Global Warming

[Nik00117]

I'm not a big fan of "let's all jump on the global warming bandwagon because so-and-so says he's right." We can't accurately predict the weather 5 days from now... how are we supposed to believe someone predicting it 500 years from now? As far as I'm concerned, this is a natural cycle. The Earth was made to maintain itself. It's a common term in science known as equilibrium. Basically, it's a balance.
Now I'm sure you've heard of all these "scientists" telling you that oh, we're all going to die, look at all this CO2 we're producing! What with all this breathing and stuff. It's bad because it's a greenhouse gas. What does it do? It causes the Earth to warm up.

Well, to that I say... who benefits from CO2 and higher temperatures? Trees. My dad's a forester and knows about this stuff. There's some research that shows that if the temperature were to increase a little, a lot of desert area would become more lush and populated by flora. In addition to the CO2, this creates another situation. With more trees and more CO2, what do we get in return? More oxygen. The process repeats itself and people freak out all over again.

You know how they tell you the ozone hole gets bigger and bigger and BIGGER all the time? They neglect to tell you in the "off-season" that it shrinks, too. It's all about ratings.

I don't know what to think anymore. It seems like anyone who says they are a scientist on TV must be the expert on the subject. There's a lot of research for global warming. There's also a lot of research against global warming. There is a lot of very weak and inaccurate research on both sides of the spectrum. You can form your own opinion, but I just told you mine.

Amazing saw Al Gores movie on it and he had a few good points. First off he said this

Last 10 warmest years in recorded highest ws in the last 14 years, in 2005 was the hottest years all time records were crushed. In 2005 scitenesits had to rewrite the book on Hurricanes they thought it was impossible for a hurricane to hit the south altantic, well it hit brazil. 32,000 died in the 2005 heat wave, a category 1 hurricane changed to a category 4 hurriance in a matter of hours. Japan experienced a all time high, and well he kept going giving all kinds of examples and then he said

"And folks thats the weak evidence"

We have been able to record CO2 levels up to 650,000 years back. And in this 650,000 year time fame CO2 levels have gone up, never over (think he said 300 parts per million (don't QUOTE ME On that figure)) Around the 1930s or so CO2 levels broke this barrier, and now its doubled less then 70 years later. Every year more CO2 is added then what it was the year before.

Either way in 50 years time period it'll be like 4x or 5x about the previous barrier which was thought "unbreakable"

Global warming is real, however i've come to terms with the world community will only come to terms with it after the fact.

 

[D-Lew]

Well, the whole part about CO2 doesn't really tell me anything besides the fact that CO2 levels have increased. It doesn't correlate any temperature increase directly related to that fact. I've heard all kinds of crazy evidence from studies like "all the icebergs are melting," when it turns out, they just drifted away on an ocean current. The problem is, you can't trust anyone any more.

 

[Nik00117]

Well, the whole part about CO2 doesn't really tell me anything besides the fact that CO2 levels have increased. It doesn't correlate any temperature increase directly related to that fact. I've heard all kinds of crazy evidence from studies like "all the icebergs are melting," when it turns out, they just drifted away on an ocean current. The problem is, you can't trust anyone any more.

It is a condience I guess that as CO2 levels go up so do the tempature, as CO2 levels go down guess what temps do? They go down too! its a miracle does that not tell you somthing?

 

[D-Lew]

That's true, but the fact of the matter is, there is no control in this little experiment. Here's a good little piece of info:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/climatechart.pdf

Notice what happens to the curve, then look where we are right now. See where we are in the pattern? Don't you think it's a little to early to start freaking out about this? It looks quite normal to me. Tell me in 50,000 years if the temperature hasn't dropped 0.8º C and then I'll admit I was wrong. There's just SO MUCH that you have to think about when you're researching it. In order for our climate computers to be accurate, you have to take into account things you wouldn't normally think of, such as cloud coverage, volcanic eruptions, and other things. Right now I think it's impossible to simulate that. This is just something that's beyond us I think. I understand the concern, but in order to eliminate this alleged problem, seems like the only way we can is to all walk or ride bikes and return to making everything by hand.

One thing we COULD do is increase and optimize the safe use of nuclear power, but since Chernobyl everyone is freaking out about that. It's MUCH cleaner than burning coal. But for some reason the environmentalists argue against its implementation as well.

