Global warming? True or false
- Thread starter penemy159
- Start date
Steezysmurf
Active member
hahaha, way to work around the question at hand. how does this affect my livelyhood?
leckett1
Active member
try to source that. dont say an inconvenient truth. OVER AND OVER SCIENTISTS HAVE SAID THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH EVIDENCE OUT THERE TO CLAIM GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL. why the fuck do you think its been such a debate? if it was so evidently (90% in your case) positively existant, there wouldnt even be a debate it would be a fact! Dr. James E. Hansen, the man who called out global warmign initially even said "The forcings that drive long term climate change are not known with an accuracy sufficient to define future climate change." sure the world could warm up BUT THERE JUST ISNT ANY EVIDENCE TO PREDICT THAT. take the weather for instance. they say its going to be a nice sunny day a week from today. 7 days later its cloudy, fucking freezing, and snowing. THE CLIMATE IS NOT LINEAR. if they cant accurately predict whats going to happen in 7 days who says they can predict whats going to happen in 70 years?
im going to post an article that i want everyone to read. its long, and its completely based on State of Fear, and discussing the issues raised on global warming in it. I noticed a very important quote from it: "It is widely accepted that exact prediction of what will happen to climate in 50 or 100 years is impossible." take this in for food for thought.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
also if you would like more reading on global warming skeptics, who i completely agree with and support, read some articles written by Richard S. Lindzen. hes a brilliant man.
also i just found this speech presented by Crichton. It's very long so im pasting the part that i feel is most important.
"To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.
Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.
I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.
But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilities could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.
The answer to all these questions is no. We don't. "
ironically, he raised the same point i did earlier in this post about weather predictability (i wrote that part of this post before reading the speech. sketpics are good. sketptics are the conservatives of science. they argue against the issues raised with their own facts. we need more skeptics in this world.
im going to post an article that i want everyone to read. its long, and its completely based on State of Fear, and discussing the issues raised on global warming in it. I noticed a very important quote from it: "It is widely accepted that exact prediction of what will happen to climate in 50 or 100 years is impossible." take this in for food for thought.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
also if you would like more reading on global warming skeptics, who i completely agree with and support, read some articles written by Richard S. Lindzen. hes a brilliant man.
also i just found this speech presented by Crichton. It's very long so im pasting the part that i feel is most important.
"To an outsider, the most significant innovation in the global warming controversy is the overt reliance that is being placed on models. Back in the days of nuclear winter, computer models were invoked to add weight to a conclusion: "These results are derived with the help of a computer model." But now large-scale computer models are seen as generating data in themselves. No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality. And indeed they are, when we are projecting forward. There can be no observational data about the year 2100. There are only model runs.
This fascination with computer models is something I understand very well. Richard Feynmann called it a disease. I fear he is right. Because only if you spend a lot of time looking at a computer screen can you arrive at the complex point where the global warming debate now stands.
Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future? And make financial investments based on that prediction? Has everybody lost their minds?
Stepping back, I have to say the arrogance of the modelmakers is breathtaking. There have been, in every century, scientists who say they know it all. Since climate may be a chaotic system-no one is sure-these predictions are inherently doubtful, to be polite. But more to the point, even if the models get the science spot-on, they can never get the sociology. To predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd.
Look: If I was selling stock in a company that I told you would be profitable in 2100, would you buy it? Or would you think the idea was so crazy that it must be a scam?
Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?
But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS… None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.
Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.
I remind you that in the lifetime of most scientists now living, we have already had an example of dire predictions set aside by new technology. I refer to the green revolution. In 1960, Paul Ehrlich said, "The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines-hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death." Ten years later, he predicted four billion people would die during the 1980s, including 65 million Americans. The mass starvation that was predicted never occurred, and it now seems it isn't ever going to happen. Nor is the population explosion going to reach the numbers predicted even ten years ago. In 1990, climate modelers anticipated a world population of 11 billion by 2100. Today, some people think the correct number will be 7 billion and falling. But nobody knows for sure.
But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilities could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area.
