Do you believe in Global Warming? » Off Topic » Off Topic » Do you believe in Global Warming?
« Previous Page
9/6/08 4:59:23PM

Posted by Svartorm

A lot has been said, so I'll just throw a couple facts out there.

1. The world started as molten rock.

2. Then it was completely frozen

3. Then it was horrifyingly hot again and the dinosaurs died.

4. Then it was completely frozen again.

So, saying the world is getting too warm, has never been like this, rapid changes, blah blah blah doesn't hold water here.

As for humans causing it, I don't buy it in the least, for two reasons.

1. Compared to the Industrial revolution, we barely pollute anymore, so the world suddenly picking up tempeture doesn't seem to make sense, considering we've cut back on ******* up the world.

2. I don't remember the exact number for this, but in 1816 when Mount Tambora blew and caused The Year Without a Summer, it was estimated that volcano put up 5 MILLION TIMES the pollution mankind had put into the atmosphere at that point. In a year and half, everything was back to normal. The Earth clearly has the capacity to clean itself up fairly well if it took out 5 millions times the pollution the human race had caused in 8000 years, in a little over 18 months.

As for doing something about it, if this is a cycle that happens every tens out thousands of years, I very much doubt we can do anything to fix it, and I well imagine anything we try would probably make the situation worse. I think going green is a decent idea, but I don't like the idea of investing staggering portions of the worlds economy into the effort, when it can go to making our lives easier in the here and now, and not in ten thousand years when the Earth gets to be unbearably hot again.

Svatorm is a shining example of a wise person.... No props I have to share the love....

It is very sad that so many people have been indoctrinated with this global warming in our schools with out pointing out the science that argues against the global warming Hoax.....

Its funny to me that people point out that we do not understnd fully the way the brain works or we have never reached the bottom of our oceans and that we constantly find new species in ythe rain forrest but....

We apparently know enough about the atmosphere that we know humans are the cause of the earths warming

9/6/08 5:14:19PM

Posted by Kracker_Jap

We apparently know enough about the atmosphere that we know humans are the cause of the earths warming


The chemicals that I mentioned in my post do not exist naturally or at least not in significant amounts. They are used and made in industrial processes.

I have yet to see one nay sayer post a real academic study that argues against it.
9/8/08 3:20:49PM
Here is some more real information regarding some of the issues discussed.

Science 17 November 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5802, p. 1064
DOI: 10.1126/science.314.5802.1064a
Prev | Table of Contents | Next

News of the Week
False Alarm: Atlantic Conveyor Belt Hasn't Slowed Down After All
Richard A. Kerr
A closer look at the Atlantic Ocean's currents has confirmed what many oceanographers suspected all along: There's no sign that the ocean's heat-laden "conveyor" is slowing. The lag reported late last year was a mere flicker in a system prone to natural slowdowns and speedups. Furthermore, researchers are finding that even if global warming were slowing the conveyor and reducing the supply of warmth to high latitudes, it would be decades before the change would be noticeable above the noise.

The full realization of the Atlantic's capriciousness comes with the first continuous monitoring of the ocean's north-south flows. In March 2004, researchers of the Rapid Climate Change (RAPID) program moored 19 buoyant, instrument-laden cables along 26.5°N from West Africa to the Bahamas. A few months later, they steamed along the same latitude, lowering instruments periodically to take an instantaneous "snapshot" of north-south flows. While waiting for the moored array to produce long-term observations, physical oceanographer Harry Bryden and his team at the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton, U.K., compared the 2004 snapshot with four earlier instantaneous surveys dating back to 1957. They found a 30% decline in the northward flow of the conveyor (Science, 2 December 2005, p. 1403), sparking headlines warning of Europe's coming ice age.

Fitful flow. Instruments arrayed across the North Atlantic have found surprisingly variable currents that mask any slowing of the Atlantic conveyor.

The first year of RAPID array observations has now been analyzed, and the next European ice age looks to be a ways off. At a RAPID conference late last month in Birmingham, U.K., Bryden reported on the first continuous gauging of conveyor flow. Variations up and down within 1 year are as large as the changes seen from one snapshot to the next during the past few decades, he found. "He observed a lot of variability," says oceanographer Martin Visbeck of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science at the University of Kiel in Germany, who attended the meeting; so much variability that "more than 95% of the scientists at the workshop concluded that we have not seen any significant change of the Atlantic circulation to date," wrote Visbeck in a letter to the British newspaper the Guardian.

Although the immediate threat has evaporated, a difficult challenge has taken its place. "Scientific honesty would require records for decades" in order to pick out a greenhouse-induced slowing, says physical oceanographer Carl Wunsch of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. "How do you go about doing science when you need decades of record?" For their part, RAPID researchers will be asking for funding to extend array operations to a decade, says Bryden. Then some combination of government agencies would have to take on the burden of decades of watchful waiting.


Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Feb 5;105(5):1768-73. Epub 2008 Jan 22
The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities.

Srinivasan UT, Carey SP, Hallstein E, Higgins PA, Kerr AC, Koteen LE, Smith AB, Watson R, Harte J, Norgaard RB.
Pacific Ecoinformatics and Computational Ecology Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94703, USA.

As human impacts to the environment accelerate, disparities in the distribution of damages between rich and poor nations mount. Globally, environmental change is dramatically affecting the flow of ecosystem services, but the distribution of ecological damages and their driving forces has not been estimated. Here, we conservatively estimate the environmental costs of human activities over 1961-2000 in six major categories (climate change, stratospheric ozone depletion, agricultural intensification and expansion, deforestation, overfishing, and mangrove conversion), quantitatively connecting costs borne by poor, middle-income, and rich nations to specific activities by each of these groups. Adjusting impact valuations for different standards of living across the groups as commonly practiced, we find striking imbalances. Climate change and ozone depletion impacts predicted for low-income nations have been overwhelmingly driven by emissions from the other two groups, a pattern also observed for overfishing damages indirectly driven by the consumption of fishery products. Indeed, through disproportionate emissions of greenhouse gases alone, the rich group may have imposed climate damages on the poor group greater than the latter's current foreign debt. Our analysis provides prima facie evidence for an uneven distribution pattern of damages across income groups. Moreover, our estimates of each group's share in various damaging activities are independent from controversies in environmental valuation methods. In a world increasingly connected ecologically and economically, our analysis is thus an early step toward reframing issues of environmental responsibility, development, and globalization in accordance with ecological costs.

PMID: 18212119 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID: PMC2234219


Environ Int. 2008 Aug 27. [Epub ahead of print]
Global warming and carbon dioxide through sciences.

Florides GA, Christodoulides P.
Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Cyprus University of Technology, P.O. Box 50329, 3603 Limassol, Cyprus.

Increased atmospheric CO(2)-concentration is widely being considered as the main driving factor that causes the phenomenon of global warming. This paper attempts to shed more light on the role of atmospheric CO(2) in relation to temperature-increase and, more generally, in relation to Earth's life through the geological aeons, based on a review-assessment of existing related studies. It is pointed out that there has been a debate on the accuracy of temperature reconstructions as well as on the exact impact that CO(2) has on global warming. Moreover, using three independent sets of data (collected from ice-cores and chemistry) we perform a specific regression analysis which concludes that forecasts about the correlation between CO(2)-concentration and temperature rely heavily on the choice of data used, and one cannot be positive that indeed such a correlation exists (for chemistry data) or even, if existing (for ice-cores data), whether it leads to a "severe" or a "gentle" global warming. A very recent development on the greenhouse phenomenon is a validated adiabatic model, based on laws of physics, forecasting a maximum temperature-increase of 0.01-0.03 degrees C for a value doubling the present concentration of atmospheric CO(2). Through a further review of related studies and facts from disciplines like biology and geology, where CO(2)-change is viewed from a different perspective, it is suggested that CO(2)-change is not necessarily always a negative factor for the environment. In fact it is shown that CO(2)-increase has stimulated the growth of plants, while the CO(2)-change history has altered the physiology of plants. Moreover, data from palaeoclimatology show that the CO(2)-content in the atmosphere is at a minimum in this geological aeon. Finally it is stressed that the understanding of the functioning of Earth's complex climate system (especially for water, solar radiation and so forth) is still poor and, hence, scientific knowledge is not at a level to give definite and precise answers for the causes of global warming.

PMID: 18760479 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]
9/12/08 1:02:39PM
Breaking News!

This should clear up much of the debate:

Climate change is turning icebergs into giant penises...aka cockberg **.


** no relation to any EliteXC employees

Image Attachment(s):
Photo Attachment 1
9/12/08 2:13:05PM
LOL Grappler!

Rush- thanks for posting the good info. Some of it goes along with what some of us have been saying in here. Then again, some other stuff in it goes along with what OTHERS have been saying in here.

Main thing is we don't have the scientific data recorded over a long enough time period to determine what's really happening. It's kind of like a chicken vs. the egg debate right now.
9/13/08 11:56:07PM

Posted by Jackelope

LOL Grappler!

Rush- thanks for posting the good info. Some of it goes along with what some of us have been saying in here. Then again, some other stuff in it goes along with what OTHERS have been saying in here.

Main thing is we don't have the scientific data recorded over a long enough time period to determine what's really happening. It's kind of like a chicken vs. the egg debate right now.

the ice penis said it all
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Related Topics