Global Warming

[Individual]

How many of you believe that Global Warming is currently happening, and is resulting from man's doing?

Ill start off by saying:

How did all of the ice ages and glaciers melt off? Global Warming obviously. Were we polluting back then? No because man was not alive.

What I find funny is that in the 1960's, US intelligence claimed that there was 'Global Cooling'. Now 40 years later there is global warming? Pollution today is cleaner than it was in the early 1900's, yet just now the globe is warming?

I find this hard to believe that all of this is man's doing, and the fact that it is not human nature taking its course.

[STI]

IT'S NOT POLLUTION THAT'S HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT! IT'S IMPURITIES IN THE AIR AND WATER!
:P

On a more serious note, it could be argued that global warming is simply caused by us coming off of the last ice age, but extensive research has suggested otherwise.

[Fidel Castro]

I'm sure I read somewhere that these "holes" in the ozone layer were started to be repared so to speak.

[Hate Is Art]

theres a hole in the Ozone layer the size of Austrailia, we need to start caring for our environment a bit more.

[Hoppe]

I don't believe in global warning, at least not that man has any influence. There is no evidence suggesting this.

[Osman Ghazi]

theres a hole in the Ozone layer the size of Austrailia, we need to start caring for our environment a bit more.

What the hell are you talking about?
Without the ozone layer, pure undiluted solar rays are able to get through.
Thus, if the hole were that big, the entire earth would be scorched.

[cubist]

osman its a fucking big hole australia isn't that big, interms of the earth, then draw the radius out by another 25miles and the size of australia is even smaller

having said that the hole is shrinking over antartica, due to efforts to reduce carbon and CFC's global except of course America

[elijahcraig]

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L.Mencken

VERY nice signature.


On the other hand, anyone who doesn't believe in Global Warming is a moron.

[elijahcraig]

Here's a site on the subject:

http://www.afcee.brooks.af.mil/pro-act/fact/oct02.asp

[Individual]

ElijahC.

The question was...


How many of you believe that Global Warming is currently happening, and is resulting from man's doing?

There very well may be Global Warming, but what is to say that it is not caused by nature? Do you believe that man has caused global warming?

Whoop-de-doo. Websites generally do not sway my opinions. A webpage could try and tell me that Barney(yes, the purple dinosaur) is a prophet of Islam. Am I to believe it because someone says it is true, and has proof because Barney claimed to talk to God himself? There are webpages providing evidence that America is not an Empire, do I believe it because they showed me evidence? No. I need cold, hard proof.

Please take the time to explain if you believe 'man' has caused global warming, and it is not nature taking its course?

To give you something to think about in the process. How did the Ice Age melt away? Global warming obviously, yet was man here to pollute back then?

[elijahcraig]

I think it is even stupid to debate the problem.

It seems you agree with GW on this, which I wouldn't like to be.

[Rasta Sapian]

Ok first of all the ozone layer is something different from global warming, these are 2 entirely different effects on the earth!

The ozone layer is depleating rapidly, and yes there are holes as large as some nations! The ozone layer has been harmed by years of CFC's entering the atmosphere, from a combination of fumes from plants producing chemicals, arisol spray, other fumes ect. The ozone is slowley dissapearing, allowing UVB rays from the sun to penatrate us and our planet, UVB rays are very harmfull, UVA are ok! ;)

Furthermore, the global warming effect is caused by a number of non-related things occuring in our atmosphere, caused by non-other than us of course, ie. the cutting down of rainforests and boreal forests ie. lack of O2 and an increase of C02 carbon dioxide, heats when reacted with solar energy, an increase in livestock, which give of CH4 methane, this is another agent adding to the effect, and there are others as well!

If our atmosphere heats up more and more, we will see more draught and famin, as well as the polar ice caps melting, if that happens, much of the planets low lying area will be flooded, fresh water will be overcome with salt water.. on and on......

we have to get involved, if its out there informing others, or just by using enviro-friendly products.. ie. banning harmfull products, its up to all of us ;)

peace yall

[Individual]

It seems you agree with GW on this, which I wouldn't like to be.

Must everything come down to political parties? Geez-us christ. Please do not avoid the question, and explain to me whether or not man has caused global warming.

I wouldn't know what Dubya's stance on the issue is anyway. My point I am trying to make, is do you believe man is causing global warming, and if so, your reasoning. Do not avoid the question you barely answered by accusing me of choosing sides.

Edit:


I think it is even stupid to debate the problem.

Well there may actually be debate if you would choose to make your debate.

[Hoppe]

On the other hand, anyone who doesn't believe in Global Warming is a moron.

Then there are a lot of moronic scientists in this world. Have you ever counted how many "possibilities" there are in the IPCC reports?


Furthermore, the global warming effect is caused by a number of non-related things occuring in our atmosphere, caused by non-other than us of course,

Extremely debatable.

The amount of CO2 released in the air by man is estimated at around 6.5 Gt per year. Every year there is an exchange of 90 Gt between the earth's atmosphere and the ocean surface, 60 Gt between the atmosphere and the plants, 50 Gt between the oceans and micro-organisms and about 100 Gt between the ocean's surface and the deep sea. CO2 released by man is thus about 4% of the natural flows.

Data shows that the variance in natural CO2-flows is about 4 to 6 times higher than the total amount released by man. The atmosphere contains 750 Gt CO2, the surface of oceans 1000 Gt, the total ocean 38000 Gt, and plant and organisms on the earth surface 2200 Gt.

