentrations of CO2 will have no significant influence whatsoever on the greenhouse effect? If so what is your supposed saturation or cut off point of CO2 after which we can continue to increase its atmospheric concentration with no increased effect on warming? Given that CO2 is a very small constituent of the atmosphere and that we have seen an increase of more than 30% since 1750, you are making a very big claim of a rapidly diminishing effect at very small atmospheric concentrations of the gas. Please cite your sources for this claim.

 

Okay, first off, I've never heard the term "anti-earth" before. That's just some crazy talk. I love the earth. It's where I keep all my stuff! (Free cookies if you can cite the reference).

Secondly, I don't think it's been proven conclusively that man-made CO2 is the cause of the recent warming trend on the planet. The planet warms and cools all the time, in a cycle. For example, it was much warmer in the middle ages than it is right now. It was actually a very nice and prosperous time, everyone had food and vineyards flourished. And as everyone knows, food + booze = happiness. Interestingly enough, there also don't seem to be reports about the water levels rising up and, for example, wiping out London (which was also, you guessed it, a big frickin vineyard) despite it and old father Thames being right about at sea level. Go fig.

And finally, the only reason I advise caution in environmentalism is that our resources, as environmentalists readily point out, are limited. There is a right way to protect the environment, and a wrong way. The most important part of the discussion is how to best devote resources efficiently towards preserving our environment. Too often the rallying cry of environmentalism is used to justify an "at any costs" approach to decision making, and this is wrong. There are many examples of this, but for instance, I don't think policies like the Endangered Species Act in the United States was very well thought out. I also don't think that international pollution policies are being pushed to protect the environment so much as to keep developing nations from developing. It's a very complex series of issues, and I honestly think the best way to approach it is without any sort of dogma, corporate, industrialist, environmentalist, religious, etc. Open-minded dialogue on both sides of the aisle are required for a meaningful resolution.

 

Multiple reconstructed temperature records put today's average temperature significantly higher than the medieval warm period. Yes during that time vineyards flourished in northern Europe. I hereby inform you that Britain's wine industry today is flourishing, so if the presence of vineyards is an anecdotal measure of temperature then we have them in spades.

Average temperature is also continuing on a steeply rising trend, the climate is changing far more and far faster than can be acocunted for by natural variability. Again as regards the "conclusive proof" if you read the best evidence available the overwhelming majority of the climate science community put the probability that manmade CO2 is the cause of the recent warming at about 95% likelihood.

 

Oh yeah, and...

WTF are you talking about? A car that drives 100 miles on a gallon of water? If you're talking about Denny Klein's supposed HHO prototype car, first off, I believe he's still alive, and secondly, I'm pretty sure the car actually runs on bullshit. It's definitely possible to get energy from hydrogen, but AFAIK, you sort of need a star (or a star-like environment, like ground zero of the detonation of a hydrogen bomb) to get that sort of thing going. I don't think we're at the point where we can run our cars on H-bombs. I'm also pretty sure that technology would be viable first and foremost at power plants. They're sorta bigger than my car, so it's probably easier to build something like that which doesn't need to be miniaturized.

 

Oh? Care to cite a reference? Like the IPCC mebbe?

 

The IPCC does not produce its own research, it is a body which engages in exhaustive reviews of the current scientific literature. You will find references to ten studies published in peer reviewed scholarly journals giving a range of results on this wiki entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png#Reconstructions

Similar comparison of results including some newer studies from 2006/7:
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

 

Hmm...last time I checked New Scientist and Wikipedia weren't peer reviewed journals. And their editorial leanings aren't exactly neutral either. But rather than dismiss your researched articles out of hand, I'll take a closer look.

Both of those graphs represent normalizations of data points and reflect a very radical increase in temperature trends towards the very end of the data set. In statistics, we call such weighing of values "bullshit". Or in more polite terms, the fallacy of small numbers. I also find it odd that both of these data sets ends in '00. Didn't you say that the New Scientist article was more recent? Where is the more recent data? Or in less polite terms, a real scientist wouldn't drop numbers from his study to skew his results in a certain way to ensure additional funding.

(Or maybe he would...I'm not a real scientist, so what the heck do I know?)