Global Warming: I'm Calling You Out

WINNER! thank u, yes global warming is a natural process, its something the earth goes through every sooooooo many years. and dont blame bush or republicans for any of this shit, its just another excuse for u democrats to try and bash on bush
 
its all patterns. its annoying when newscasters say its warmer then normal then right now its colder then normal. HOW COULD THERE BE A NORMAL. its different every year. call it an average
 
yeah, there are parts... quite a few of them... in the book that are personal narative type deals and sure thats drawing attention to himself. i completely agree with that. Al Gore annoys me but seriously if the point of the book was to draw attention thats what it did.

and i really dont think hes trying to draw attention to himself any more than you are to yourself.
 
its bullshit i ski at big mountain and we were supposed to open on thanksgiving but know we cant unless we get a big storm............GAY
 
see thats the thing, we cant change our lifestyle 180 degrees, but we can do little bits and pieces. i sit on ns while i am doing homework at my computer. but i have a composter in my backyard, take buses when i go downtown, recycle everything i can, turn my computer off soon as im done, im a member of green peace, and i do whatever david suzuki tells me to. hell, skiings bad for the environment with groomers, and the electricity used to power the lifts, etc. but we cant stop our lives and the economy completely. we just need to pull the trimmers out and try and slow this down.
 
i find it funny how the 07 line up of cars in general are still getting bigger and getting like 17 miles per gallon as an average. its also funny how right as they come out gas prices are usually at a low. I think it would be great if everybody did something little tings to help but in reality it is going to take something bigger than that to stop global warming. such as the government.

 
How about this, nobody really knows for sure. One side of supposidly "unbias" scientists says there is no global warming, and another side of "unbias" scientists says there is. For people to think that billions of vehicles, factories, aircraft has NO/LITTLE effect on Global Warming.....well thats just little common sence. 24 hours a day these machines are runing, throwing out harmful CO2, and even more toxic hydrocarbons. This is simple fact, its not sunshine and happyness coming out of smoke stacks, and tail pipes. Now is this possible that this is simply the end of an ice age, and world is doing this by itself.....of course it is. It doesn't mean though that this gives us a reason to "shit where you eat" sort of deal. The only real facts that we know is that our fuels are polluting everything. In cities this causes deadly smog. It made a hole through the ozone lair. This is not good stuff. I think what we need to realise is that we don't need HUGE SUVs, and that alternative fuels aren't gay, or going to hurt us. The automobile fossil fuel engine was obsolete ( im sure i spelt that wrong) the day it was invented. Steam engine vehicles were faster, cheeper, and more reliable, but we still went ahead with the fossil fuel.

Everybody thinks its too late.....and it might be. But sooner or later, we are going to run out of fossil fuel. There were not an infinate amount of dinosaures on the planet. I think its time to grow up a little bit, and move on. Try to help out the only planet we live on just a little bit, and hope for the best.
 
1153342477winter.jpg


global warming my ass
 
you clearly dont get it... global warming if ANYTHING would give more precipitation in those reagions and more drough in others. In the case of your "global warming my ass picture" case, warmer pacific waters = more hiumidity = more snow when the air passes over the mountains and teh humidity turns into snow (if u didnt know wich I assumed you did not). wich is why some reagions would get more snow. However, im not saying everytime it dumps snow its global warming... sometimes storms just happen. But to say that whats happening is juts some cycle (wich is happenning thoughsands of years before the next predicited one should have been) is being ignorant. The effects are exelerating exponentially and not just at the rate that they used to wiht the natural cycles. And el Ninio can be a direct result of global warming caused my large currents of warm water forming in the pacific. People seem to be picking sides like republicans dont beleive in global warming and democrats do.. and i dont see why but yea. global warming doesnt JUST mean warming Its allthe relates effects of if all wich could be more snow rain and drought.