The mean average grow of CO2 in the air is presumably 1,5 ppm, which is (1,5/365)x750 = 3 Gt. At least half of what humans produce will be used by plants (more CO2 means better growth for plants) and oceans. This isn't more because the natural processes lag the higher production of CO2 (it takes some time for plants to grow).

Eventually, the extra CO2 will be disolved into the oceans for around 98%.

Maybe it would be better if we cut down all tree so we won't have forrest fires anymore..... ;)

[Fidelbrand]

Some scientists say that there is a historical circularity in global warming, which means the earth gets hotter at particular times in history.

but.... of course, this doesn't mean environmental protection as to tackle global warming should be abandoned. If I were to run a socialist/ communist country, fossil burning would be banned. Solar power, wind power would be used. Maybe batteries too, but they would have to be handled with care (the Swedish way).

[Individual]

but.... of course, this doesn't mean environmental protection as to tackle global warming should be abandoned. If I were to run a socialist/ communist country, fossil burning would be banned. Solar power, wind power would be used. Maybe batteries too, but they would have to be handled with care (the Swedish way).

For one, do you realize the energy production rates of solar and wind power? I live right below the Altamott Pass in California, this is one of two places in California that has a significant source of Windmills for energy. There are literally thousands of these 'windmills', yet they are not even enough to supply my town of 70,000 people of energy. Solar energy technology may be coming further in advancements, yet wind and solar power are very unreliable as complete energy sources.

For two, do you realize what you must have to make batteries? You need to burn fossil fuels to make the enery in order to produce these batteries. Having batteries as a fuel source is also extremely unreliable. If any of these things were reliable, wouldn't you think that they would be in place of using fossil fuels?

These methods are not reliable to supply energy to the population of any average community, nor the bussinesses within those communities. I see the concern of burning fossil fuels, however if you were to ban this, you better have a damn good plan for how to replace and create the technology for any/everything that runs on electricity and fuel. To say that you are going to merely ban burning fossil fuels is absolutely crazy. Even environmentalists realize this is not a feasible option, therefore call for the technology to reduce the 'pollution' of these fossil fuels, not abolish them.

[Hate Is Art]

True AQ but we shouldn't abandon protecting the environment just because some people don't believe Global Warming is happeneing.

[Individual]

Yes.

And I can agree with that. My point with global warming is that, it has happened before, many times, before man was even alive.

I do believe that we need to protect the environment, however I think we should be a lot more concerned on other issues than global warming. For all we know, which could very likely be the case, man is doing nothing, or atleast very little in the aid of global warming.

Believe him or not, however the stats that Hoppe posted are basically the same I have come across before. Global warming is most likely happening, however what can we do to help it? Scientists tend to find solutions to one problem, while creating a problem for something else. Such was the case with California fuel emisions. We created something to cut down on air pollution, but came to find out that solution was polluting our oceans and fresh water supply. My point is, lets say we find a solution to fixing 'nature's' problem of global warming, but in doing that, we are tampering with nature itself.

Protecting nature is a great idea, but before we come up with drastic ideas on how to fix it. Let's first try and figure out if we are involved with it.

Don't get me wrong on this, for I do not have conservative views on nature. However when it comes to global warming, the proof of Earth's history and proof of overall pollution points away from mankind having a significant role in pollution. I am one for nature, however being brainwashed by either side is something I do not fall far. I want proof, and the evidence I have researched and that has been supplied leads me away from man as a key role.

[Rasta Sapian]

yes, the earth does experience natural warming periods between ice ages which occur thousands of years apart, we are currently in a warming period, but based on scientific knowledge, the rate of warming we have been experiencing over the last century is not natural it is an example of mankind threatening the environment! we are cutting the forests that produce the worlds oxogen! more carbon dioxide means more heat=global warming, its a fact, animals give off carbon dioxide and methane, feuling the effect!
It's no joke :huh:

[pedro san pedro]

For one, do you realize the energy production rates of solar and wind power? I live right below the Altamott Pass in California, this is one of two places in California that has a significant source of Windmills for energy. There are literally thousands of these 'windmills', yet they are not even enough to supply my town of 70,000 people of energy. Solar energy technology may be coming further in advancements, yet wind and solar power are very unreliable as complete energy sources.

windmills perhaps dont produce the highest level of power in some areas -so shouldnt be used in those areas.
however,m they are one of the more efficent means of producing power -up near 90%. compare that to a coal fired plant -below 50%.
where they are feasible they are being used to great effect. denmark is around the 20% mark of its national grid -and are on track to get to 40% by 2010.



To say that you are going to merely ban burning fossil fuels is absolutely crazy. Even environmentalists realize this is not a feasible option, therefore call for the technology to reduce the 'pollution' of these fossil fuels, not abolish them.

agreed -as much as i'ld like to switch over tomorrow, it isnt feasible. however, governments should be putting a lot more effort into getting us to a point where we can make this switch.




i think those of us that are still arguing weather or not :P this is occuring have missed the boat.
the real topic has become how much are we going to invest in preventing global warming

[Hoppe]

we are cutting the forests that produce the worlds oxogen! more carbon dioxide means more heat=global warming, its a fact, animals give off carbon dioxide and methane, feuling the effect!
It's no joke

I have read reports that the amount of forrest on this planet has actually grown about 6% over the last decade. More carbon dioxide means more plants as well. Researchers is the US have reported better growth of plants when they increased the level of CO2 in the air.

