Global Warming:Real or Fake?

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

skimmed a bit of that essay... it makes a lot of unsourced statements and leaves a lot of unspoken premises unsubstantiated. For example, in the paragraph on the composition of the atmosphere, the argument is made that because carbon dioxide makes up such a small portion of the gases in the atmosphere, it could not contribute to global warming, thus the argument that it does is incorrect. The unspoken premise here is that somehow the percentage must be very high for it to have an effect, yet no evidence is cited in support of this. (in fact, if you want to see what happens when methane and CO2 do compose the majority of an atmosphere take a look at Venus where average surface temperatures have been estimated I think somewhere around 800 degrees).

I was actually just saying how little carbon dioxide is actually in the atmosphere, not claiming that it does not contribute to warming. I never said that global warming isn't happening, just that temperature data is not as reliable as people take it for granted to be, and that there are many other factors affecting global warming besides carbon dioxide content. Read the paragraph about the urban heat island effect for more information (it's the one that quotes the case study about Vienna).

Global warming is very real, I didn't get any snow till febuary (usualy I get about 3 feet by december). The only reason there is debate over wheather it is real or not is because all the people in power (including the govornement)are denying it. Why would they do something like that? you might ask. The answer is very simple; they will lose money.

just a quick question.
if humans aren't causin global warming, what is?
what else on this planet has the power to change the consistancy of the earths' atmosphere?

To answer your questions: Many scientists point to SAM (the southern hemisphere annual mode) as a source for the warming around the edges of Antarctica. Also, solar radiation is a big cause of warming versus cooling. On top of this, most of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, which humans have relatively little effect on. Basically, the atmosphere and solar patterns are what cause global warming. Humans have a relatively small impact on the atmosphere, but a huge impact on the biosphere, and it is this that is one of the main human inputs to global warming (deforestation, fossil fuels burning, etc).
To cite an example, the melting of glaciers at Mt. Kilimanjaro (which is not related to global warming, but is related to relative area warming...saying that one city or one part of the world is getting warmer is not acceptable proof of a global phenomenon, see my essay) is due to deforestation at the base of the mountain (as a result, the air flowing up the mountain is no longer cool and moist).

The composition of the Earth's atmosphere has been changing in extents far more severe than it is now before humans ever walked the earth.

Please at least do some small amount of research and read the other posts in the thread before making your arguments, as otherwise you don't contribute anything to the thread.

[JasonKey]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

The sad beauty of this debate is, even if someone had an answer, next to nothing can be done to curb it. If we started tomorrow and cut our co2 output down, and stopped all other contributions, other countries would certainly not, and in fact continue to grow.

Past the debate on who should start this or that, even if everyone was able to go to zero, likely we would take generations to undo what we have done.

So in a way, save your $ though conservative means. Spend less on gas, less on energy and plan for the future. If that includes severe climate change ... think about it Don't buy a ocean front or water front house in the next 15 or so years

Hows that for a bleak outlook?

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

JasonKey, I don't think anyone is seriously expecting sea levels to rise that much in the next 15 years =)

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

so what is the point of bringing up temperature measurement reliability in a thread on global warming if you agree that global warming is occurring?

and jason, the entire european union disagrees with you on the "other nations" part.

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Talisman, what is the point of relegating temperature data disparages to the waysides? My point is that nobody really knows about the extent of global warming, nor does anybody really know what percentage of global warming is caused by man. With incomplete data comes rash decisions. Please read the last third of my essay, the part about politicized science.

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

That obscures the more important point that A) global warming is occurring and B) it is due to human causes.

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Except, to what extent? And what exactly needs to be done?

[talisman]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

It's fairly clear what must be done (reduce amount of CO2 in atmosphere). Questions do surround the best way to do it.

The extent as near as I can recall is a projected temperature increase between like 1.1 and 6.4 degrees celcius over the next century.

