Global Warming

[killbot1000]

so tell me, where's your "global warming" now?

 

Um...its winter in the north pole right now dude. Of course some ice is going to come back. It's not as if the ice just slowly goes away. its like a bunch of waves, but every wave is slightly lower than the one that came before it.

 

But rather than arguing the validity of global warming, I want you to do another exercise for me.

 

What are the consequences for you being wrong about global warming?

 

What are the consequences for one who believes in global warming being wrong?

[dark4181]

if i'm wrong? the earth will chew us up, spit us out, and go on with it's business

 

if you're wrong, humans will chew each other up, spit each other out, and the earth will go on with it's business

[killbot1000]

if you're wrong, humans will chew each other up, spit each other out, and the earth will go on with it's business

 

Why, how?

[dark4181]

human nature. survival of the fittest

[socal swimmer]

human nature. survival of the fittest

 

you are so incredibly dumb that even reading your posts is a waste of my and everyone else's time. go crawl in a whole and die.

</ad hominem>

 

every single "point" you have brought up is either completely unfounded, irrelevant, or downright incorrect.

Edited February 23, 2008 by socal swimmer

[dark4181]

The point I was trying to make, albeit in a roundabout way, is that the Earth will withstand anything we humans can do, and still be here long after we are gone.

 

The other point is that humans generally look out for themselves first, and others second.

 

Or perhaps I'm just so incredibly smart that you'll think back to now in five years and say "Ohhh, I get it"

[socal swimmer]

The point I was trying to make, albeit in a roundabout way, is that the Earth will withstand anything we humans can do, and still be here long after we are gone.

 

ok. thank you, cause i didn't catch that.

 

 

And maybe it will still be here, but we will have caused massive ecological devastation, with huge extinction levels. While the planet will probably recover, i think this is an unacceptable option.

[Colonel]

you are so incredibly dumb that even reading your posts is a waste of my and everyone else's time. go crawl in a whole and die.

hominem>

 

every single "point" you have brought up is either completely unfounded, irrelevant, or downright incorrect.

Hey guys, no need to personally attack each other. Try to keep this discussion at a mature, appropriate level. Thanks.

[socal swimmer]

Hey guys, no need to personally attack each other. Try to keep this discussion at a mature, appropriate level. Thanks.

 

do you not see the strikethrough?

 

that means i took it back. i figured it was more mature than deleting it and pretending it never happened.

 

am i wrong?

[Paranoid Marvin]

Let’s establish 2 undisputable facts:

 

Fact 1: Global Temperatures are rising

This can been show quite simply by posting the often cited graph produced by d by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia and the Hadley Centre of the UK Meteorological Office, both highly reliable sources.

 

Fact 2: Global CO2 levels have risen dramatically since the industrial revolution

Again, I turn to a graph – the often cited Keeling Curve, produced by Charles Keeling at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. The evidence has been partially back up by readings from other sites, but the Mauna Loa Observatory has the longest record.

 

I highly recommend watching some of this guy’s videos. His explanations are much more rigorous and better cited than what I can do here.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wonderingmind42

 

Most particularly, his videos that deal with the basics of scientific study and method:

 

And the processes and causes of global climate change itself:

[dark4181]

hmm, so he's testing for c02 less than 50 miles away from an active volcano.. i wonder why they're detecting elevated levels

 

*puts on thinking cap*

 

perhaps it's from an impending "geological event." the last eruption of Mauna Loa was in 1984.. i'd say it's due

[Paranoid Marvin]

hmm, so he's testing for c02 less than 50 miles away from an active volcano.. i wonder why they're detecting elevated levels

 

*puts on thinking cap*

 

perhaps it's from an impending "geological event." the last eruption of Mauna Loa was in 1984.. i'd say it's due

 

Quoted from wikipedia:

Though Mauna Loa is an active volcano, Keeling and collaborators made measurements on the incoming ocean breeze and above the thermal inversion layer to minimize local contamination from volcanic vents. In addition, the data is normalized to negate any influence from local contamination

The source being:Keeling, Charles D. (1978). "The Influence of Mauna Loa Observatory on the Development of Atmospheric CO2 Research". In Mauna Loa Observatory: A 20th Anniversary Report. (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Special Report, September 1978), edited by John Miller, pp. 36-54. Boulder, CO: NOAA Environmental Research Laboratories.