Humans give off CO2 as well, should we all stop breathing? As I showed, the human part of the output is negligable. If we have a year full of disasters like vulcano eruptions or forrest fires everything we possibly can do will be undone.


windmills perhaps dont produce the highest level of power in some areas -so shouldnt be used in those areas.
however,m they are one of the more efficent means of producing power -up near 90%. compare that to a coal fired plant -below 50%.
where they are feasible they are being used to great effect. denmark is around the 20% mark of its national grid -and are on track to get to 40% by 2010

Hmm, windmills are not more efficient. The wind doesn't blow everyday and since electricity is non-storable you cannot increase production if necessary. Furthermore you have to use a lot of mills which people generally find very ugly things and kill a lot of birds.

All the different options have been extensively covered in many reports and the only viable option is to use nuclear energy, and hopefully in the future fusion, if we want to decrease the output of CO2 without lowering our wealth significantly.


i think those of us that are still arguing weather or not this is occuring have missed the boat.
the real topic has become how much are we going to invest in preventing global warming

With all respect but this is simply bs. :)

If we would do everything in the Kyoto treaty hopefully in 2050 we will have a decrease of 0.5 degree C, I believe. Please send your money to Bangladesh to make sure the country isn't under water every year. That's certainly money better spend.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:04 PM
I'm sure I read somewhere that these "holes" in the ozone layer were started to be repared so to speak.
Which are nothing to do with the debate at hand, global warming.

I have read reports that the amount of forrest on this planet has actually grown about 6% over the last decade.

As the amount of rainforest destroyed per year has grown to an area th size of Wales I find that statement highly unlikley.

Researchers is the US have reported better growth of plants when they increased the level of CO2 in the air.

Its called photosynthasis, however the researchers are obviously wrong or prodused a foolish investigation, because during the night time, photosythasis ceases to occur and is replaced by respiration, in the winter months when night time exceeds daytime then respiration becomes a more important process. Your view is inaccurate.

Humans give off CO2 as well, should we all stop breathing?

If you continue to make stupid comments then In your case, yes.

If we have a year full of disasters like vulcano eruptions or forrest fires everything we possibly can do will be undone.

With all respect but this is simply bs.

Not true, the issue is the cause of Global warming, not its existance.

Please send your money to Bangladesh to make sure the country isn't under water every year. That's certainly money better spend.

A foolish statement, if global warming was to occur annual flooding of Bangladeshe would not be a problem as Bangladeshe would be several meters under water.

[Hoppe]

As the amount of rainforest destroyed per year has grown to an area th size of Wales I find that statement highly unlikley.


I will look up the sources for you.


ts called photosynthasis, however the researchers are obviously wrong or prodused a foolish investigation, because during the night time, photosythasis ceases to occur and is replaced by respiration, in the winter months when night time exceeds daytime then respiration becomes a more important process. Your view is inaccurate.

Your statement doesn't matter. Photosynthasis increases with a greater amount of CO2 in the air.

Greenep, H. et al. 2003. Response of photosynthesis in second-generation Pinus radiata trees to long-term exposure to elevated carbon dioxide partial pressure. Tree Physiology, 23, 569-576.

Herrick, J.D. and R.B. Thomas. 2003. Leaf senescence and late-season net photosynthesis of sun and shade leaves of overstory sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) grown in elevated and ambient carbon dioxide concentrations. Tree Physiology, 23, 109-118.

Hovenden, M.J. 2003. Photosynthesis of coppicing poplar clones in a free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiment in a short-rotation forest. Functional Plant Biology, 30, 391-400.

Karnosky, D.F. et al. 2003. Tropospheric O3 moderates responses of temperate hardwood forests to elevated CO2: A synthesis of molecular to ecosystem results from the Aspen FACE project. Functional Ecology; 17, 289-304.

Kouwenberg et al. 2003. Stomatal frequency adjustment of four conifer species to historical changes in atmospheric CO2. American Journal of Botany, 90, 610-619.


If you continue to make stupid comments then In your case, yes.

blablabla.


Not true, the issue is the cause of Global warming, not its existance

Some seem to be under the delusion that a) it takes place and b) CO2 causes it and c) humans are responsible. I highly doubt that the people here are all scientist involved in these researches so it would be obvious if people at least have a realistic view and not believe everything what is feed to them by the media.


A foolish statement, if global warming was to occur annual flooding of Bangladeshe would not be a problem as Bangladeshe would be several meters under water

Au contraire, Kyoto will cost 300 billion per year with a significant probability of no effect. The causality in the case is again highly debatable since flooding takes place for endless years now. So it's a much better way to spend money.

[Invader Zim]

I will look up the sources for you.

You do that.

Although the precise area is disputed, each day, at least 80,000 acres (32,300 ha) of forest disappear from earth. At least another 80,000 acres (32,300 ha) of forest are degraded.

http://www.mongabay.com/0801.htm


Source - Annual Rate
Orr 1994 - 31.54 million acres (12.77 million ha)
FAO 1997 - 31.89 million acres (12.91 million ha)*
Friends of the Earth 1991 33.59 - million acres (13.60 million ha)
World Resources Institute 1991 - 37.84 million acres (15.32 million ha)
World Watch Institute 1998 - 38.40 million acres (15.54 million ha)


A steady increase, as you can see.

