Global Warming

[Magn]

MAgn

not really.. not if were talking about estimates that go back thousands of years at least..

Roughtly 750 000 years to be exact.

They use information extracted from ice cores.

Here's a link if you are interested:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Ice_core_data

And yes, if you've ever looked at a temperate/CO2 graph, you will see that they follow each other quite closely.

There is definitely a connection there somewhere.

The major players for and against global warming agree on this much.

atmospheric carbon levels are quite low on the larger scale..

Parts per million.

The exact ratio of CO2 is not as important as how much that ratio contributes to the retention of solar radiation.

Concerning the timeline, CO2 concentration stayed below or very close to 300 ppm for over 400 000 years (a time interval which saw the coming and going of several ice ages btw).

Now, we are at 380 ppm. Something changed around the time of the industrial revolution, thats for sure. What a coincidence that would be if a natural cause made the record (over thousands of years) CO2 increase happen at the exact same time as we started pumping out and burning oil at the onset of the industrial revolution.

to top the post off i have to add that i think the global warming issue has been hyped to death.. guess that was part of the plan too.. its easier to hype something to death than to fix it..

Not in Canada, it hasn't.

The conservatives got elected which was the party who had the weakest environmental portfolio of the lot.

Additionally, I recently read an article claiming that Canada had a poor track record of waste disposal/water consumption/CO2 emission per capita, barely better than the US.

Reading the comments, I saw excuse ranging from "there is no global warming, its all a oax!" to "we're not a significant percentage of the world populace so what we do won't matter" to "We won't do it until <insert the name of a country here> does it" to "its our water and we'll do what we freaking want with it!".

Clearly, the environment is not an important issue in the voting masses mind and wasn't hyped nearly enough.

A great part of the reason I'm trying to form a better opinion based on facts is so that I can talk to my fellow Canadians about the environment in a convincing manner.

In my book, thats doing something.

[Uncle]

Originally Posted by bandit
The fact that CO2 levels emonstrably follow, rather than preceed, temperature increses is irrelevant.

actually it's quite relevant. the problem is not in the argument but from the way you look at it. in a stable system the lvl of CO2 is controlled by the oceans. they absorb it directly by dissolving it and more importantly by converting it into living matter through photosynthesis. so when the ocean gets warmer, it absorbs less carbon overall thus rising the atmospheric the co2. when the water is in the right temperature range, it can support higher primary productivity (algae), which would sink the carbon. so first it gets warmer and the co2 starts rising, then the algae start producing like crazy, the co2 drops and the temperature follows.

anyway, media and popular science have somewhat distorted the role of co2 in climate change. the climate system is way more complicated and involves a number of processes and feedback loops, which makes it very unpredictable.

what is certain is that beyond a certain lvl of greenhouse gasses, their effect will be strong enough to keep the temperatures rising. this by itself is not a problem. when temperatures rise ice caps melt. and ice is our cooling system. due to its very high albedo, most of the energy that the poles get is reflected back to the space. however, when the ice covered area gets smaller, less energy is reflected and more is absorbed. this absorbed energy is then quickly transferred to temperature rise, which further melts the ice and so on...

about who caused the mess: the "mess" was going to happen anyway. we're just accelerating it's coming. and anyway, why should we consider global warming as something bad?! maybe we'll finally learn a few things from our mistakes and stop exploiting natural resources to their max without knowing the consequences. who knows, it might be even good for our society in the long term, like wwii or the black plague in medieval europe. ok, maybe these examples are a bit out there

what can we do? nothing really. we can't stop global warming, cause it's global and it's coming :) no really we can't. we can slow it down and maybe prevent the really high expected temperatures. it will hit sooner or later unless we reorganize our whole economic system and most of the chemistry industry. unfortunately we won't be around to have some fun with the consequences