The answer to all these questions is no. We don't. "
ironically, he raised the same point i did earlier in this post about weather predictability (i wrote that part of this post before reading the speech. sketpics are good. sketptics are the conservatives of science. they argue against the issues raised with their own facts. we need more skeptics in this world.
wAy2sTeEzY4u
Active member
im gonna do the latter, but i do somewhat agree global warming is exagurated.
ktlu
Active member
honestly, i dont feel like reading it right now because im tired and im fairly sure i've heard it before (from you as well as others). but i dont feel like argueing the point because its worthless for someone like you who so firmly holds to their beliefs. did you miss the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris a couple of weeks ago. those are the unaffiliated interntional scientists im talking about, and that was their overwhelming response to the topic of global warming. if it makes you feel any better... they were fairly pesimistic about whether anything can even be done to "save" the world. here is one article because frankly its late and i dont want to source everything right now.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.talks.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02/climate.talks.ap/index.html
Capt.Flannel
Active member
I heard that Al Gore was attacked by swarms of killer bees that were traveling across the world and he yelled "Beware of Global Swarming!" and in distress from being stung, it sounded like "Beware of Global Warming!" and the media printed it and he went from there. This whole thing is actually fake, but he had to cover his speaking error.
PagesHouse
Active member
holy shit. youre right! i didnt see it until now! thats it! the world isnt in any danger because you say it isnt! i can rest easy tonight.
PagesHouse
Active member
well as she said... the international group of unaffiliated scientists have asserted that it is in fact TRUE beyond reasonable doubt.... which is where the 90% comes from.
It's not something you just call a fact... easiest thing to compare it to is the THEORY of evolution. it is not and will not be a fact... but it is world wide accepted as one... even though its a theory.
science works that way.
It's not something you just call a fact... easiest thing to compare it to is the THEORY of evolution. it is not and will not be a fact... but it is world wide accepted as one... even though its a theory.
science works that way.
Steezysmurf
Active member
lets see, i am human, ummm i live in a city... are you saying bears or insects are coming to break down my house because it is a little warmer? crops.. 1. i think humans can find a way to keep 'whatever' away from crops, 2. i dont care really, i will eat powerbars, they taste nice. 3. I honestly dont care how stable my land is, i have OK balance.
youre just sayin this crap, because this is what you are told by negative thinkers.
LASTLY! Nice post Leckett, I didnt get the chance to read through all of it, but I will in good time. props bro
youre just sayin this crap, because this is what you are told by negative thinkers.
LASTLY! Nice post Leckett, I didnt get the chance to read through all of it, but I will in good time. props bro
PagesHouse
Active member
well... since the world's ecosystems are very fragile, minor changes in the temperature cause animals such as insects' heart rates to increase to such a level they die of stress/heart attack. this eliminates a food source for an animal in the next trophic level putting stress on them and this continues to destabalize the entire ecosystem.
its seen in every region and every kind of organism from plants to animals.
it will eventually work its way to us.. not in our lifetime... but it will... so it will affect your kids or grandkids.
its seen in every region and every kind of organism from plants to animals.
it will eventually work its way to us.. not in our lifetime... but it will... so it will affect your kids or grandkids.
foodisfun
Active member
this is true, and unfortunately not too many people think this way. too many people, including major businesses and companies, just care about the here and now, and are only concerned with how they're living now. there aren't enough people that think ahead of their time and say "wow, let me rethink my actions so that i can prevent such and such from happening." putting off these problems for later generations just keeps cycling down until it's too late to do something.
leckett1
Active member
theories still arent facts though thats why theres a debate. there have been plenty of reports IN ATTEMPT to predict global warming, and sure there are some facts out there that carbon may increase the worlds temperature by 2 degrees farenheit in the next 100 years. thats really the only fact there is. to predict that the world will actually be warmer, however, is absurd. like i said in my long post up there: if you cant predict the temperature accurately 7 days from now, whos to say we can predict it 100 years from now? its simply absurd to think that.
the theory of evolution is a whole new prospect of the debate. yes ecosystems are fragile, but whos to say they wont evolve and sustain themselves? take polar bears for example. they have been slowly dieing off because they cant reach their food anymore due to the ice in the north melting. they evolved by enducing canabalistic behavior which then coincides with darwins "survival of the fittest." they could be right in the midst of evolution as we speak.
if polar bears can evolve who says other ecosystems cant? an increase of 2 degrees faranheit over 100 years think about it. thats the proven ~0.11 faranheit observed from 1989 to 1999. thats a very slow change and more than enough time for an ecosystem to evolve. there are scientists who would disagree with this saying that its impossible to evolve, and there are skeptics who would agree with it.