Shows continental deforestation (http://www.mongabay.com/general_tables.htm)

Your statement doesn't matter.

Your knowledge of simple biological processes seam as patchy as your knowledge of Environmentalism.

Photosynthesis

CO2 + H2O > >(Chlorophyle - Sunlight Energy) > > O2 + C6H12O6

Aerobic Respiration: -

C6H12O6 + 6O2 > > 6CO2 + 6H2O + Energy

Photosynthesis increases with a greater amount of CO2 in the air.

But it does not occur during night time as sun light energy is necessary to complete the equation, so respiration takes place during the night equalising the effect, however during winter the nights are longer than summer, so any gains made would be lost during winter months. It is a simple equation, perhaps you should try and remember it.

Some seem to be under the delusion that a) it takes place

Finally you have proven your complete ignorance. Please leave this thread and never return as it is distressing to see such vast ignorance.

“ The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record since the mid-1800's; 1998 being the warmest year. According to Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA), the current pace of temperature rise is "consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century." By comparison, the world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years ago.
The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).


If present warming trends continue, all glaciers in Glacier National Park could be gone by 2030. [54] The park's Grinnell Glacier is already 90% gone. Pictured here is the glacier prior to its meltdown. [120] Because of global warming, the glaciers of the Ruwenzori range in Uganda are in massive retreat. The Bering Glacier, North America's largest glacier, has lost 7 miles of its length, while losing 20-25% of parts of the glacier. Ice cores taken from the Dunde Ice Cap in the Qilian Mountains on the northeastern margin of the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau indicate that the years since 1938 have been the warmest in the last 12,000 years.
The melting is accelerating. The Lewis Glacier on Mt. Kenya (In Kenya) has lost 40% of its mass during the period 1963-1987 or at a much faster clip than during 1899-1963

In southern Peru the rate of melting of the Qori Kalis glacier during the 8 year period 1983 to 1991 was 3 times the pace of the previous 20 years, 1963 to 1983. "By the time we probably know what they are doing, it will be far too late to worry about it because they are going to be like galloping glaciers," says Ellen Mosley Thompson, climate expert at Ohio State University. The Qori Kalis is receding at about two feet per day. Sitting beside the glacier, one could witness the melting hour by hour.
In a N.Y Times article (Nov. 17, 1999) it was reported that scientists have discovered that from 1993 through 1997 average Arctic sea ice thickness was six feet. This represents a significant reduction in Arctic sea ice from 1958 through 1976 when average thickness measured 10 feet. This means that in less than 30 years, there has been a 40% loss of arctic sea ice. In a Washington Post article (Dec. 3, 1999) it was noted that in the Arctic, sea ice is shrinking at a rate of 14,000 square miles annually, an area larger than Maryland and Delaware combined.
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_evd.htm
Cease wasting my time with your ignorance.
CO2 causes it

True the only evidence is circumstantial, yet overwhelming in its amount, and some debate still exists (though largely comes from industrialists). However I have already pointed this out.

I highly doubt that the people here are all scientist involved in these researches so it would be obvious if people at least have a realistic view and not believe everything what is feed to them by the media.

Another truly foolish statement, the media is controlled by corporate interest, which is in tern highly linked to the government. The government at this moment in time is controlled by the Oil Barons, for example the Bush administration has large and obvious oil connections. So the media automatically takes a pro oil and generally anti environmentalist approach to the situation. However scientists do have some small influence and can get their findings broadcast on objective broadcasters not guided by corporate or government influence.

Kyoto will cost 300 billion per year with a significant probability of no effect.
Kyoto was the first step to making some headway with this impending crisis; it however did not go nearly far enough. The only solution to this problem, if 99% of the worlds scientists are correct, is to come off fossil fuels almost cold turkey and to place massive investment into alternative energy sources. But corporate short term gain as always in American politics has taken a higher priority than long term necessity.
Anyway 300 billion is peanuts. If The USA can afford to launch wars to steal Iraqi oil that cost 8243 civilian deaths, 11,000 Iraqi military deaths, 642 coalition fatalities and $117 billion. They can afford 300 billion just as easily.

The causality in the case is again highly debatable since flooding takes place for endless years now
It is only debatable amongst those with something to lose, and therefore a hugely bias opinion, which can be discounted.

So it's a much better way to spend money.
Again short term capitalist idiocy. Treat the symptoms rather than the disease.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 08:33 AM
Hmm, windmills are not more efficient. The wind doesn't blow everyday and since electricity is non-storable you cannot increase production if necessary. Furthermore you have to use a lot of mills which people generally find very ugly things and kill a lot of birds.

All the different options have been extensively covered in many reports and the only viable option is to use nuclear energy, and hopefully in the future fusion, if we want to decrease the output of CO2 without lowering our wealth significantly.
I have to agree about the wind energy, it's not that efficient, and neither is solar energy. But I'm not sure if nuclear energy is much better, I heard once that we have uranium for about 50 years but I'm not sure. Plus it also needs more development and it's more dangerous, although it can be used for a while.


Au contraire, Kyoto will cost 300 billion per year with a significant probability of no effect. The causality in the case is again highly debatable since flooding takes place for endless years now. So it's a much better way to spend money.

Well if we stop spending in the military then we won't have to worry too much about spending this kid of things.

by the way, it seems that glaciars are really melting.

Anyway I think we will go through all this.