 

[boardordi3]

That's true, but the fact of the matter is, there is no control in this little experiment. Here's a good little piece of info:
http://www.technologyreview.com/articlefiles/climatechart.pdf

Notice what happens to the curve, then look where we are right now. See where we are in the pattern? Don't you think it's a little to early to start freaking out about this? It looks quite normal to me. Tell me in 50,000 years if the temperature hasn't dropped 0.8º C and then I'll admit I was wrong. There's just SO MUCH that you have to think about when you're researching it. In order for our climate computers to be accurate, you have to take into account things you wouldn't normally think of, such as cloud coverage, volcanic eruptions, and other things. Right now I think it's impossible to simulate that. This is just something that's beyond us I think. I understand the concern, but in order to eliminate this alleged problem, seems like the only way we can is to all walk or ride bikes and return to making everything by hand.

One thing we COULD do is increase and optimize the safe use of nuclear power, but since Chernobyl everyone is freaking out about that. It's MUCH cleaner than burning coal. But for some reason the environmentalists argue against its implementation as well.

you have by far the best opinoin so far in this thread congratulations

 

[^Mike^]

Global Warming is a bunch of bull, the earth goes threw cycles. This is normal...

 

[D-Lew]

By the way, to clarify, when I say "environmentalist" I mean radical environmentalist. I am an environmentalist in that I believe that we should make the most out of our natural resources. I also believe that we should USE them. That being said, there are people who are so extreme in their views, thinking that we should just leave our greatest renewable resource alone, that is the tree. That's one thing that makes me discount these people's views. Also, there are those who think that humanity as a whole CAN solve this issue, if there is one. I don't think that it will be solved. People will still drive cars, use powered machinery, electricity, etc. We will probably never use nuclear power to its potential in my lifetime. In addition to that, when people portray the U.S. as "the evil" in this issue, there are other, less developed countries still using leaded gas, have much less demanding pollution standards, etc.

 

[Beast Boy]

I'm not a big fan of "let's all jump on the global warming bandwagon because so-and-so says he's right." We can't accurately predict the weather 5 days from now... how are we supposed to believe someone predicting it 500 years from now? As far as I'm concerned, this is a natural cycle. The Earth was made to maintain itself. It's a common term in science known as equilibrium. Basically, it's a balance.
Now I'm sure you've heard of all these "scientists" telling you that oh, we're all going to die, look at all this CO2 we're producing! What with all this breathing and stuff. It's bad because it's a greenhouse gas. What does it do? It causes the Earth to warm up.

Well, to that I say... who benefits from CO2 and higher temperatures? Trees. My dad's a forester and knows about this stuff. There's some research that shows that if the temperature were to increase a little, a lot of desert area would become more lush and populated by flora. In addition to the CO2, this creates another situation. With more trees and more CO2, what do we get in return? More oxygen. The process repeats itself and people freak out all over again.

You know how they tell you the ozone hole gets bigger and bigger and BIGGER all the time? They neglect to tell you in the "off-season" that it shrinks, too. It's all about ratings.

I don't know what to think anymore. It seems like anyone who says they are a scientist on TV must be the expert on the subject. There's a lot of research for global warming. There's also a lot of research against global warming. There is a lot of very weak and inaccurate research on both sides of the spectrum. You can form your own opinion, but I just told you mine.

Well done D-Lew.

I personally think the same, I mean why don't you ask the people who live in northern Texas, and Oklahoma, and the people in California who are loosing millions from all the freezing rain and sleet occuring, if they think global warming is here.

All in all the earth is one big cycle like D-Lew said.

-Beast

 

[Nik00117]

Yes and tahts why CO2 levels are double what they ever have been in 650,000 years...

Its just a cycle just a big one since we've seen this same cycle in 650,000 years but its never been doubled.

Either way in 50 years, i'll be saying I told you so as crops fail, farmers lose their herds to stravation and the world is in crisis as CNN is reporting on a "what if we listened to the warning signs on global warming"

 

[D-Lew]

I seriously, seriously, seriously don't think all that will happen if temperatures rise 1.5 degrees like it's been projected at its worst. I'll keep saying this, without a lot of credible and relevant information on this subject, I'm not going to assume the worst. We have about a century and a half of usable weather data that we're basing this on. That's not very convincing to me. It's not "true until proven untrue," that's not how science works.