Global Warming real or not?


the dark

New member
Does it matter? If there are smart things we can do to better protect our own planet, why would we not do them, no matter the name we give an issue? There is no downside to caring for our homestead. Leave it to people to argue over words and potentially screw themselves in the process.
 

foxytwo

New member
Link Removed
This is some information from satelite information from 200 to present that says there is no global warming other than natural cycles. Sounds reasonable to me.
 

walt629

New member
They cry in the dark, so you can't see their tears
They hide in the light, so you can't see their fears
Forgive and forget, all the while
Love and pain become one and the same
In the eyes of a wounded child

Because Hell
Hell Is For Children
And you know that their little lives can become such a mess
Hell
Hell Is For Children
And you shouldn't have to pay for your love with your bones and your flesh

It's all so confusing, this brutal abusing
They blacken your eyes, and then apologize
You're daddy's good girl, and don't tell mommy a thing
Be a good little boy, and you'll get a new toy
Tell grandma you fell off the swing

Because Hell
Hell Is For Children
And you know that their little lives can become such a mess
Hell
Hell Is For Children
And you shouldn't have to pay for your love with your bones and your flesh

No, Hell Is For Children
Hell
Hell is for Hell
Hell is for Hell
Hell Is For Children
Hell
Hell is for Hell
Hell is for Hell
Hell Is For Children
Hell
Hell is for Hell
Hell is for Hell
Hell Is For Children
Hell Is For Children
Hell Is For Children

Gee G! Pat Benatar?
 

wooddoctor

New member
Does it matter? If there are smart things we can do to better protect our own planet, why would we not do them, no matter the name we give an issue? There is no downside to caring for our homestead. Leave it to people to argue over words and potentially screw themselves in the process.

Dark, we all care about the environment and many of us recycle religiously. Your concerns are valid. Have you considered how the rest of the world is raping this earth and really do not care about the environment. China has 5 times more people then the USA. India has 3 times more people. Do you really think they have the same regulations,
As we do here?

How can we be a beacon to the world when we have a pig in the white house that wants to make us a third world country. Your 1 carbon footprint equates to about 200 to the rest of the world, that could care less.

Trianasaus Rex tried to preserve the planet look where it got him.


Sorry Ed, your boy in the D party that you identify yourself to, is simply Pig Squeez
e. No, I am not a R.
 
First, please note that in science, the word "theory" is not as indefinite as it is in common usage. In science, "theory" means something that is testable, able to be proven false, and has calculated or measured evidence in its favor. Yes, theories can be proven false, and they sometimes are. By and large, though, if something is called a "theory", it has already gone through rigorous scientific testing. For example, quantum theory is a "theory".
"Law" is when something is concretely *PROVEN*. In general, only simple things are "laws". Complex systems are *VERY* hard to outright "prove". Something that is proven means that a mathematical method has been determined to determine the truth or falseness of the theory, and the math shows that it is true.
A "hypothesis" is what science calls what common usage would consider a theory. A hypothesis is an educated guess. "String Theory" is actually more of a hypothesis than a theory, because we are not presently able to test it to any reasonable extent, and no direct evidence has been found.

Fact: Over the past few hundred years, the measured average temperatures worldwide have been rising.
Issue with fact: Until the past 50 years, these temperatures tended to only be measured in large cities.
Caveat: Over the past 50 years, the measurement methods have been consistent and widespread, including more than just cities, and average temperatures have been rising over the past 50 years. Yes, this is just "with the accuracy of our measurements", but it is consistent.
Conclusion: The average temperatures around the planet, as measured world-wide, averaged over the course of the entire year, are slowly increasing. It is a very small increase, but it is an increase nonetheless. This is well documented as a world-wide phenomenon for at least the past 50 years, with strong circumstantial evidence for a few hundred years before that.

Fact: Over the past few tens-of-thousands of years, CO2 levels fluctuated in a steady up-and-down pattern until the industrial revolution. This is known from ice core samples that can be dated to within a few centuries accuracy. Since the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been steadily increasing.
Obvious source: The combination of burning fossil fuels that we know release CO2 into the air along with mass deforestation in rain forests around the world.
Conclusion:

Claim: As many climate change deniers point out, the rise in CO2 levels is not a large change, percentage-wise.
Fact: The swings that have been measured historically range from a little less than 200 parts per million during ice ages to about 300 parts per million in warm cycles. The current measured value is just shy of 400 parts per million. A roughly 50% increase over the historical "warm cycles" amount. I consider 50% a large rise.
Implications: A rise in CO2, if that was the sole effect, wouldn't be the end of the world. Yes, the 'greenhouse effect' caused by CO2 would increase, causing the Earth to hold more solar energy in than it otherwise would, slightly increasing the average global temperature (see Fact/Conclusion #1.)

Claim: The changes in global climate are causing wild swings in weather. (Such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes.)
Fact: Uncertain. Many hypotheses by climatologists put forth that an increase in global temperature puts more energy into the global weather system, and that these swings are very probable outcomes. Many computer models match these hypothesis. At the present, though, we have no real way of directly testing this hypothesis, and the systems are too complex to model properly with current computers.
Conclusion: It is likely, based on what information we have and modeling we have done, that these swings could be a result of climate change; but not yet enough to be considered even a proper scientific theory.
Effect: Some models predict that there will be shifts in the "growing zones" in continents to become further from the equator. This could cause MASSIVE economic damage, and in some parts of the world, governmental collapse. (For example what happened to Ethiopia and Somalia from the droughts in the '80s on.)