[Hoppe]

Your knowledge of simple biological processes seam as patchy as your knowledge of Environmentalism.

:rolleyes:


But it does not occur during night time as sun light energy is necessary to complete the equation, so respiration takes place during the night equalising the effect, however during winter the nights are longer than summer, so any gains made would be lost during winter months. It is a simple equation, perhaps you should try and remember it.

I know the equation. Unless you read the articles it's not much use replying to this.


Finally you have proven your complete ignorance. Please leave this thread and never return as it is distressing to see such vast ignorance.



Cease wasting my time with your ignorance.

Why, don't reply if you don't want to. All these so called facts about the earth warming up are based on surface measurements which aren't nowhere near scientific. Data from satelites shows that there is no significant rise in the earth's temperature over the last 25 years. An also neglected source in these researches is the influence of the sun. It is a simple fact that the sun is a source of enenrgy and any changes in that source must lead to a change of the climate.


True the only evidence is circumstantial, yet overwhelming in its amount, and some debate still exists (though largely comes from industrialists). However I have already pointed this out.


Call me ignorant? It's sad that if someone disagrees with you he'll probably be part of the global capitalist conspiracy. The simple fact is that scientist in general have little clue about climatic processes and what influences it.


Kyoto was the first step to making some headway with this impending crisis; it however did not go nearly far enough. The only solution to this problem, if 99% of the worlds scientists are correct, is to come off fossil fuels almost cold turkey and to place massive investment into alternative energy sources. But corporate short term gain as always in American politics has taken a higher priority than long term necessity.
Anyway 300 billion is peanuts. If The USA can afford to launch wars to steal Iraqi oil that cost 8243 civilian deaths, 11,000 Iraqi military deaths, 642 coalition fatalities and $117 billion. They can afford 300 billion just as easil

It's getting more clear that your environmentalism is just an excuse for you pityful attempts to make the world socialist.

How come scientist, subsidized by governments, are totally honest?


It is only debatable amongst those with something to lose, and therefore a hugely bias opinion, which can be discounted.

Oh yes, I was waiting for someone to call me biased or use biased scientists.........

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 10:24 AM

Your knowledge of simple biological processes seam as patchy as your knowledge of Environmentalism.

:rolleyes:


But it does not occur during night time as sun light energy is necessary to complete the equation, so respiration takes place during the night equalising the effect, however during winter the nights are longer than summer, so any gains made would be lost during winter months. It is a simple equation, perhaps you should try and remember it.

I know the equation. Unless you read the articles it's not much use replying to this.


Finally you have proven your complete ignorance. Please leave this thread and never return as it is distressing to see such vast ignorance.



Cease wasting my time with your ignorance.

Why, don't reply if you don't want to. All these so called facts about the earth warming up are based on surface measurements which aren't nowhere near scientific. Data from satelites shows that there is no significant rise in the earth's temperature over the last 25 years. An also neglected source in these researches is the influence of the sun. It is a simple fact that the sun is a source of enenrgy and any changes in that source must lead to a change of the climate.


True the only evidence is circumstantial, yet overwhelming in its amount, and some debate still exists (though largely comes from industrialists). However I have already pointed this out.


Call me ignorant? It's sad that if someone disagrees with you he'll probably be part of the global capitalist conspiracy. The simple fact is that scientist in general have little clue about climatic processes and what influences it.


Kyoto was the first step to making some headway with this impending crisis; it however did not go nearly far enough. The only solution to this problem, if 99% of the worlds scientists are correct, is to come off fossil fuels almost cold turkey and to place massive investment into alternative energy sources. But corporate short term gain as always in American politics has taken a higher priority than long term necessity.
Anyway 300 billion is peanuts. If The USA can afford to launch wars to steal Iraqi oil that cost 8243 civilian deaths, 11,000 Iraqi military deaths, 642 coalition fatalities and $117 billion. They can afford 300 billion just as easil

It's getting more clear that your environmentalism is just an excuse for you pityful attempts to make the world socialist.

How come scientist, subsidized by governments, are totally honest?


It is only debatable amongst those with something to lose, and therefore a hugely bias opinion, which can be discounted.

Oh yes, I was waiting for someone to call me biased or use biased scientists.........
Way to go you just evaded all the evidence posted. Great, you've proved to everyone you dont have a fucking clue, your made statements which have been shown to be wrong using facts and documented periglacial and glacial retreat among other things, and you have ignored it. So its clear that you have nothing further to say except to get the last word. Well sorry, but i'm not playing your bullshit game, I have provided sources and figures, you haven't provided Jack shit, so unless you want to find figures of your own, piss off.

[Hoppe]

Silly boy,

I have posted three times in this thread and most of the comments are well-known facts in this debate. But I am sure you have read things like the Oregon-petition etc etc.

IPCC has said that in the last 25 years the earth's temperature has risen an insignificant .05 - .1 degress celcius per decade (hardly measurable with ordinary thermometers). Satellites have shown no increase at all, and this data is published by IPCC itself. FACT

Your nice glacial reports have found a correlation between CO2 and temperature over 250.000 years (!!!) but it is not even a clue about cause and effect. Recent research shows that CO2 increases follow a rise in temperature with a lag of 1000 years (Fred Singer, “Parting Green Clouds” (1999) en “Global Warming, Unfinished Business” (2000)).

So dwell in your stupity or try to read some of the counterarguments presented by thousands of scientists.