 

In addition, the evidence is backed up by various other measurements from other places in the world. I gave Mauna Loa as an example as it had been the longest running.

 

The following chart is a combination of readings from various remote outposts (one in particular being the south pole)

Source

Take care to read the scale correctly to avoid misinterpreting the information.

 

I could provide more evidence that CO2 levels are rising (eg, ice core bubble measurements etc), but the evidence given above shows certain proof.

 

Furthermore, your volcanic activity theory can be completely disregarded, as Mauna Loa was dormant until 2002 with only slight increases in seismic activity since then. Also, that is not a global event.

[dark4181]

fair enough. science is just like politics, both can be argued in circles

[Paranoid Marvin]

fair enough. science is just like politics, both can be argued in circles

 

If you payed enough attention to my previous posts, you will understand that the 2 things I stated are not to be argued, but are in fact, facts, backed up my copious amounts of evidence.

There is no denying the facts above, as there is no evidence to contradict it.

[JonTheSavage]

If you fall for the oil cartel's lame excuses, and believe them. Then go ahead. There is more oil under the United States, than there is in most of the world. Drill a hole 1/4 mile in texas, and you WILL hit oil. Drill a hole under a shelf in Alaska, and you WILL hit oil. There is enough oil to run this country for over 1,500 years lying under us. If you honestly believe the OPEC's lies, then you are dumber than I thought.

 

Thanks for the "educated" comment. The fact is, that people that believe in global warming are in a very small minority. The people in power know that FEAR WORKS. Either they be Bush, or Gore. They are in the same boat. They are the same. You say you hate one, but love the other. I don't think you stand for either since you don't know what you are even supporting. Carbon Dioxide, and Carbon Monoxide, are two, totally different compounds, thus are totally two different things. Dioxide, is different than Monoxide, and carbon is essential to life. If a mad scientist tells you to jump off a bridge to save the planet, you would probably do it.

 

It is an excuse to pass a global tax, just like the Law of the Sea treaty, handing power over to the UN. The same people responsible for this war, mass murder, and slave trading. So go ahead advocate that body of crooks, and thugs.

 

You still haven't been able to tie CO2 into global warming. CO2 is part of every type of mass in the universe.... and you claim it is causing global warming since it's been here since the beginning. Go take a common-damned-sense pill.

 

Um...its winter in the north pole right now dude. Of course some ice is going to come back. It's not as if the ice just slowly goes away. its like a bunch of waves, but every wave is slightly lower than the one that came before it. But rather than arguing the validity of global warming, I want you to do another exercise for me.What are the consequences for you being wrong about global warming?What are the consequences for one who believes in global warming being wrong?

 

 

Killbot. CARS EMIT CO2? HAHAHAHA.Go back to school, and learn what CARBON MONOXIDE is.

 

Before the Ice Age, man wanted to Tax the buffalo for global cooling. He thought that the land was melting, and causing ice formations. The sea was going away! We must save the fish! The buffalo believed him, but had no money. The man decided tokill the buffalo for food. The bufallo agreed. This would surely save him from global cooling.

 

Scripps gets it's donations from the Rockefeller Brother's fund. The same group of people.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=581

Thanks for the David Rockefeller graph. Follow the money dummy. You honestly think that Global Warming isn't about money?

 

EDIT: No debating what? That global warming is a fear tactic created by people in power to collect money from you? I can draw a graph, and post it on the net too, but I don't need billions of dollars from the oil industry to do it. All I need is gimp, or photoshop, and someone who will accept a little money over their principals to type up a propaganda article.

[Paranoid Marvin]

If you fall for the oil cartel's lame excuses, and believe them. Then go ahead. There is more oil under the United States, than there is in most of the world. Drill a hole 1/4 mile in texas, and you WILL hit oil. Drill a hole under a shelf in Alaska, and you WILL hit oil. There is enough oil to run this country for over 1,500 years lying under us. If you honestly believe the OPEC's lies, then you are dumber than I thought.

 

Thanks for the "educated" comment. The fact is, that people that believe in global warming are in a very small minority. The people in power know that FEAR WORKS. Either they be Bush, or Gore. They are in the same boat. They are the same. You say you hate one, but love the other. I don't think you stand for either since you don't know what you are even supporting. Carbon Dioxide, and Carbon Monoxide, are two, totally different compounds, thus are totally two different things. Dioxide, is different than Monoxide, and carbon is essential to life. If a mad scientist tells you to jump off a bridge to save the planet, you would probably do it.