also ask yourself another question about kyoto: is it worth it? im sure many of you are aware that the kyoto protocol is soon expiring and many attempts are being made to have it renewed. canada is being pressured into it, as well as bush. both do not want to sign it because there isnt sufficient evidence proving that spending billions of dollars a year, which the government cant really afford, on a climate change 100 years from now. as crichton said "if i told you to invest a ridiculous sum of money in my company which i THINK will do good 100 years from now...would you? i know i wouldnt.
the reason i cant bring myself to believe in global warming is because im a skeptic. i am with pretty much everything. i question whats around me and develop my own opinions and research them to see if i can support them, however i am always open to new ideas. most of what i have read on both sides of global warming (true and false) have lead me to strongly support the "false" side. i have many reasons as i have stated, and i just simply cant bring myself to believe we can predict the climate 100 years from now when we cant predict it accurately 7 days from now.
another thing which enforces my conclusion is the accuracy as to how the weather is predicted. the temperature is NEVER what they say it is 7 days from the day of prediction. sure its generally close, but close is not what were looking for in climate change. with predicted 2 degrees increase (using the standard deviation of 0.11 observed between 1989 and 1999) in the next century, it really isnt logical to think we can accurately predict that. temperatures in predictions of 7 days are often off by 2 degrees or such, so if our prediction of mean global temperature is about 2 degrees for the next 100 years, it could contradict itself with a simple standard deviation for error...do you see where im going?
ill be damned if anyone reads this post but ill be very happy and supportive to anyone who takes the time to opinionate my writing. now i know how mitch feels when he talks about politics...
the theory of evolution is a whole new prospect of the debate. yes ecosystems are fragile, but whos to say they wont evolve and sustain themselves? take polar bears for example. they have been slowly dieing off because they cant reach their food anymore due to the ice in the north melting. they evolved by enducing canabalistic behavior which then coincides with darwins "survival of the fittest." they could be right in the midst of evolution as we speak.
if polar bears can evolve who says other ecosystems cant? an increase of 2 degrees faranheit over 100 years think about it. thats the proven ~0.11 faranheit observed from 1989 to 1999. thats a very slow change and more than enough time for an ecosystem to evolve. there are scientists who would disagree with this saying that its impossible to evolve, and there are skeptics who would agree with it.
also ask yourself another question about kyoto: is it worth it? im sure many of you are aware that the kyoto protocol is soon expiring and many attempts are being made to have it renewed. canada is being pressured into it, as well as bush. both do not want to sign it because there isnt sufficient evidence proving that spending billions of dollars a year, which the government cant really afford, on a climate change 100 years from now. as crichton said "if i told you to invest a ridiculous sum of money in my company which i THINK will do good 100 years from now...would you? i know i wouldnt.
the reason i cant bring myself to believe in global warming is because im a skeptic. i am with pretty much everything. i question whats around me and develop my own opinions and research them to see if i can support them, however i am always open to new ideas. most of what i have read on both sides of global warming (true and false) have lead me to strongly support the "false" side. i have many reasons as i have stated, and i just simply cant bring myself to believe we can predict the climate 100 years from now when we cant predict it accurately 7 days from now.
another thing which enforces my conclusion is the accuracy as to how the weather is predicted. the temperature is NEVER what they say it is 7 days from the day of prediction. sure its generally close, but close is not what were looking for in climate change. with predicted 2 degrees increase (using the standard deviation of 0.11 observed between 1989 and 1999) in the next century, it really isnt logical to think we can accurately predict that. temperatures in predictions of 7 days are often off by 2 degrees or such, so if our prediction of mean global temperature is about 2 degrees for the next 100 years, it could contradict itself with a simple standard deviation for error...do you see where im going?
ill be damned if anyone reads this post but ill be very happy and supportive to anyone who takes the time to opinionate my writing. now i know how mitch feels when he talks about politics...
leckett1
Active member
who says this is from temperature? for the effects and symptoms you give here, it strongly sounds like a result of pollution and all that crap we pump into the air. yes i agree pollution is a problem, but its whether that pollution will actually cause our world to heat up.
fuck i really should be working on my schoolwork...
fuck i really should be working on my schoolwork...
weenox
Active member
sorry, but no matter how long your posts are, and no matter what
articles you show me, you are still wrong. I'm sorry if i believe the
vast majority of global climate scientists over the guy who wrote Jurassic Park.
