Global Warming.. Real?

[Coldkilla]

What do you think? Provide at least some backing to your statement, don't post some stupid ignorant post that everyone can spend a week on arguing, give some backing to your argument. I'm interested to hear what others have to say, especially those who disagree with it.

I think we're screwed. In the next 50-70 years we might see some really bad events unfold. It's funny how no one cares considering that 100+ Million Refugee's may be on our hands soon.. Worse than any terrorist attack I know of.

 

[Grabo]

It is happening, we are contributing.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003300/a003307/

 

[conjur]

http://www.climatecrisis.net/


/thread

 

[XZeroII]

There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe. The bottom line is that we really don't know what is going on. There is a lot of data manipulation and political pressure that is driving science right now. Even the most simple of statistics can be manipulated to show very skewed results. Ask anyone who has taken a statistics class.

What do I think? I think we should act as if global warming is occuring and try to do something about it, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions and start declaring the end of the world if something isn't done right now. Again, the bottom line is that we really don't know.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.climatecrisis.net/


/thread

No political agenda there...

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: conjur
http://www.climatecrisis.net/


/thread

No political agenda there...

Stop speaking from ignorance.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

 

[imported_Lothar]

I believe it's real.
However, the Kyoto treaty was stupid to begin with and I'm glad we're not following it.

 

[blackangst1]

I think it is real; however, I honestly dont think we can realistically do anything about it. For example, it is widely known, and widely proven, that icecaps are melting causing the ocean to slowly rise, thus creating weather anomolies. Can we really rally do anything about it? I say no. Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

Just my humble opinion.

 

[blackllotus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

 

[bobdelt]

your poll should have an option of "yes there is global warming, but humans do not have a significant influence" - whether humans are not are the reason, thats the real issue.

 

[DrPizza]

At this stage, only the most die-hard idiot would dispute global warming. Those who were in that camp and had vested interests in industries that contribute to global warming have since moved on to say that "okay, global warming is happening, but it's not caused by humans."

It's too bad that the launch of (What was the name of that satellite again? Discover?) the satellite that would have definitively answered some of the questions was scrapped. (probably due to influence from GWB's administration)

Regardless, scientific consensus is that humans are contributing.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

Well I dont know maybe I need glasses but on that same graph I see tow time periods where CO2 has been higher, and 3 periods when overall golbal temp have been higher *shrug*

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

Well I dont know maybe I need glasses but on that same graph I see tow time periods where CO2 has been higher, and 3 periods when overall golbal temp have been higher *shrug*

Then, I think the graph is actually going to become more convincing to you. You need to look more carefully. Since the scale is in thousands of years, the last 100 years occupies only a very thin strip at the left. It's unfortunate that the graph has to be drawn to scale, because everyone, like you, seems to miss that point. The last 100 years, to scale, isn't even as thick as the black line surrounding the graph.

Scroll up on the picture and look again for the big red arrow pointing to "Present CO2 level." I believe the proper reaction to it is "oh fvck! We're really screwing ourselves."

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Why cant it just be said that the earth's average temps, weather patterns and such are cyclical, and we are entering a warm phase? We need to learn from history, and history shows this isnt the first time this has occured.

This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

Well I dont know maybe I need glasses but on that same graph I see tow time periods where CO2 has been higher, and 3 periods when overall golbal temp have been higher *shrug*

I wouldn't say you suck at reading the graph but if you look at it again the CO2 lines don't touch zero. On the top of the graph is a marker for current CO2 levels.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: blackllotus
This statement is totally false. History shows us that this warming trend is not following previous cycles. Take a look at this graph. Our present CO2 level is much higher than it has ever been in the past 650,000 years. Also note that temperatures correspond very closely with CO2 levels.

Where is the current temperature data? It's not on there, because you'd see that the correlation largely fails in recent data. It still exists, but it is not the same correlation as it has been historically. The primary source of CO2 has changed from nature (e.g. volcanoes) to humans. The difference is that when humans produce CO2, it's accompanied by water, the other natural product of combustion reactions. So, while humans are most likely contributing, going after CO2 only is not necessarily going to fix anything. The problem is that CO2 and H2O production are now highly correlated due to a common source, so differentiating between their effects becomes increasingly difficult. This has been the message of the environmental engineering seminars that we've had this year, anyway. I'm not up to date on the literature myself, but I don't have much reason to doubt them, either.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

1. Show me where you found 928 peer-reviewed papers that had not a single person questioned global warming.
2. Proove that peer-reviewed papers are more credible that non-peer-reviewed papers. And don't use the BS answer of common sense. Proove to me that there is no corruption or filtering or deception in data in peer-reviewed jornals.

I can search on the internet and find TONS of credible scientists and groups that say that global warming is BS.

But wait...we should just dismiss them without even listening to them because of their political affiliation differs from my own. Instead, I should listen to those who's political agendas are the same as my own.

Peer reviewed jornals are BS anyway. Remember the cloning fiasco that the Korean guy went through? That was all peer-reviewed and no one had a problem with it. How could that be?

 

[blackangst1]

Ok I looked again. So CO2 levels are highest, temps arent. But I still go back to my original pondering...can we REALISTICALLY do anything about it? Considering the majority of our CO2 comes from production and consumption, lets say we legislate change and reduce the US's by 30% (impossible IMHO, but for the sake of argument). What do we do about other countries like China?

Im not trying to be negative, honest. But realistically I think wheels have been set in motion that we cant reverse. There has been many studies that show pollution etc has decreased from the previous decades, yet the overall evironment continues to deteriorate.

I dunno. Just my thoughts.

 

[fitzov]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

Yeah, but in the world of politics, a peer-reviewed journal article is no different from a Robert Novak editorial.

 

[Czar]

And don't use the BS answer of common sense.

ohh thats priceless

 

[HombrePequeno]

I've changed my opinion on this quite a bit over recent years. I now believe we do need to do something about this. However, Kyoto was a pretty flawed plan considering it let China and India off the hook. Tariffs on them might be a good idea to offset the cost externality of their pollution.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
Ok I looked again. So CO2 levels are highest, temps arent. But I still go back to my original pondering...can we REALISTICALLY do anything about it? Considering the majority of our CO2 comes from production and consumption, lets say we legislate change and reduce the US's by 30% (impossible IMHO, but for the sake of argument). What do we do about other countries like China?

Im not trying to be negative, honest. But realistically I think wheels have been set in motion that we cant reverse. There has been many studies that show pollution etc has decreased from the previous decades, yet the overall evironment continues to deteriorate.

I dunno. Just my thoughts.

Here is a better graph of the same thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

And Kyoto was what people were supposed to do about it. Despite it being so maligned everywhere, all it aimed to do was stabalize CO2 concentrations at ~500ppm. While it does exclude developing countries, it expires in 2010 and the next climate treaty is set to include those countries.

And it is quite possible to do something about it and it won't make people starve or become homeless, people just have to take it seriously.

 

[NTB]

Given the screwy weather we've had in the last week? deffinitely

Seriously though, I *do* believe it is happening. Like anything else that can be twisted into a political issue though, I tend to take what I hear from both sides with a grain of salt.

Nate

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: blackllotus

Originally posted by: XZeroII
There is a lot of debate on the issue, despite what the fear mongers would have you believe.

Yes, there is a lot of debate. However there is no debate among those qualified to analyze it.

Exactly.

928 peer-reviewed papers and not one dissenting on the findings, based on scientific knowledge now, that global warming does exist.

That's a straight-up, unadultered lie.