 

It is an excuse to pass a global tax, just like the Law of the Sea treaty, handing power over to the UN. The same people responsible for this war, mass murder, and slave trading. So go ahead advocate that body of crooks, and thugs.

 

You still haven't been able to tie CO2 into global warming. CO2 is part of every type of mass in the universe.... and you claim it is causing global warming since it's been here since the beginning. Go take a common-damned-sense pill.

Killbot. CARS EMIT CO2? HAHAHAHA.Go back to school, and learn what CARBON MONOXIDE is.

 

Before the Ice Age, man wanted to Tax the buffalo for global cooling. He thought that the land was melting, and causing ice formations. The sea was going away! We must save the fish! The buffalo believed him, but had no money. The man decided tokill the buffalo for food. The bufallo agreed. This would surely save him from global cooling.

 

Scripps gets it's donations from the Rockefeller Brother's fund. The same group of people.

http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/Releases/?releaseID=581

Thanks for the David Rockefeller graph. Follow the money dummy. You honestly think that Global Warming isn't about money?

 

EDIT: No debating what? That global warming is a fear tactic created by people in power to collect money from you? I can draw a graph, and post it on the net too, but I don't need billions of dollars from the oil industry to do it. All I need is gimp, or photoshop, and someone who will accept a little money over their principals to type up a propaganda article.

 

Wow, if someone tells you it's a Tuesday, do you tell them they are stupid and are being lied to by the government?

Because the facts I have posted are a definite as Tuesday itself...

[killbot1000]

Killbot. CARS EMIT CO2? HAHAHAHA.Go back to school, and learn what CARBON MONOXIDE is.

 

I know what Carbon Monoxide is. I simply misspoke, that's all. I apologize. Carbon Monoxide has one oxygen, carbon dioxide has two. I know what it is, I just got mixed up, they do sound alike.

 

You don't need to TRY to make people feel stupid to prove a point.

[danerd100]

After seeing this topic, I thought about what I always tell people: "Global Warming is happening, but we are not causing it. Look at the temperature's of other planets, Mars is going up, and our pollution definately isn't effecting Mars."

 

I googled "Mars global temperature pattern" and "Mars Global Warming" and take a look at the pictures below. I think that something in the solar system is causing CO2 levels to change. link after link said how Global Warming is probably a solar issue, not just a global issue.

 

Source: http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/CO2_Science_rel/

MOC Observes Changes in the South Polar Cap:

Evidence for Recent Climate Change on Mars

MGS MOC Release No. MOC2-297, 6 December 2001

 

 

 

Martian South Polar Pits in Layer of Frozen Carbon Dioxide

Compare each image on the left with their counterparts on the right. Small hills vanished and pit walls

expanded between 1999 and 2001.The pits are formed in frozen carbon dioxide, and the carbon dioxide

is subliming away a little more each Martian year. Sunlight illuminates each of the four different scenes

from the upper left. CLICK HERE for animation of one of these 4 panels (1.6 MBytes)

CLICK HERE for animation of all 4 of these panels (6.2 MBytes).

 

 

 

One of the most profound benefits of being able to continue photographing Mars in the Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) Extended Mission is the opportunity to go back and re-image a site that was seen in the previous martian year. New MGS Mars Orbiter Camera (MOC) images have provided a startling observation: The residual martian south polar cap is changing. The fact that it is changing suggests that Mars may have major, global climate changes that are occurring on the same time scales as Earth's most recent climate shifts, including the last Ice Age. MOC images of the south polar cap taken in 1999 were compared with images of the same locations taken in 2001, and it was discovered that pits had enlarged, mesas had shrunk, and small buttes had vanished. In all, the scarps that enclose the pits and bound the mesas and buttes retreated about 3 meters (3.3 yards) in 1 martian year (687 Earth days). This rapid retreat of polar scarps can only occur if the ice is frozen carbon dioxide (also known as "dry ice"). Retreat of scarps made of water ice is much slower and would not have been measurable from one martian year to the next.