for me, it's basic logic. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. it causes the greenhouse effect, which has been scientifically proven over and over and over and over and over again to raise the Earth's surface temperatures. Human beings emit millions of tons of UNNATURALLY PRODUCED CO2 every year. end of story. i don't care how much CO2 volcanos emit, that is all natural CO2 that can cause the Earth's natural climate change. However, humans emit their own CO2. therefore, humans have an effect on global warming. the extent to which we are affecting it is under debate (i personally believe that it is significant enough to warrant certain policies limiting the emission of CO2, such as the United States' ratification of the Kyoto Protocol).
i did a 35 page research project on global warming for my senior presentation, so yes, i've done research.
articles you show me, you are still wrong. I'm sorry if i believe the
vast majority of global climate scientists over the guy who wrote Jurassic Park.
for me, it's basic logic. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. it causes the greenhouse effect, which has been scientifically proven over and over and over and over and over again to raise the Earth's surface temperatures. Human beings emit millions of tons of UNNATURALLY PRODUCED CO2 every year. end of story. i don't care how much CO2 volcanos emit, that is all natural CO2 that can cause the Earth's natural climate change. However, humans emit their own CO2. therefore, humans have an effect on global warming. the extent to which we are affecting it is under debate (i personally believe that it is significant enough to warrant certain policies limiting the emission of CO2, such as the United States' ratification of the Kyoto Protocol).
i did a 35 page research project on global warming for my senior presentation, so yes, i've done research.
leckett1
Active member
well i dont think you understood your research very well because the greenhouse effect is natural. its whether emissions effect it or not is the question. and its not just the guy who wrote jurassic park, its every science skeptic out there. i really wish you would read my posts and take into consideration what i say. where do you think i learned all my stuff from global warming? official documents and grolier. i just think crichton raises an excellent point that its absurd to predict the climate 100 years from now when we cant even predict the weather 7 days from now. we work with TRENDS. trends change. 15 years ago everyone would be in tight, tapered jeans, now everyone wears baggy shit thats falling down their ass. i know this has nothing to do with global warming but it enforces the FACT that trends change. you cant base a prediction over 100 years on a trend in my opinion, theres just too much room for error, its just too uncertain. trends show there will be warming, and thats what your referring to whether you realise it or not, but what you need to realise is that trends arent sufficient. please read my posts before you respond to this.
lushlaxstr
Active member
just stop farting
duh
duh
wAy2sTeEzY4u
Active member
leckett i hat tell you this but your not going to change anyones opinion...i would use your time somewhere else if i were you.
weenox
Active member
you don't make any sense, thats why i stopped reading your post after the first paragraph.
i completely agree that the greenhouse effect is natural....are you trying to say that there is some difference between naturally emitted greenhouse gases and those that are emitted by man? a greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas....nature doesn't pick and choose which sources of CO2 it's going to hold in the atmosphere. and we already know that man-made emissions can affect our atmosphere....look at CFC's and the ozone layer.
and for some reason you're comparing global warming to weather.....which is absolutely retarded. the way we predict weather has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the way we are making models for global warming. no, we don't work with TRENDS to predict the weather. we use atmospheric data gathered by radar and satellites....we don't predict the weather based on what it was like last year on the same day. that's not what meteorologists do....thats what people who write almanacs do.
but i guess that doesn't mean anything to you because you've already shown how you feel about scientists who dedicate their careers to studying one specific thing.
i completely agree that the greenhouse effect is natural....are you trying to say that there is some difference between naturally emitted greenhouse gases and those that are emitted by man? a greenhouse gas is a greenhouse gas....nature doesn't pick and choose which sources of CO2 it's going to hold in the atmosphere. and we already know that man-made emissions can affect our atmosphere....look at CFC's and the ozone layer.
and for some reason you're comparing global warming to weather.....which is absolutely retarded. the way we predict weather has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the way we are making models for global warming. no, we don't work with TRENDS to predict the weather. we use atmospheric data gathered by radar and satellites....we don't predict the weather based on what it was like last year on the same day. that's not what meteorologists do....thats what people who write almanacs do.
but i guess that doesn't mean anything to you because you've already shown how you feel about scientists who dedicate their careers to studying one specific thing.
leckett1
Active member
your saying predicting the weather (which temperature is a part of) is completely different from predicting the temperature 100 years from now?
let me say this. ive opened up that the world could be warmign slightly (what ive mentioned in my other posts by .11 degrees farenheit every 10 years). but to PREDICT WHETHER THE WORLD WILL ACTUALLY BE WARMER 100 years from now is absurd. you cant make that prediction. also global warming is directly linked to weather. do you know what hurricane katrina was blamed on? global warming! all of the more powerful storms have been blamed to be stronger because of global warming. i think storms has something to do with weather.