[Invader Zim]

I love that figure of yours, .05 real nice...

But in reality like the rest of your boring proindustrialist argument... its wrong.

Since the global mean surface temperature is estimated to be 0.58 oC above the recent long-term average based on the period 1961-1990.

Thats according to the WMO... if you know who they are.

So sorry sunshine, try again.

[Hoppe]

But in reality like the rest of your boring proindustrialist argument... its wrong

You're a sad being if you think every one who disagrees with you is pro industrialist.


Since the global mean surface temperature is estimated to be 0.58 oC above the recent long-term average based on the period 1961-1990.

Thats according to the WMO... if you know who they are.

So sorry sunshine, try again.

Ehm, I think you haven't read my previous posts. Since IPCC was established by the WMO and they themselves have published that satellites haven't found any temperature increases, and the fact that various researchers have pointed out that surface measurements are scientifically doubtful, you're the one who has to do a better job.

But I think those thoughts don't fit into your propaganda, you're probably also a member of Greenpeace?

[Don't Change Your Name]

Look at this links about the Pentagon's report concerning global warming (it also came out on the news here some days ago, but I'm not sure if it's a real report):

http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/news/news_mai...in.asp?PRID=662 (http://www.greenpeace.org.nz/news/news_main.asp?PRID=662)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/internation...1153513,00.html (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html)

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/...al_warming.html (http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/pentagon_report_global_warming.html)

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/...,582584,00.html (http://www.fortune.com/fortune/technology/articles/0,15114,582584,00.html)

What do you think about this subject?

[Hoppe]

A quote from the guardian article:


Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors,

This should tell you something. I think the homeland security administration will ask for a 200% budget increase for the next years.

I believe the same report stated that within 2 years several coastal cities here in the Netherlands will be flooded. :)

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 11:07 PM

But in reality like the rest of your boring proindustrialist argument... its wrong

You're a sad being if you think every one who disagrees with you is pro industrialist.


Since the global mean surface temperature is estimated to be 0.58 oC above the recent long-term average based on the period 1961-1990.

Thats according to the WMO... if you know who they are.

So sorry sunshine, try again.

Ehm, I think you haven't read my previous posts. Since IPCC was established by the WMO and they themselves have published that satellites haven't found any temperature increases, and the fact that various researchers have pointed out that surface measurements are scientifically doubtful, you're the one who has to do a better job.

But I think those thoughts don't fit into your propaganda, you're probably also a member of Greenpeace?
You're a sad being if you think every one who disagrees with you is pro industrialist.


Sorry sunshine wrong again, I dont think everyone who disagree's with me is pro-industrialist, just you because you are.

Since IPCC was established by the WMO and they themselves have published that satellites haven't found any temperature increases,

Well that means theres only one logical conclusions, one of us is chatting crap... and it sure aint me.

you're the one who has to do a better job.

And like 90% of scientists, who all share the same view as me.

You really are a dumbass really.

you're probably also a member of Greenpeace?

Dont be silly. But now you mention it i am a member of the WWF.

[Hoppe]

Sorry sunshine wrong again, I dont think everyone who disagree's with me is pro-industrialist, just you because you are.

:rolleyes:

Since you're a leftwinger your motivation can be questioned as well. But I won't lower myself. The fact that I don't believe anything of the propaganda doesn't make me any member of the Bush-camp.


Well that means theres only one logical conclusions, one of us is chatting crap... and it sure aint me

The only logical conclusion you can draw is that these institutions haven't got a clue.


And like 90% of scientists, who all share the same view as me.

You really are a dumbass really.

You have to start namecalling again, so pathetic. You simply dismiss every argument someone else makes by calling him a dumbass, a liar or whatever.

So, if there is anyone else willing to contribute something to this thread I'll be happy to reply. Enigma unfortunately is too brainwashed.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 01:15 PM

Sorry sunshine wrong again, I dont think everyone who disagree's with me is pro-industrialist, just you because you are.

:rolleyes:

Since you're a leftwinger your motivation can be questioned as well. But I won't lower myself. The fact that I don't believe anything of the propaganda doesn't make me any member of the Bush-camp.


Well that means theres only one logical conclusions, one of us is chatting crap... and it sure aint me

The only logical conclusion you can draw is that these institutions haven't got a clue.


And like 90% of scientists, who all share the same view as me.

You really are a dumbass really.

You have to start namecalling again, so pathetic. You simply dismiss every argument someone else makes by calling him a dumbass, a liar or whatever.

So, if there is anyone else willing to contribute something to this thread I'll be happy to reply. Enigma unfortunately is too brainwashed.
But I won't lower myself.

Yes that certainly would be a challenge.


The fact that I don't believe anything of the propaganda doesn't make me any member of the Bush-camp.


Not necessarily in the Bush camp no, just in the dumb camp.

You have to start namecalling again

Nope, I didn't have to, I chose to because (call me shallow for judging on first appearances) I dont like you, and I wanted to offend you. I would have thought that obvious, clearly you seam to miss much that is obvious.

so pathetic

Rather like your blindness to the obvious.


You simply dismiss every argument someone else makes by calling him a dumbass, a liar or whatever.

You definatly fill one of those requirments, the other I am at this stage unsure of.

Enigma unfortunately is too brainwashed.

Sunshine i'm on the left the opposite of the establishment, and as brainwashing is a tool of the establishment, its clearly not me who's been brainwashed.