[waheed]

the biggest problem with the whole global warming issue is that its a very technical issue and u really need a lot of chemistry background to understand it. there are evidence pointing at CO2 being a major contributor as well, but again it requires a lot of chemistry/quantum mechanics knowledge to understand. its difficult for me to try and convince people cuz u have to first understand concepts such as vibrational energy levels and dipole moments before u can fully understand why CO2 is a major contributor

i dont get why ppl are denying global warming. u r SUPPOSE to observe all evidence then draw conclusion from that, but unfortunately what a lot of people do is draw conclusion first then look for stuff online to support themselves while ignoring other evidences.

what i said in my post earlier is not really a theory, its scientifically derived and proven. unfortunately there are ignorant ppl that insist its not real because "global warming is just a natural phenomina" or "earth will go to ice age and fix itself" are easier to understand than quantum mechanics, and "do nothing" is easier and cheaper than looking for alternative resources. on the other extreme there are eco-terriosts(including al gore) who themselves understand nothing about how global warming works, and they are either being a-holes about it or want to make money off it.

and then of course there are polititians, most of which dont understand jack sh1t about global warming, but either take advantage of that to get votes, or they make propaganda to get ppl to ignore global warming so they can "make the economy better". they are forgetting one MAIN point: science will generate wealth, but there are also "cautions" that u gotta watch out for. its like buying an energy efficient lightbulb but it says on lable "do not turn on for more than 10 hours straight". if u ignore the warning lable u will break ur lightbulb. the same with technology, economists/polititians use scientific technology to generate wealth, but they ignore the lable that warns them overusing will cause global warming.

sadly the real voice of science is stuck in the middle and normally unheard. if u guys want to know more about it, its great. i will be glad to explain any scientific concepts, but plz do not attempt to explain global warming using "common sense" or "stuff i saw on some magazine", because it doesnt work like that. as ive said the world wont blow up tomorrow, but ppl need to be less ignorant and draw conclusion from evidence instead of selecting "evidence" that support their own solution

[Daivler]

Now, we are at 380 ppm. Something changed around the time of the industrial revolution, thats for sure. What a coincidence that would be if a natural cause made the record (over thousands of years) CO2 increase happen at the exact same time as we started pumping out and burning oil at the onset of the industrial revolution.

People breath in oxygen and breath out CO2. The world population has increased approximately 8-9fold since the industrial revolution(depending on source). Do you think the billions of more people that are inhabiting the world are contributing anything or do you continue to solely blame oil, gas and other fossil fuels for the increase on CO2?

[hsihp81]

global warming is up there with area 51 and the loch ness monster

some people want it to be true, and mankinds fault, so bad they will ignore any fact...lol

a decade now of dropping global temparatures means nothing I suppose

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noe...t-gore-s-movie

Wow... You're going to join a discussion on global warming by introducing an article from a right-wing hack 'news busting' site..? A site who's coverage of 'news,' on just the front page, involves The View (twice!), the Today Show and Oprah? If your point of view does have any merit, that article does not prove it.

Oh, and people- the Al Gore arguments have to be some of the lamest ones against global warming. Debunking something Al Gore said does not prove that global warming doesn't exist, the same as talking to any non-expert/non-professional in any field. Arguments against global warming may have some merit, but denying a complex field of scientific study on the basis of a politician's word is ignorant at best...

[jackatk]

You know what is really funny.....everyone posting here believes that they can actually change the other person's mind if they can just present enough evidence in a compelling fashion. Surely by now it is obvious that you can find evidence to support any point of view whatsoever. (i.e. here is a link that proves the earth is flat http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djubl...latWhyFlat.htm)

And so we have people talking to other people while quoting someone that no-one has actually met, spoken to, read the whole book or even most of the time understood what they are quoting. Why people do this is to me a far more interesting question than whether or not global warming exists.