Its like we all know polution is polution, if u dump radio activ waste in a lake we all know its bad... then as soon as global warming comes in, your all saying oh no its umm natural and um the coulds of black smoke arent really doing aything.. its just stupid. and I DONT SEE WHY people are trying to depend the other side as if their all being insulted. IF ANYTHING reducuing polution would help everyone so its not like its gonna hurt you. for the people here being like fuck u its B.S. ... How could saying global warming exists of doing somehting to reduce polution ever possibly be bad.............
 
No self respecting scientist would claim that Global Warming in the context a la Al Gore defines it as. Yes, our world is warming up in most regions. But is it due to pollution? Is it due to the fact that the past few years, the suns output has been more intense than usual? Are there not enough Pirates?

All of these are THEORIES, there is NO PROOF. Proof would require tonnes of actual experiments which used interventions instead of just observation and 1/2 assed correlations. Pollution is a problem, dont get me wrong, but how arrogant are we to think that we are solely responsible for GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE.

Also, if we are heading to oblivion, then soon we should be heading into a micro-ice age(caused by the melting glaciers who's waters cool down the original water and float on top of it), and more percipitation.

FYI Glaciers ARE NOT technically native to where they are in. This may seem counterintuitive(and terrible english, i know), but think about it; they were caused by the last ice ages, which were caused by meteors hitting the earth causing such a ruckus that dust blotted out the sun, or his noodley appendages.
 
Ok...I don't know really where to start so I am going to put REAL facts in regards to snow tourism to start off with:

- Since records of temperatures were started in 1860, 11 of the warmest years have happened since 1990 and 5 of the warmest have taken place in the last 7 years.

- Glaciers around the world are melting at alarming rates and we are currently seeing 92 cubic km gone every year.

- For the second consecutive year the Arctic Ocean failed to refreeze, which has never been seen before.

To those people who say Global Warming is not happening at all, get a fucking clue. Yes, the Earth does go through cycles and will eventually recover BUT if we fuck up now we are going to cause ourselves (life on Earth that is) alot of undue hardship. The Earth will be totally fine and once it decides to wipe us out it will rejuvenate. What is really up for discussion here is how we can make our lives more comfortable by at least showing some care because by doing all this shit we are doing we are only harming oursleves.

Now, onto big facts about snow and a prime example is Europe of what may be coming.

- 15% of Switzerland’s ski hills have unreliable snow levels to accommodate skiers and riders.

- In the last 150 years Europe had lost over half of all its glacial ice.

- Switzerland glaciers have been steadily decreasing over the last 20 years and is currently seeing accelerated melting.

- Some glaciers in Switzerland have decreased in size so much that the Swiss government has hired Landolt Textiles to build synthetic fabric covers that actually protect large parts of glaciers from melting.

- On July 14 2006, 20 million cubic feet of rock broke off the Eiger because of the thawing of permafrost.

These are solid facts and not just projections. These factors affect tourism, economies, water supplies,saftey in the mountains and the sport of skiing. Now this is the major one that is backed up by respected scientists. In 2004, the UN Climate Assessment panel of 2,500 scientists agreed that global warming is heavily attributed to human activity in the last 50 years.To be able to say that in all honesty is actually quite scary. We have attributed to changing a planets climate in 50 FUCKING YEARS!

All of you kids who are arguing whether it is happening or not should really realize that whatever info you gain, implement and share only helps ourselves and each other. Research you ecological footprint, walk more places, compost, use less and INFORM OTHERS. In the end we don't need to worry about the planet because it will heal back to normal. We on the other hand will be killed off and never to be seen again. This benefits all life.

 
although you are right about the more preciptitation thing, you fail to realize that this only happens at higher latitudes not at latitudes where vancouver island is. at the higher latitudes there will be more snow and less ice.
 
honestly i dont know why everyone is bashing on Al Gore, its not like he has some hinden agenda, hes trying to do the world a favor by opening many peoples eyes, cliche, i know but its the truth. hes not running for governor, hes not running for president, so why the hell would he make that video and dedicate the rest of his life if it wasnt for a cause. i guess you could argue that hes wasting his time but obviously he is not because it seems to be working, considering that englang just annouced its failure to regonize global warming until now, and that it will do everything in its power to stop it. most countrys are contributing to the reversal of global warming but its the United States that is the problem, china is switching all of its power sources to liquid coal, which creates no hazardous bi-products.
 