Again I suggest you go away or try again... or just give up because in a battle of wits I hate fighting the unarmed.

[Misodoctakleidist]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/art/graph4.gif

Hoppe, CO2 in the earths atmoshpehere has incresed dramaticaly since the begining of the inductrial period. The obove graph shows the levels of CO2 in the earths atmosphere over the last 450,000 years, it is based on analysis of fossilized air trapped in ice cores

[Hoppe]

Enigma:

Birthday: 2 April 1986

We'll argue again when you are a few years into university. Maybe the debating team is something for you.


Hoppe, CO2 in the earths atmoshpehere has incresed dramaticaly since the begining of the inductrial period. The obove graph shows the levels of CO2 in the earths atmosphere over the last 450,000 years, it is based on analysis of fossilized air trapped in ice cores

Where is this from? I mentioned something regarding this in one of the previous posts.

[DarkAngel]

In quick summary, if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world.

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:33 PM
Enigma:

Birthday: 2 April 1986

We'll argue again when you are a few years into university. Maybe the debating team is something for you.


Hoppe, CO2 in the earths atmoshpehere has incresed dramaticaly since the begining of the inductrial period. The obove graph shows the levels of CO2 in the earths atmosphere over the last 450,000 years, it is based on analysis of fossilized air trapped in ice cores

Where is this from? I mentioned something regarding this in one of the previous posts.
Well hoppe you really got me on that one, your older than me, way to go you!, you may have just been demolished, but at least your older than me.

I hope it makes you feal real good.

[DarkAngel]

Global ''Cooling'' patterns (http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_Warming_Myth.htm)

Check this out.
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/image5RP.JPG
''Carbon Dioxide Increasing in Atmosphere
The atmospheric levels of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, have increased since pre-industrial times from 280 part per million (ppm) to 360 ppm, a 30% increase. Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere are the highest in 160,000 years. Carbon dioxide is a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels, such as gasoline in an automobile or coal in a power plant generating electricity.

Methane Also Increasing
Levels of atmospheric methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, have risen 145% in the last 100 years. [18] Methane is derived from sources such as rice paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel production. Back to Top of Page

More Frequent Extreme Weather
The year 1999 was the fifth-warmest year on record since the mid-1800's; 1998 being the warmest year. According to Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center (NOAA), the current pace of temperature rise is "consistent with a rate of 5.4 to 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit per century." By comparison, the world has warmed by 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit since the depths of the last ice age, 18,000 to 20,000 years ago.

The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ''

[Invader Zim]

Yeah I posted that site earlier, however Hoppe chose to ignore it... big supprise there. :rolleyes:

[Hoppe]

I hope it makes you feal real good

No, not really. But now I am not surprised anymore by your lack of argumentation skills.


The potential for floods and droughts is increasing."....... the heating from increased greenhouse gases enhances the hydrological cycle and increases the risk for stronger, longer-lasting or more intense droughts, and heavier rainfall events and flooding, even if these phenomena occur for natural reasons. Evidence, although circumstantial, is widespread across the United States. Examples include the intense drought in the central southern U.S in 1996, Midwest flooding in spring of 1995 and extensive flooding throughout the Mississippi Basin in 1993 even as drought occurred in the Carolinas, extreme flood events in winters of 1992-93 and 1994-95 in California but droughts in other years (e.g, 1986-87 and 1987-88 winters)," says Dr. Kevin Trenberth of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). ''

Interesting.

Some pieces of mine:

Cluis, D. and Laberge, C. 2001. Climate change and trend detection in selected rivers within the Asia-Pacific region. Water International 26: 411-424.

The authors utilized streamflow records stored in the databank of the Global Runoff Data Center at the Federal Institute of Hydrology in Koblenz (Germany) to see if there were any changes in river runoff of the type predicted by IPCC scenarios of global warming, i.e., an enhancement of earth's hydrologic cycle that would increase mean global streamflow, as well as an increase in variability that would lead to more floods and droughts. The study encompassed 78 rivers said to be "geographically distributed throughout the whole Asia-Pacific region." The mean start and end dates of the flow records of the 78 rivers were 1936 ± 5 years and 1988 ± 1 year, respectively, representing an approximate half-century time span.

What was learned
Mean river discharges were unchanged in 67% of the cases investigated; and where there were trends, 69% of them were downward. Maximum river discharges were unchanged in 77% of the cases investigated; and where there were trends, 72% of them were downward. Minimum river discharges were unchanged in 53% of the cases investigated; and where there were trends, 62% of them were upward.

What it means
In the case of mean river discharge, the empirical observations go doubly against climate alarmist predictions, i.e., most rivers show no change, while most of those that do change exhibit decreases. In the case of maximum river discharge, the empirical observations go doubly against climate alarmist predictions, i.e., most rivers show no change, while most of those that do change exhibit decreases, indicative of less flooding. In the case of minimum river discharge, the empirical observations go doubly against climate alarmist predictions, i.e., most rivers show no change, while most of those that do change exhibit increases, indicative of less drought.

Pielke, R.A., JR. 1999. Nine fallacies of floods. Climatic Change 42: 413-438.

As described in one of nine sections of this large analysis of floods, the author discusses the truth behind the oft-reported fallacy that "damaging flooding in recent years is unprecedented because of 'global warming.'"