Anyway considering that I went to the trouble of creating an account I suppose I should let you all know what I believe and hopefully I can convert you. (I should state that I do make the assumption that human beings are not capable of changing the planet enough to cause extinction of the human species which I think is a very safe assumption considering that a population of several 100,000 made it through severe Ice Ages without our current technology)

IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Look at it logically.
Option 1) Global warming does not exist Therefore no problem
Option 2) Global warming does exist therefore...
Option 2a) It doesnt make much difference or..
Option 2b) It really messes up everything and lots and lots of people die and we get to stop worrying about overpopulation, nations, bird flu and a whole host of other big problems that would be fixed by a smaller population.

Basically what I am saying is that we humans are clever enough to adapt to big catastrophes and we are also too stupid, opinionated and ill-informed to avoid them. I know that we should have hope and lets do that and try but at least let us be aware that it is false hope and people are always going to be divided and wait until it is too late.

[Ishandra]

jackatk, your "It really messes up everything and lots and lots of people die and we get to stop worrying about overpopulation, nations, bird flu and a whole host of other big problems that would be fixed by a smaller population." Could just as easily be carried over to terrorism and such, could it not?

Why bother with anything? People will commit crimes regardless, so dont bother with prisons. People will try to invade or nuke you, so why bother with an army?

[SnuggleySoft]

I get the feeling that about half of the people on these forums couldn't qualify for a GED...

Number of Scientific Peer Reviewed Articles that deny Global Warming: 0

If you don't believe in global warming, then you're as bad as an Intelligent Design believer.

Btw jackatk... Theories like the Ether theory, and Spontaneous Generation theory relied on conjecture; not facts. Sort of the Classical Greek philosophy that "if it can be thought of, then it is." Plus the experiments that WERE done, did not follow the scientific method. Thats why you should read SCIENTIFIC peer reviewed journals, not an op-ed piece off the back of the Weekly Standard... seeing as how the authors have to do science or they are not allowed to publish in the journal. Science isn't relative. Its fact.

The only compelling argument against warming was told to me by a geo physicist who does not dispute the greenhouse theory and its effect on atmospere, but says that there is a 300 year or so cycle of solar flares, and that we are about to hit the part where its coldest, (last time it hit the colonies in America experienced much longer winters than normal.) However, that isn't better. It makes it worse. If we don't change then the warming will actually be more severe as soon as the cycle ends, (if indeed he was even correct, since he is kind of a kook and believes in a theory that says our universe in its entirety is in a blackhole.)

[Nimph]

I get the feeling that about half of the people on these forums couldn't qualify for a GED...

You say this as if obtaining a GED is an accomplishment.

If you don't believe in global warming, then you're as bad as an Intelligent Design believer.

Nothing wrong with ID, it just makes room for God in science. It was shot down however, for good reasons. Did you get a GED?

Theories like the Ether theory, and Spontaneous Generation theory relied on conjecture; not facts.

Big bang doesn’t make any assumptions?? lol.

Science isn't relative. Its fact.

What happened to the THeory of Relativity? ;)
Theories = facts? Again, lol.

To note, I think GW is real, I just like to pick things apart that seem silly.

[SnuggleySoft]

Theories are hypothesis that appear to be true but need to have further experimentation to prove its existence as law. Scientific evidence points towards big bang, but it isn't fully agreed upon, but it is the best idea we have so far.

Although, I suppose you are right. Ether theory was the best they could do before Wave Theory. However, believing mice come into existence from dirty rags... >_>

And everything is wrong with ID. It worships the god of the gaps. There isn't one bit of science in it. All they say is "Look how crazy this is!!! It just can't have been evolved."

See: Pastafarianism

[jackatk]

Sorry Ishandra you seem to have missed the thrust of my argument. I was not argueing that all endeavour is useless (such as trying to prevent crime, war, etc.) but rather that discussing topics such as these in online forums such as this is essentially useless as it is nigh on impossible to convince any of the users to adopt a position that they did not hold before arriving at the forum. Thus any argument/disagreement rapidly degenerates into a "I'm right you're wrong" "nuh-uh" "yeah I am" "nuh-uh" etc form of argument. It is my opinion that these types of arguments are mostly pathetic although they can be amusing at times.

