Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Global warming
Aedosen
Member Posts: 234
I noticed that there was big thread on this issue recently but the quality of the debate was rather abysmal tbh. So I came across these links where you can actually find large number of real scientists commenting from both sides plus the debate doesn't turn into namecalling after "first page" 
As I said that blogs aren't really the main point but the discussion afterwards. Anyway I hope someone appreciates those links. At least I had interesting time reading the discussion.
Comments
...is a natural cyclical occurence and man has made little to no impact on the earth warming.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
The world has been much hotter than it is today and everyone lived fine so bring in the warming
I could do with some nice weather in England for a change.
The middle ages was warmer than it is today......
You can buy into all this global warming BS if you want and give into what the goverment wants you to think cause it makes them billions and the companies that produce this stuff.... i see no proof of man made global warming lol.
Tbh i'll be dead within the next 40 years so it doesn't bother me.
10 peer reviewed temperature reconstructions of the past plotted on the same graph:
And who made that chart lol.
considering we were growing grapes in London back then and making wine then i'd take that as more proof than a graph made to try and enforce man caused global warming
+ didn't the temp fall during the industrial revolution and not rise? lol.
Wikiepdia made it by plotting the data from peer reviewed scientific papers on the subject.
This is what the published science has to say, if you don’t believe in published peer reviewed science I guess there is nothing more to say the good luck having you life controlled by your corporate overlords.
Wine is being produced just about everywhere in England today...
http://www.englishwineproducers.com/
How many of these threads do their need to be?
1) Global Warming is a theory, it shouldn't be taken as fact BY ANYONE.
2) The earth has been hotter then it is today, eventhough we may not believe it. (its almost always hot here, Texas). The graph is from peer scientists as well, and only one sceintist showed an incredible increase in 2004 and later, the rest are barely higher then the warming period in the middle ages.
3) This does NOT mean that the temperature is warming any more or less then it had previously in different eras of history. For example, the amount of methane produced by cattle could not be correlated with the amount of gas excreted by the earth in the mesozoic era.
The fact is, we know very little about the climate change historically other than it's been hot and cold. We could easily make assumptions on whether the climate is changing due to pollution, and we could just as well make the same assumption before when the earth warmed after an ice age, that it did so because of excess bio or geological changes as well, but all it would end up being is a theory.
4) It doesn't matter whether global warming is happening or not. The ecosystem is more important then just the temperature change. We kill off more animals with our industrialization, and do it a lot quicker, then the climate change will ever do. With climate change animals change and adapt over thousands of years. Not only do we not give animals time to adapt, but we kill them, alot of the time unnecessarily, and sometimes even unbeknownst to ourselves, just by occupying an area.
So if the whole deal about "global warming" is to scare everyone to spend less energy and to allow us to stop using more hazardous materials to spare the temperature, I say who cares. I say do it for the ecosystem moreso then for the temperature, because.. honestly, noone has definitive proof that this type of warming has NOT happened before. There may be proof that it hasn't happened in OUR HISTORY but our history is so brief that it means nothing on the scope of things.
So if people want to believe global warming is a scam, I could care less. If they think just because it's a scam that they won't change by saving energy, waste, the ecosystem (uncluding animals) and so on, then this is something that needs to be regulated. We should all do our part to keep the world free of hazardous materials, even if global warming is a scam. I don't see how anyone can argue with that?
when scientists explain why the earth was as warm as it was 125,000 yrs ago, they will have the answer to why it is warming today. to blame industrialation giving the past history of temps, is folly.
industrialation has saved manymore HUMAN lives than it will ever kill. j
mans ego is too big. somethings may not have an explanation giving our limited intellect and the complexity of the earth and sun.
-I will subtlety invade your psyche-
Gravity is a theory, but do you know WHY it's a theory? You can have a theory for anything if it can be explained or proved better. Newton was disproved partially on a theory that was later solved with the help of einsteins theory of relativity. It means that something could be explained better.
Global Warming could be explained alot better, primarily because there are conflicting factors. Once those factors are disproved then you can update your theory to reflect the newfound information. They are always changing -- theories.
I still think it's silly that people argue whether or not global warming is partially our fault or not. Or they argue that Gore doesn't see the big picture (which includes counter-arguments/theories). Isn't both sides of the argument based on theories? (I personally support the theory that a great disaster is on it's way sooner than expected... because of trends that point out this scenario). Shouldn't we be arguing what to do given the off-chance that we could stop an upcoming disaster from being that much more disastoruos?
ideas > staggering discussions of what's already going on
here's the risk management video that makes perfect sense:
www.youtube.com/watch
If thats true then you should be able to identify the underlying natural phenomenon causing that natural cyclical occurrence. Make no mistake, any truly natural phenomenon can be explained by science. Science exists to explain natural phenomenon. Any phenomenon that *cannot* be explained by science is, by definition, supernatural.
Pathetic joke answer for fun: Personally I blame God (and all the other gods!). They are sending our world into a corner of the universe where it's always 90 degrees! /panic.
Boring real answer for real: In the end Global Warming can't be discussed by the likes of us here. Neither of the sides can back up the facts but have to rely on scientists. When it all comes down to it's just a matter of which scientists you choose to believe in.