What was learned
Pielke notes that the media has been prone to associate "almost every extreme weather event with global warming;" and flooding has been no exception. However, as indicated by the author, "it is essentially impossible to attribute any particular weather event to global warming." On the other hand, the author does list a number of important non-climatic factors that have the potential to influence flooding in the future, including deteriorating dams and levees, changes in land use, building in flood-prone areas, governmental policies, as well as other societal influences.

What it means
The author demonstrates that it is impossible to attribute any particular weather event to global warming. Hence, the next time you read a headline, or listen to a news broadcast, proclaiming global warming to be the cause of a particular weather event, perhaps you should shake your head in disgust, as we do.

Knox, J.C. 2001. Agricultural influence on landscape sensitivity in the Upper Mississippi River Valley. Catena 42: 193-224.

The author determined how the conversion of the Upper Mississippi River Valley from prairie and forest to crop and pasture land by settlers in the early 1800s influenced subsequent watershed runoff and soil erosion rates.

What was learned
It was learned that conversion of the region’s natural landscape to primarily agricultural uses boosted surface erosion rates to values three to eight times greater than those characteristic of pre-settlement conditions. In addition, the land use conversion increased peak discharges from high-frequency floods by 200 to 400%. Since the late 1930s, however, surface runoff has been decreasing; but this decrease "is not associated with climatic causes," according to the author, who reports that "an analysis of temporal variation in storm magnitudes for the same period showed no statistically significant trend." Other notable findings include the observation that since the 1940s and early 1950s, the magnitudes of the largest daily flows have been decreasing at the same time that the magnitude of the average daily baseflow has been increasing, indicating a trend toward fewer flood and drought conditions.

What it means
It is important to note that the decreases in soil erosion rates and extreme streamflow conditions beginning in the late 1930s in the Upper Mississippi River Valley are completely opposite from climate alarmist and model predictions, which suggest these parameters should be increasing as a result of unprecedented CO2-induced global warming. However, they likely are not related to things climatic, as the author attributes them to the introduction of soil conservation measures, such as contour plowing, strip-cropping, terracing and minimum tillage.

Additionally, more pieces may be found here (http://www.co2science.org). And Enigma, they also have multiple topics about forrestry and CO2 levels. Maybe you want to consider looking at them.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2004, 02:33 PM
Enigma:

Birthday: 2 April 1986

We'll argue again when you are a few years into university.
So now you discriminate people because of their age???

[Individual]

This is what I find funny in common Che-Lives debate.

The age card is played. However in most cases, it needs to be played.

Discrimination against age? Are you joking me? Why do some of the younger members take offense to being proved of a younger generation. What many need to realize, is that with age, comes a broader range of knowledge.

Now I am not defending Hoppe in that he is a whole 1 or 2 years old, however there is no age 'discrimination'. Age comes in to play in cases of having a wider view of society, the world, politics, and general knowledge. Now many think that this is an insult of their intelligence, and in no way will I try and say that you are un-intelligent. However what 'age' should mean is respect. Though many of you have a strong view on society and knowledge, as your life goes on, it will grow.

Now I can also understand where you guys are coming from, in that some bring up the 'stupid' argument of "well I'm 6 months, 2 weeks, and 4 days older than you!" and such of that sort. This is completely ignorant and I see where this would get annoying.

My point is, please do not feel discriminated on your age. Hell, I am surprised at how many Che-Live'rs have a great amount of knowledge on subjects for their age. Just when a significant age break comes into factor, without the person rubbing it in their face, should not be taken as a put down. It should be taken as merely advice, or something like that. Can you see what I'm trying to say with this?

Now with the Global Warming debate going on. I am furthering some research, and hopefully soon I will read the rest of this debate and respond as soon as I can.

[cubist]

from my understanding, Gulf stream is already colder than it was,
yet i feel that people are overestimating the seriousness of a serious issue,

yes CFC and carbon emittence along with other chemicals probably have damaged the ozone layer, the hole has been recorded as getting smaller in recent years


see cbc news ozone hole shrinking (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/30/tech/main523785.shtml)

[Don't Change Your Name]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2004, 06:25 AM
The age card is played. However in most cases, it needs to be played.

Discrimination against age? Are you joking me? Why do some of the younger members take offense to being proved of a younger generation. What many need to realize, is that with age, comes a broader range of knowledge.
The problem is that people seem to believe that younger people, for some reason, have to be completely discredited. Being young doesn't mean that you can't think, that you can't understand the world that surrounds you. All this crap of "you are a stupid rebel kid you doesn't live in a real world" sounds so stupid to me. Some people (usually capitalists) seem to think that unless you are a rich person living in yankeeland, who works all the day, and share their ideas, you live in another world. That's really lame. Of course 6 year old kids do not think clearly, but that doesn't mean that you must be a 35 years old businessman to think and understand the world. In fact it seems the older you become the more you have to give up your original thoughts and become one of the stupid masses. That's the system's fault, a system who doesn't tolerate change and innovation, and the people who are benefitted by it will keep indoctrinating the rest to keep their position.

[Hoppe]

That's not my intention. I was simply going over the fact that it was obvious that Enigma, considering his age, had to resort to namecalling, which you can suspect from somebody younger. Many times people on this board have said that in order to grasp your own ideas you have to known what the objections are of the opposition as well. This goes for the global warming debate also. Calling others dumbass, ignorant, naieve, stupid etc, won't get your through university.

[cubist]

naievity is one thing i think some people hold onto even when they are thirty