 

The portion of the martian south polar cap that persists through summer is called the residual polar cap. The two sets of four pictures shown here are from four places on the residual south polar cap. The pictures from 1999 were taken in October of that year, the corresponding pictures from 2001 were acquired in August, approximately 1 Mars year after the 1999 images were obtained. In each case, the pictures are illuminated by sunlight from the upper left, and each shows an area about 250 meters (273 yards) across. The polar cap is layered, and the layers have eroded to form pits, troughs, mesas, and buttes. The pits form as sunlight warms frozen carbon dioxide during southern spring and summer, and the ice sublimes away. There is so much carbon dioxide that it does not all go away in one summer---in fact, it may take hundreds to thousands of years to disappear.

 

These new observations indicate that the south polar residual cap is not permanent. It is disappearing, a little bit more each southern spring and summer season. At the present rate, a layer 3 m thick can be completely eroded away in a few tens of martian years. Since each layer is equivalent to about 1% of the mass of the present atmosphere (which is 95% carbon dioxide), if sufficient carbon dioxide is buried in the south polar cap, the mass of the atmosphere could double in a few hundred to a thousand Mars years. That could lead to profound changes in the environment. For example, it would change how much and where wind erosion would occur, and where and for how long liquid water could survive at or near the surface.

 

It also means that Mars may have been very different in the recent past (perhaps only a few thousands of years ago). On today's Mars, the ice is eroding, but in the past that material had to have been deposited. The martian climate was probably colder, and there was more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. For some reason, large amounts of carbon dioxide froze at the south pole---one might say that there was a "Martian Ice Age"---and this freezing occurred on a time scale similar to that of the most recent Ice Age on Earth.

 

Mars is changing, and it is changing on a time scale that we can measure and observe. If all of the carbon dioxide that is being released into the atmosphere from the south polar cap is not freezing out somewhere else, and if it is not being adsorbed into the martian soil, then it must be causing the atmospheric pressure to increase. If this is so, and if one were to assume that the entire known volume of the polar cap is made of carbon dioxide that sublimes at the same rate we see today, then it could increase the martian atmospheric pressure by as much as 10 times, to about 1/10th the density of Earth's atmosphere, in just the next few thousand years. Although this atmosphere would not be breathable, carbon dioxide is a "greenhouse gas" that would cause the global temperature to increase considerably and make it easier for liquid water to persist elsewhere on the planet. Perhaps, just perhaps, a thickening martian atmosphere would eventually make it easier for people to live on Mars.

 

This new MGS MOC discovery is described in a paper published December 7, 2001, in the journal, Science. For a more detailed discussion of these results (but less detailed than the Science article, CLICK HERE).

 

[socal swimmer]

<< Back to Page 1 Page 2 of 2

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

 

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

 

 

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

 

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

 

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained.

 

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

 

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

 

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

 

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...-warming_2.html

 

for more information: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

[Maxintosh]

You can prove anything you like with statistics.

Yeah, but only 67% of the time

 

 

 

Global Warming is happening, but we are not causing it. Look at the temperature's of other planets, Mars is going up, and our pollution definately isn't effecting Mars.

Wow, talk about a strawman argument

[JonTheSavage]

I'll take the weatherman's word for it. I mean the entire Weather Channel.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5a0wuQr9d70

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...-

warming_2.htmlfor more information: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

 

The whois on realclimate.org says the owner is located in Washington D.C. Yeah. You got a real source there.

National Geographic is the Fox news of liberalism.

 

Find me a source outside of the same group if propagandist fear mongering idiots.

[Maxintosh]

The whois on realclimate.org says the owner is located in Washington D.C.

You base what you believe in depending on what city someone lives? Tell us oh mighty wise one, what cities are credible?

[JonTheSavage]

You base what you believe in depending on what city someone lives? Tell us oh mighty wise one, what cities are credible?

 

Washington DC is not a city. It is an entity/country of it's own. District of Columbia. I call it the District of Criminals.

[socal swimmer]

Washington DC is not a city. It is an entity/country of it's own. District of Columbia. I call it the District of Criminals.

 

its a district and a city, and basically functions as a state. not a country.

 

You need to learn more.

 

And nobody cares what you call it. place of residence does not affect bias. not much at least, and not enough to entirely discount what is being said.

[CompCrasher86]

I think that we as a world are responsible to the damage we have done. I myself have tried to stay environmentally friendly with my 2006 VW Jetta that easily gets 40+mpg. I think that we still have a chance to clean up our act and save ourselves from the iminent doom we are paving the road to.