also think of it this way: if the way were predicting the planet to heat up significantly 100 years from now is so much more accurate than the way we predict weather, why dont we use that method to predict weather? think of how many times they made a weather prediction and 7 days later its completely different. yes im aware meteorolgists use atmospheric data to predict the weather, but why dont they use computer generated models like we use for global warming? because computer generated models ooooh clearly show that the world will significantly heat up 100 years from now right? think about it that way. try to open up and think of what i say rather than use what first comes to mind.
let me say this. ive opened up that the world could be warmign slightly (what ive mentioned in my other posts by .11 degrees farenheit every 10 years). but to PREDICT WHETHER THE WORLD WILL ACTUALLY BE WARMER 100 years from now is absurd. you cant make that prediction. also global warming is directly linked to weather. do you know what hurricane katrina was blamed on? global warming! all of the more powerful storms have been blamed to be stronger because of global warming. i think storms has something to do with weather.
also think of it this way: if the way were predicting the planet to heat up significantly 100 years from now is so much more accurate than the way we predict weather, why dont we use that method to predict weather? think of how many times they made a weather prediction and 7 days later its completely different. yes im aware meteorolgists use atmospheric data to predict the weather, but why dont they use computer generated models like we use for global warming? because computer generated models ooooh clearly show that the world will significantly heat up 100 years from now right? think about it that way. try to open up and think of what i say rather than use what first comes to mind.
squeakywaffle
Active member
I think it's common sense that all the crap we are pumping into the atmosphere will have some kind of effect.
Exactly what is that effect? It's a hard question to answer because of the complexity of the earth's atmosphere and the difficulty of simulating those processes in the lab, whether it be a giant tank of air or a computer program.
The IPCC seems to think global warming is being caused by humans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6324029.stm
But we know nature is a very fragile system. We can see evidence of this, for instance, in cases like australia's rabbit infestation- we introduce a species that doesn't belong, and it takes over because that ecosystem isn't balanced for it. It isn't hard to see how pumping compounds into the atmosphere that upset its chemical balance could change things for the worse quite easily.
Earth science is extremely complicated and extremely difficult given the size and complexity of the processes at work. But use some fucking common sense here. Obviously we need to try to pollute as little as possible because if we don't, it's going to catch up with us sometime in the future. And I like nature a lot...
Exactly what is that effect? It's a hard question to answer because of the complexity of the earth's atmosphere and the difficulty of simulating those processes in the lab, whether it be a giant tank of air or a computer program.
The IPCC seems to think global warming is being caused by humans: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6324029.stm
But we know nature is a very fragile system. We can see evidence of this, for instance, in cases like australia's rabbit infestation- we introduce a species that doesn't belong, and it takes over because that ecosystem isn't balanced for it. It isn't hard to see how pumping compounds into the atmosphere that upset its chemical balance could change things for the worse quite easily.
Earth science is extremely complicated and extremely difficult given the size and complexity of the processes at work. But use some fucking common sense here. Obviously we need to try to pollute as little as possible because if we don't, it's going to catch up with us sometime in the future. And I like nature a lot...
almostaskier
Active member
we are contributing to global warming. It's basically undeniable, given the data we have, which coincides with the industrial revolution and massive amounts of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere.
we are contributing to the melt of greenland, and antarctica.
and in so doing, we are ushering a new ice age.
what takes the Earth's natural cycle a long time to do, we are doing in a lot less. think oven versus microwave. the effect is essentially the same.
al gore mentions this in "an inconvenient truth", yet doesn't follow up. when north america thawed, it stopped the pump in the ocean immediately adjacent, which caused an ice age in europe very quickly.
i totally buy that, because the same phenomenon happened this same year. in november, a ginormous iceberg detached from the artic ice shelf, and blocked these current for a day or so. we got immediate snowfall over here in sweden, a freak snow storm. then it went away.
no one mentions this again though, if greenland melts, then the pump stops. then we get a new ice age in europe. this causes a ton of ice to form, which reflects the sunlight, and usually cools the earth down.
this time, we simply don't know what will happen with that, given the amount of crap we've put up there. will ti cool down a lot? a little? not at all? we simply can't know.