The fact is, we know very little about the climate change historically other than it's been hot and cold. We could easily make assumptions on whether the climate is changing due to pollution, and we could just as well make the same assumption before when the earth warmed after an ice age, that it did so because of excess bio or geological changes as well, but all it would end up being is a theory.
We know precisely (or pretty damn close) when each ice age was, and the fact that they have been increasing exponentially over time. We also know that ice ages follow ages in which glaciers melt.. aka global warming ages. It is cyclical. I don't know when the glaciers melting will cause a disaster in our future, I also don't know how long it will talk for the glaciers to cause significant flooding and other weather disasters. I do know that the rate of temperture change is much more drastic now than in the past. This rate is based on long periods of time.
Gravity is a theory, but do you know WHY it's a theory? You can have a theory for anything if it can be explained or proved better. Newton was disproved partially on a theory that was later solved with the help of einsteins theory of relativity. It means that something could be explained better.
Global Warming could be explained alot better, primarily because there are conflicting factors. Once those factors are disproved then you can update your theory to reflect the newfound information. They are always changing -- theories.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
These are basically small wobbles in the Earth’s rotation and orbit over time. The thing is they don’t actually change the amount of energy reaching the Earth from the Sun. what they do is redistribute that energy between the northern and southern hemisphere. When the northern hemisphere warms up the land ecosystems in it (NA, Europe and Asia) accelerate releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. This CO2 then warms the rest of the planet.
Milankovitch cycles are not related to the current warming trend, however. They would indicate a warm but very slightly cooling planet for another 8000 years or so, at which point another Ice Age would have begun
Regardless of why, I am fairly certain we all agree something has to be done to combat the warming.
To find out how to do that though we need to know why.
Man made or not it is not a good thing for most people on the planet.
Until we have a why that is accurate it is probably wise to do something, how ever little effect we make by cutting our emissions or whatever it still has some influence.
After all, we only have one place to live, gamble with it seems utterly stupid.
In sweden a couple of degrees warmer would by all calcualtions make this paradise and have a HUGE beneficial effect on our economy.
Not really sure I want to sacrifice a large portion of the human population to gain that though.
Some would I am sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jerek_
I wonder if you honestly even believe what you type, or if you live in a made up world of facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gravity is a theory, but do you know WHY it's a theory? You can have a theory for anything if it can be explained or proved better. Newton was disproved partially on a theory that was later solved with the help of einsteins theory of relativity. It means that something could be explained better.
Global Warming could be explained alot better, primarily because there are conflicting factors. Once those factors are disproved then you can update your theory to reflect the newfound information. They are always changing -- theories.
This can just as well be argument for the sake of argument. Like it or not the climate is going to change nomatter if we are the cause or not. It has before, and it will again.
2005 was supposedly the hottest year, hotter then record breaking 2004. 2006 and 2007 however, have been cooler years, so a steady increase in heat is wrong.
Climate goes up and down, if you'd like to blame global warming on us thats fine, personally I don't care. The climate increase isn't nearly adequate enough or rising quickly enough to constitute as anything more then a slight gradual climate flux.
Supposition can be made by anyone, thats why there are opposing views on the matter, and thats why there are views of this matter in the first place. Hard evidence isn't what a "projected" figure looks like, thats supposition. Scientists can barely figure out whether or not it's going to rain tomorrow ACCURATELY then decide how high and fast the temperature will increase in 20 years. It's all supposition with percentages and room for error.
This can easily be compared to the theory that, "When a 6 year old rides a bike, he will fall and skin his knee" some will prove it right, some will prove it wrong. When it's right eveyrone says "AH my theory is CORRECT" and when the opposite, then the theory just needs to be tweaked.
The point is, there are MORE STRESSING things in this world cause by our pollution then global warming, which could or could NOT potentially be quite a while away from creating a large enough difference in our ecosystem to even roughly correlate with the damage we are already doing.
You're arguing against yourself. The weather is variable, stating something is fact based on a period of 3 years when it comes to the temperature is stupid. It's when measured over a period of 30 years or more that we can truly see if the changes are actually existing or not.
Except that accurate climate records have only been recorded by humans for a little over a hundred years...
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You're arguing against yourself. The weather is variable, stating something is fact based on a period of 3 years when it comes to the temperature is stupid. It's when measured over a period of 30 years or more that we can truly see if the changes are actually existing or not.
agreed, but perhaps you missed why, the reason I chose those 3 years in particular was because the graph shows a steady incline after 2004 eventhough 2006 and 2007 were cooler then 2005. It was just to help visualize that climate is variable. Hence why I said the heating is not at a steady incline like the graph tries to prove.
You're arguing against yourself. The weather is variable, stating something is fact based on a period of 3 years when it comes to the temperature is stupid. It's when measured over a period of 30 years or more that we can truly see if the changes are actually existing or not.
agreed, but perhaps you missed why, the reason I chose those 3 years in particular was because the graph shows a steady incline after 2004 eventhough 2006 and 2007 were cooler then 2005. It was just to help visualize that climate is variable. Hence why I said the heating is not at a steady incline like the graph tries to prove.
Variable isn’t the same thing as not having a trend. The year to year temperature is bouncing around an underlying trend and that trend is undeniably increasing.