Global Warming is a crock of shit. scientists have already proven that even if we double the amount of CO in the atmosphere, temperatures would only raise a mere 1.8 degrees farenheit. and to double the CO in the atmosphere takes about 2 centuries.
 
You know, I could have just rented the movie.

You still have yet to prove that our pollution is causing this, and not as I said the output of the sun which has been increasing ever more so. The thing is, unless we can experiment using controls and interventions, we can never prove anything. This is called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, and it works by negating the opposite theories (or Null hypotheses) of one's hypothesis until it is the most parsimonious and rational theory available.

And another fact

It is theorized that sometime during the dark ages was the average warmest temperature around the world.

 
douchebag. gravity is just a theory. but hey, we believe its true. and if you knew anything about science, its based on the premise that you can't prove anything, you can only prove something untrue
 
First off, I saw no movie to get these facts. I just did a research paper on "Global Warming and its Affects on Snow Tourism". I used soucres from NASA, the UN, and independent researchers that are not from a corporate standpoint. Also, I used numerous ski magazines to gain info on how this affects us as skiers.

Second, This is just in our best interest. We are doing some things to this planet and it can only harm life. Gaining solid theories by using scientific methods in controlled settings may take decades. But what if at that time we find out that we actually were are a large part of global warming? Well, by that time we will be utterly fucked and will have no chance to turn the fate of our lives now. What I am suggesting is why not do our little part to POSSIBLY slow down global warming so we all can benefit later. I am not trying to be right here but rather trying to make people think a bit about what this world really means to us. These actions we can take that I mentioned in my other post are small things that we can do. If everyone does them then that could have a massive effect. It could mean less landfills, cleaner air, cleaner landscapes, and less polluted water. Without even looking at global warming these benefits of us caring a little bit could make a little difference in our world. Really, does our world benefit the Earth?(Quote: Explosions from the Sky)
 
simplicity is indicative that a theory is more likely, but its not necessary. in physics at least, were finding that with gravity there is always something new being discovered that complicates the bejeesus out of our current theory, that requires new maths to be invented and makes new observations necessary. in this case there is a need for a theory to make many different predictions because this encompasses our entire view of the cosmos and our analysis of its evolution and frugality is not an option.

(to be honest, i have no idea what parsimonious means, so i looked it up in my oxford dictionary, and that didnt really help me. so, to clear it up, in the context of a scientific theory, it means one that is the most prudent, not to be too ambitious, and the one that requires the least amount of carzy assumptions (such as "god did it"), and is really the most basic one that can fit the date, right?)
 
Parsimony has many names, in philosophy it is best known as Occam's Razor. Basically, the best, of the available, theory makes the fewest assumptions (occams is fewest additional concepts). Its something you need to know by 3rd year, so i just gave ya a head start ;P.

Gravity per se, like Global Warming is not a theory but an observation. Theories come from explaining what is causing it, and thats what I debate. I dont think anybody can argue that the wolrd is warming up, that is supported by facts, but why is the earth warming up? Is it because the CO2 we put in the air? Well, geologically, there was a time where far more CO2 was in the atmosphere, I forget the name of the time period, but I know it was when the trees and swamps that now are used as fossil fuels existed(gimme a break, its been 3 years since i did any geology).

What about the Dark ages, where it is hypothesized that the warmest temperatures occured?

These 2 things, provide circumstantial evidence against the C02 theory of global warming.

I, like many people in the science department at my university believe that Global Warming is caused by increases in solar output. Pollution is still a terrible thing, we are poisoning ourselves and other living things, but it might not be the answer to global warming.