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Look! Reguardless of whether global warming is natural or not, people need to support our environment. Whatever we do for the world is bound to be better than what we don't do! Get that through your minds. We need to save the world so we can enjoy and learn more (trust me, I don't mean being forced to study in school, but for people to make new technology and discover things like if ghosts exist or not). I believe that the humans have a reason for living, but that it hasn't been revealed to us yet. I refuse to let human religions substitute this idea for a purpose. Humans don't make this purpose and I know it! Some expect a higher authority to make this purpose (a god) yet they claim to know everything about the god. To those people who think the world is going to end or if their crazy beliefs come between saving the environment, would the god you dearly believe is so righteous destroy the very humans who tried to save an environment? I don't believe in one god, I believe in all possibilities in life such as one god, many gods, no gods, or any other possibilities. If there really is no purpose for humans, atleast live for as long as you can and have as much fun as possible. I want to be able to live forever (I strongly believe that is possible) and not have our world destroyed. If you must be bad in your life because it is what you have the most fun being, be my guest because I can't make you have fun being good, but I will hunt you down like an eagle and burn you if you try to destroy our world! Also reguardless of if global warming is caused by humans or not, JUST TRY TO HELP THE WORLD AND FIND SOLUTIONS I BEG YOU! That's all that matters! Not the data on who caused the warming.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Explain to me how you brought religion into this?

I mean, I know that this is just another antireligion rant, but I'm really curious as to how you might even justify this.

EDIT: when you come back in three days, of course.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Reach]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I'm not failing to tell people this. I'm just saying that carbon dioxide levels have been far higher today. And temperatures were far higher.

So you do think global warming is happening? I'm confused. Your essay appeared to argue we didn't know nearly enough, but if CO2 was higher and temperatures were higher then there is no argument against CO2 raising the temperature.

Also, termites produce more methane than people.

No they do not. I just did some reasearch and came to conclude termites produce at best 4% of global methane emissions and humans produce about 60%.

And about water vapor, higher temperatures mean more water vapor, so more clouds = more cooling? Actually, these effects are unclear.

Water vapor (according to most studies I've read) is responsible for approximately 70% of the greenhouse effect that keeps our planet in a survivable temperature range.

I'm curious as to how these effects are unclear given we have understood the water cycle for quite some time. Sure, the effects of more water vapor can be complicated...

Water vapor makes up a decent chunk of the worlds greenhouse gas. However, it doesn't have much of anything to do with global warming.



Talisman brought up most of the other things I would have said >__>

[madmatt621]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

Is global warming real?


Yes. The National Academies of Science, an independent research panel created by Congress, reported last year that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years. Evidence shows that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900.



How do we know that?


The evidence comes from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, corals, ocean and lake sediments, ice cores, cave deposits and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures. In central England, there are written temperature records going back to 1659, and they show 2006 as the warmest year ever in that region.



For heaven's sake, baseball games were snowed out this month. How can the globe be getting warmer?


Short spans of time say nothing about global warming. For example, winter temperatures across the United States were average, but the average temperature across the globe was the highest on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Overall, the global mean temperature has increased about 0.4 degrees F over the past 25 years, and it's projected to rise 3 to 7 degrees F over the next century. Some areas are warming up faster than others. The arctic surface air temperatures are warming roughly twice as fast as the global average, according to NOAA.



Is this merely a natural cycle or are there human causes?

It's us. The National Academies reported in 2001 that this big warming trend is "a result of human activities." A U.N. group, the International Panel on Climate Change, came to the same conclusion. Among the other groups that agree: the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.



Why should I care?


The U.N. group says that global warming will cause species extinctions to mount, water shortages to spread and droughts and floods to become more frequent. There may be more pollen allergies, mosquito-borne diseases and heat-stroke deaths. Hurricanes will begin to hit Florida like we're a pin in the world's most popular bowling alley. The insurance companies are already factoring that into their rates. And as the polar ice caps melt, the seas rise - a reasonable estimate is 20 inches by 2100 - which ought to concern people who live in a state nearly surrounded by water.


What's causing this?


Mostly it's carbon dioxide (CO2). Since the Industrial Revolution of the 1700s, we've been putting out way too much of it, and it's collecting in the atmosphere, trapping the sun's heat like the glass roof of a greenhouse. In 2005, global atmospheric concentrations of CO2 were 35 percent higher than they were before the Industrial Revolution.



What are the biggest sources?


The United States produces more carbon dioxide than any other nation, mostly from coal-burning power plants (40 percent) and passenger vehicles (20 percent), according to the Environmental Protection Agency. U.S. greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming increased 16 percent over the most recent 15-year period, the EPA reported last week.



What is the government doing about this?


According to the U.S. Supreme Court and several states, not enough. Massachusetts sued the EPA for refusing to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EPA argued it lacked the authority, but the Supreme Court ruled that its excuses were "arbitrary, capricious, and otherwise not in accordance with law." Meanwhile, California, which produces more carbon dioxide than some countries, passed its own law requiring major industrial producers of such gases to reduce emissions 25 percent by 2020. Other states have imposed similar caps.