the conclusion is though, that according to all of al gore's data, and everything else i have seen, we are heading towards a new ice age, because we are doing what the earth does in a long time very, very quickly.
we are contributing to the melt of greenland, and antarctica.
and in so doing, we are ushering a new ice age.
what takes the Earth's natural cycle a long time to do, we are doing in a lot less. think oven versus microwave. the effect is essentially the same.
al gore mentions this in "an inconvenient truth", yet doesn't follow up. when north america thawed, it stopped the pump in the ocean immediately adjacent, which caused an ice age in europe very quickly.
i totally buy that, because the same phenomenon happened this same year. in november, a ginormous iceberg detached from the artic ice shelf, and blocked these current for a day or so. we got immediate snowfall over here in sweden, a freak snow storm. then it went away.
no one mentions this again though, if greenland melts, then the pump stops. then we get a new ice age in europe. this causes a ton of ice to form, which reflects the sunlight, and usually cools the earth down.
this time, we simply don't know what will happen with that, given the amount of crap we've put up there. will ti cool down a lot? a little? not at all? we simply can't know.
the conclusion is though, that according to all of al gore's data, and everything else i have seen, we are heading towards a new ice age, because we are doing what the earth does in a long time very, very quickly.
PagesHouse
Active member
scientific experiments say its temperature. the one example i can think of at the top of my head is a small species of crabs whose heart rates have increased to an extreme level due to a one degree change in the water temperature. if it is raised at all, no matter how small of a raise it is, they will pretty much all have heart attacks.
PagesHouse
Active member
the ice caps are melting. and what the kid above you said is correct.
ktlu
Active member
well, when i brought up the topic of species being effected by changes in the environment, i wasnt just talking because of temperature. we transport them as well and they can thrive in environments where they have no natural preditors. a species of termites in the south for example is destroying homes. not native to the southern united states but brought over in crate wood from transporting goods from over seas. its not always temperature.
leckett1
Active member
NORTHEN ice caps are melting. ill bring back the sources for antarctica. western antarctica is getting bigger while other parts are melting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm#antarctic
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806
http://www.jefflindsay.com/snippets/warming.shtml
since ice in certain areas of antarctica are getting bigger, you cant generalize by saying they are melting. if theyre getting bigger at the same time others are shrinking, can you not depict an equilibrium here to even out waterlevels? there must be one seeing how the water level has not yet risen contrary to popular belief
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4315968.stm#antarctic
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1806
http://www.jefflindsay.com/snippets/warming.shtml
since ice in certain areas of antarctica are getting bigger, you cant generalize by saying they are melting. if theyre getting bigger at the same time others are shrinking, can you not depict an equilibrium here to even out waterlevels? there must be one seeing how the water level has not yet risen contrary to popular belief
leckett1
Active member
yes i agree. another example is of a foreign species of oysters in one of the great lakes (cant remember which one) but they ended up clogging pipes and ruining the hull of ships that have been docked for a while.
theres just too much variability in climate to predict global warming in the future, especially considering the patterns of ecosystems. you cant generalise that they will all fail.
theres just too much variability in climate to predict global warming in the future, especially considering the patterns of ecosystems. you cant generalise that they will all fail.
PagesHouse
Active member
i feel as if me, katie and leckett should just duke it out.
PagesHouse
Active member
hahaha and whoever survives.... their opinion automatically becomes fact. its settled.
Mr_Bojangles
Active member
I agree wholeheartedly with Leckett, weather is a chaotic system, hence we cannot predict, with absolute certainty, whether or not there will be a significant climate change within the next hundred years. It seems that global warming has replaced terrorism as the predominant fear paradigm of the Western World.
Chaos theory, a theory that was developed through attempts at weather prediction, can explain how small random events may affect large ecosystems in an unpredictable way. We simply do not know what events/variables we are dealing with, and it could be argued that we actually do not know what we're looking for. We can only observe what is happening, it is impossible to establish a cause-effect relationship in a chaotic system.
hahaha and whoever said 'science' and 'absolute certainty' in the same sentence above should be shot.
Chaos theory, a theory that was developed through attempts at weather prediction, can explain how small random events may affect large ecosystems in an unpredictable way. We simply do not know what events/variables we are dealing with, and it could be argued that we actually do not know what we're looking for. We can only observe what is happening, it is impossible to establish a cause-effect relationship in a chaotic system.
hahaha and whoever said 'science' and 'absolute certainty' in the same sentence above should be shot.