With respect to scientific theory; dont make me break out Aristotle on your ass, ;P.
 
did you know that a substantial amount of the funding towards this solar output theory is put forth by Exxon? 12 billion, to be more precise. thats a fucking lot of funding. normally i wouldnt let something like this affect my judgement, and obviously a company like this is going to support it. ive only read a few papers on the matter, and it looks like the geological data may support warmer periods, but a trend in temperature change this rapid is certainly not present, and i did not see actual data reporting a change in solar flux. to account for the the change in climate, the solar flux change could be measurable directly rather than through intermediate methods like production of C-14. if there is such a report available, id actually be quite interested in reading it. if solar output is increasing, detereoration of the ozone layer will only contribute. it seems like the solar output will help a little, but C02 will be the major contributor to global warming.
 
Just because a major oil company funds something does not make it less true. Its true that they are definately funding the research to get them off the hook, whether or not it objectively true or not has nothing to do with who funds it.

As for the article itself, I have to admit I went straight for the sources. Note this, it is a magazine and not a journal. The references are done absolutely terribly, and I dont see a single journal article there. Here's how you tell if any source is from a journal: It will give you several specific pieces of information. 1. The Author(s) name. 2. The name of the study. 3. The name of the Journal that publishes it. 4.Year volume(number). But there is not a single source that contains all four, am I led to believe that none of these are from Journal Articles? Instead these are all from essays and books.

Again, I'm not saying this is wrong. We are dealing with competing theories on an observation, if one can be proven over the other than its no longer a theory eh. Even if as of this exact moment we stop all pollution, and that global warming stops that this is caused by is ceasing to pollute? We simply cannot make that call either way.

I dont see the relevance of C-14 in this argument.

I could go on about even more specifics, but in the end its pointless and I have exams to study for. The problem is, no matter what evidence either of us comes up with there is always going to be gripes about it. Thats just the way science today works, whichever theory then is thought as the less absurd is often the popular theory. I personally think that its absurd to think that we have so much power over the climate. We can't even predict the accuracy of weather tomorrow higher than a value of 50%. One thing we both agree on is that pollution is a bad thing that must be stopped. But thats not what is being debated here is it?
 
well, C-14 is the standard by which they measure historic temperature changes. and there are biological changes that could seriously throw off those numbers, because it only takes into account how much C-14 is being produced, when a large extinction or a flourishing of new species or an intorduction to a lot of biomass in a new region can account for increased C-14 present.

and yeah, that source was crap, i do realize. i don know what a peer reviewed journal is, and that definitely wasnt one.

here are a few that you should be able to access

Solar variability and global warming: a statistical comparison since 1850

N. A. KrivovaCorresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author and S. K. Solanki

Max-Planck-Institut für Aeronomie, 37191, Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany

http://www.sciencedirect.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3S-4C76BVX-B&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2004&_alid=499869157&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=5738&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051241&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067350&md5=29e66a47c0732687acf11a4ff75647dc

Solar cycle length hypothesis appears to support the ipcc on http://www.sciencedirect.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VHB-3W78JH7-2&_coverDate=12%2F31%2F1998&_alid=499869810&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_qd=1&_cdi=6062&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000051241&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1067350&md5=976042ef807cb527bbc68a5f26dd0ae3global

warming

P. Laut1, * and J. Gundermann2

1 Technical University of Denmark, Department of Applied Chemistry, DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark

2 Danish Energy Agency, Amaliegade 44, DK-1256 Copenhagen K, Denmark

what school are you at/are you in grad school?
 
Dalhousie University in Canada, just recently named the best place to do research in Canada. Lol, i'm just a lowly undergrad though. Just got 3 semesters to go before I'm the fuck outa there
 
I read something about global warming is due to the fact we are coming out of an iceage, and that greenhouse gases etc don't actually have that much effect. Whether that is right or not i don't know, but i'd like to think so. To be honest, its not like anythings going to stop it now anyway, so im just gonna carry on as i am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top