Won't anything we do be offset by other countries?


That's President Bush's argument for opposing the Kyoto treaty calling for mandatory emissions cutbacks: It exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance. Instead he has called for voluntary emissions controls. China is set to overtake the United States as the biggest source of greenhouse gases, possibly as early as this year. Last week Reuters reported that China's leaders have finally proposed a plan to cut carbon emissions by 40 percent by 2020 - but like Bush, they're still resisting mandatory controls. Columnist Thomas Friedman, in a New York Times Magazine piece (nytimes.com), says alternative energy sources become viable in the developing world only when they match the "China price." That "is basically the price China pays for coal-fired electricity today because China is not prepared to pay a premium now, and sacrifice growth and stability, just to get rid of the CO2 that comes from burning coal."
"The 'China price' is the fundamental benchmark that everyone is looking to satisfy," Curtis Carlson, CEO of SRI International, which is developing alternative energy technologies, told Friedman. (SRI has opened a branch in St. Petersburg.) "We have an enormous amount of new innovation we must put in place before we can get to a price that China and India will be able to pay. But this is also an opportunity."



Is there some way to give everyone an incentive to produce less carbon dioxide?


Yes, but if you had trouble grappling with the IRS last week, this proposal may leave you feeling hot under the collar. Some experts are touting a "carbon tax" as the ideal solution to reducing emissions.
"A carbon tax would be paid whenever a molecule of carbon dioxide is emitted to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels," wrote William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University.


"Utilities would pay it based on their smokestack emissions and pass the cost to consumers in their monthly electric bill. Each of us would pay it when we fill up with gasoline, based on the content of fossil carbon in the fuel."


By taxing carbon emissions, proponents argue, the government would make other forms of energy more competitive on price.



Has anything like this ever worked before?


Sort of. A scheme was created years ago for trading in the pollution that causes acid rain. While acid rain hasn't gone away, it isn't the looming crisis it was 20 years ago. Rather than a carbon tax, the government could create "offsets," which cap emissions at a certain level and allow a cleaner factory to sell its pollution credits - in effect, sell the pollution it is not creating to a company that isn't clean enough yet and will pay for the right to pollute. Those offsets are bought and sold on an open market.



Are there any political advantages in trying to tackle global warming?


Sure. As Friedman points out, if we wean ourselves off those fossil fuels that produce greenhouse gases, we will be cutting off the flow of money to hostile states that rely on oil revenues. And the U.S. economy could benefit from creating new markets for high-tech green solutions.


Sources

Further reading


The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is at www.ipcc.ch.

Some sizable reading material there...

[flcliscool]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

I dont believe in global warming one bit I truly think the earth is moving closer to the sun because think about it what are the chances our orbit is a PERFECT circle?? and plus according to the laws of gravity the bigger the mass the more gravity it has so shouldent we constanally be getting closer to the sun which is like 5000000 times bigger than the earth?? and then i also think the reason for all this "freak" weather is our moon acctuall getting closer ergo screwing up the tides

[Nezeru]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

So you do think global warming is happening? I'm confused. Your essay appeared to argue we didn't know nearly enough, but if CO2 was higher and temperatures were higher then there is no argument against CO2 raising the temperature.

I'm just going to let you read that until you figure out what's wrong with your logic.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Global Warming:Real or Fake?

EDIT: fuccen ninja'd.

I dont believe in global warming one bit I truly think the earth is moving closer to the sun because think about it what are the chances our orbit is a PERFECT circle?? and plus according to the laws of gravity the bigger the mass the more gravity it has so shouldent we constanally be getting closer to the sun which is like 5000000 times bigger than the earth?? and then i also think the reason for all this "freak" weather is our moon acctuall getting closer ergo screwing up the tides

Bad science sense... TINGLING!

Our orbit is far from circular; we've known that for hundreds of years. There are great differences between the Earth's apogee and perigee, but that has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

No, we shouldn't be getting closer to the moon, as our extremely fast orbital motion is constantly trying to throw us out of orbit; the sun's gravitational pull is the only thing keeping us where we are.

Also, the moon is moving AWAY from Earth. Once it gets too far away, Earth is doomed, so you've got more to worry about there than how close we are to the sun.

Really now, on what are you basing these ridiculously wrong opinions?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com