So the point I was trying to make when I said "It really messes up everything and lots and lots of people die and we get to stop worrying about overpopulation, nations, bird flu and a whole host of other big problems that would be fixed by a smaller population." was not so much that we shouldnt bother but rather that there are many problems in this world and as much as we strive to eradicate them there will always be others. (Not that is a bad thing as problems give us challenges and challenges give us meaning)

Also in reply to snugglesoft: I do in fact believe quite strongly in Global Warming ( or to be more specific that humans are affecting the ecosystem ona global basis) and I do tend to read reputable scientific publications. But could you please clarify how the Solar flare theory your friend propounded is an argument "against" global warming?

[SnuggleySoft]

I said it wasn't an argument "against" global warming, I was saying that the only scientific evidence that could possibly show that globally the environment could be cooler, does not disregard global warming. It just means normally it would be freezing.

[Uncle]

IT DOES NOT MATTER.
Look at it logically.
Option 1) Global warming does not exist Therefore no problem
Option 2) Global warming does exist therefore...
Option 2a) It doesnt make much difference or..
Option 2b) It really messes up everything and lots and lots of people die and we get to stop worrying about overpopulation, nations, bird flu and a whole host of other big problems that would be fixed by a smaller population.

Basically what I am saying is that we humans are clever enough to adapt to big catastrophes and we are also too stupid, opinionated and ill-informed to avoid them. I know that we should have hope and lets do that and try but at least let us be aware that it is false hope and people are always going to be divided and wait until it is too late.

hm it's like u were trying to rad my mind :) and u almost succeeded

i should say that i'm sure in our impact on the climate system but don't think we can change much at this stage, since we are so very deeply entrained in our old ways.

therefore we should stop *****ing at each other whose fault it is and start figuring some survival mechanism/technology/scientific advance... that will help us when the water starts spilling in our cities. now the sceptics might disagree, but why? in worst case scenario we'll have an alternative for fossil fuels and some way to survive. if this GW turns out to be a bag of bs, then we'll have new high tech toys to play with and what's better, fresher air to breath. it's a win-win

[lolkid]

global warming is a cry for attention from someone who lost the election (Gore) and only tards would give him the peace prize (norwegians) since peace has jack s to do with global warming, the motivation was the weakest ever given for a nobel prize and it diminished the weight and integrity of the prize substantially.

i followed this a couple of years before Gore lost the election (he has been propping for this since forever, it just wasnt interresting enough to go world wide with until this attention-wh*re lost the election) because our school did some project on it for a few days, and back then it said that 10-15 years from now we would be totally screwed, the water lines would have raised 2 meters and 80% of the marine life would be extinct, and this was -proved- beyond all doubt, it was a -fact- and unless there was a world wide energy plan revolution, it was inevitable.

well here i am close to 10 years later and winter is just the same, the waterline is the same, fish are growing back unusually fast along the local coast and summer was regular.

i still support lowering the co2 releases and most environmental friendly household ideas that pop up, i sort garbage and turn the lights off when i leave home, and i agree that companies should lower their releases if possible, but dont expect a rapidly growing china who wants to industrialize a billion people with the basic goal to put food on their table, to pay for switching all their coal-plants to modern ones.

then again the truth is not interresting here because for 'once' the truth favours the big bad companies around the world.

and if you say "IT DOESNT MATTER, LOWER THE RELEASES BECAUSE ITS GOOD" you are basically saying the truth doesnt matter, lets all lie to get it done.

[SnuggleySoft]

Just because estimates are off, doesn't mean its untrue. Its fairly clear something is going on when the glaciers are retreating, and places like the arctic and greenland are shrinking year by year. Plus in those 10 years we have done other things. Most countries have signed the Kyoto treaty, and most countries have higher standards for CO2 emissions and MPG. This would prolong the time.