Fact: If global average temperature continues to rise, the sea levels will rise.
Claim: If they rise enough, low-lying areas of the world on coastlines will become permanently flooded.
Conclusion: The exact amount of sea level rise is of course unknown. There are many different models. Nearly ALL have SOME level of sea level rise. In some, the rise is small enough to not cause serious problems. In some, the rise would be truly catastrophic to large portions of the world's population. We won't know until it happens, or we get more detailed computer models.



Summary: TL;DR. Yes, I believe that the climate of the Earth is changing in a manner that is not consistent with natural processes per historical record. I believe that the actions of humankind are directly responsible for this. I believe that, even if we are *NOT* responsible, it is better to assume that we are, and act accordingly, than to assume we are not, and do nothing. If we act as if we are, and it turns out we are not; then we have had a minor inconvenience. If we act like we are not, and it turns out we are; then we have just caused massive harm to our planet's ecosystem - and therefore to our own economy.

Note: To those who say "it's arrogant of us to think that we can change the climate of the planet, the planet will heal itself," I say "true - the planet WILL heal itself. However that "healing" may include making life as we know it impossible, causing mass extinctions, including of the human race. The planet doesn't need us - we need the planet."

Also, I find it interesting that a majority of those who make the "it's arrogant of us to think we can change the climate of the planet" statement also believe that the entire universe was created for the sole purpose of humanity to exist. Wouldn't that be an even more arrogant statement? (Even if it WAS created just for us, wouldn't that mean we have a DUTY to treat it well?)
 
China has 5 times more people then the USA. India has 3 times more people. Do you really think they have the same regulations, As we do here?

China already has car emissions standards that are higher than those that were defeated by Congress last year.

They don't OBEY them, mind you, but they're there.

And China was willing to sign global treaties that would have mandated that they reduce their CO2 emissions, if the US had agreed to do the same percent-per-person cut. We did not.
 

tuts40

New member
I have yet to see some double-blind research that was run over the course of say the last thousand years or so and is NOT relying on computer simulations, in other words actual hard DATA and not theories on the matter. Nobody has that? Right, that's what we scientists call a THEORY. Stop treating it like it's a fact that you can actually prove.

This is the kind of stuff I enjoy looking at, maybe you can read it over: 7(x) Earth's Climatic History

Incidentally, it is impossible to do a double-blind study of something in the past, never mind that noting atmospheric conditions does not lend to any "double blind" protocol. There is no need to keep conditions "blind" (protected against bias) when simply writing down the atmospheric conditions present at any given time. ...Why do I get sucked into deese silly tings, yo?
 

wooddoctor

New member
Bedwetter with nothing to say but feely meely BS. So tell me old wise one, pomp ass what is the optimum tempeture of the earth. Who died and made you God.
 

tuts40

New member
China already has car emissions standards that are higher than those that were defeated by Congress last year.

They don't OBEY them, mind you, but they're there.

And China was willing to sign global treaties that would have mandated that they reduce their CO2 emissions, if the US had agreed to do the same percent-per-person cut. We did not.

Just one of many sources I found, this one from the beloved New York Times: China - Pollution - Environment - New York Times China must be choking in it's own pollution and huge, huge "carbon footprint".

And why wouldn't China sign any agreement if they, as you say, won't follow it anyway? We of course would hold ourselves to it and they know it, and we would bear the short term and long term costs and limitations becomming even more hamstrung trying to compete with $4.00/day slave labor in China as they ignore (laughingly) the agreements we all "agreed" to. Of course we refused, and we are becomming more and more "green" anyway.

That reminds me, I wonder how much the Chicomm's donated, under the table or otherwise, to the Dem's election and now reelections. Heaven knows the Chinese and any other entity that wants us to be weaker will try to keep what's currently going on to keep going on.
 

wooddoctor

New member
I could only imagine the beat down I'd get if I acted like that!

I'm ready for another spanking.

I just amazes me that most people bought into this scheme of global warming, when they can't even tell you what the ideal temperature of the earth should be. The communist in the Demacrat party invented global warmIng to control the sheep. Gore invented the Internet now he invented global warming, now it carbon foot prints, what will be his next invention?
The Republicans want to kill babies and take away Medicare and Medicaid, and now they want to take away social
security. Why do all the whackos seam to find a home and nest in the Communist/demarcate party? The Looters and the moochers make a good team. Those evil rich people...let's make them feel guilty so they give up their unearned wealth. Let's indoctrinate young mushy minds and convince them that capitalism is evil,so we will call ourse
lves environmentalist wackos.

Let's spend another 500 million of the tax payers money on another solar gate. Plead the fith so the pig doesn't get impeached.
 

BC1

,
China already has car emissions standards that are higher than those that were defeated by Congress last year.

They don't OBEY them, mind you, but they're there.

And China was willing to sign global treaties that would have mandated that they reduce their CO2 emissions, if the US had agreed to do the same percent-per-person cut. We did not.
From the New York Times...

But just as the speed and scale of China’s rise as an economic power have no clear parallel in history, so its pollution problem has shattered all precedents. Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.

Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,688
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top