Global Warming

[dr_sinister1001]

Is anyone concerned? I sure am.

The US remains a signatory to the Kyoto protocol in 'spirit' only and refuses to ratify the treaty on purely economic grounds. China and India who are other large producers of greenhouse gasses are entirely exempt, so their greenhouse gas emission goes unchecked; who can blame them right? Every country has the right to develop, but at what cost? Climate change is a very real concern and I think that much is obvious by now.

So the dilemma is what is more of a priority, economic progress or the environment? As humans we seem wait for our problems to blow up in our faces till we start to really do anything about it.

Should the United States ratify the Kyoto protocol?

Should India and China be pressured to reduce their greenhouse emission?

:idea:

[SharpenedMango]

India and china shouldnt be pressured to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions at all..
i believe that every man has the right to the same amount of pollution lol...
therefore, those two countries are entitled to 33 percent of emissions..
the usa on the other hand produces over 25percent of CO2 emissions and has around 5 percent of the population-- they're the ones who need to get their house in order!

[Ketamine-Abuse]

Russia are a little bit didgy as well.

[Areez_UK_HUSTLER]

I'd personally go staright after the Americans.............. I havent checked the exact stats, but i sure as hell know that if any country, they're the most responsible in the world for the amount of pollution the US as a country and a nations produce...............It's got to be more than any other country in the world.............

check out the population........the number of cars on the street, number of industries, and amount of toxity around in the US>................. yet didnt the Kyoto agreement fall apart because of the US's lack of dedication to the program?!?!?!

[aspaan]

you do realise global warming due to man made emmissions is juts a bunch of hippie generated bull shit

it is part of the natural cycle of earth

[chakdephute]

you do realise global warming due to man made emmissions is juts a bunch of hippie generated bull shit

it is part of the natural cycle of earth

right...i've read somewhere that the human effects of greenhouse emissions account for only 2%...that is only 2% of the total amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is attributable to direct human influence.

the biggest thing we have to worry about is the inevitable temperature increase so that methane stores in the ocean floors get released, accelerating natural greenhouse emissions exponentially.

lemme post back the link for that 2% claim...i've used it for a research article once before so i'm sure i can find it...

[Space-Cowboy]

you do realise global warming due to man made emmissions is juts a bunch of hippie generated bull shit

it is part of the natural cycle of earth


It is said that in the 18th and 19th century there was actually MORE carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to all the coal burning of the early industrial age. Yet, it is also said that the average temperatures were somewhat cooler than they are now.

[aspaan]

I would like ppl to read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

and then this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm

so now less pollution and clearer sky is increasing global warming. Why cant these Scientists get their shit straight

[dr_sinister1001]

I would like ppl to read this

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

and then this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4880328.stm

so now less pollution and clearer sky is increasing global warming. Why cant these Scientists get their shit straight

Actually that's global dimming, caused by other particulate matter that's in the atmosphere, like sulfur and nitrate compounds that are NOT greenhouse gasses and don't contribute to warming. This is actually the reason that we haven't been feeling the full effect of the greenhouse gas emission. Your reasoning is pretty vague,

We shouldn’t complain about pollution in general because it’s delaying the real problem, which is caused by pollution anyway? LoLz, As intelligent as that path of logical deduction maybe.

1stly, you didn't bother to look at what type of pollutant has what effect on the Earth. Global dimming has been keeping global warming at bay, but that doesn't mean that these pollutants are benign.

2ndly, continuing to pollute the air with particulate matter may increase the dimming effect but will also make the air unbreathable.

The real solution is to curtail both particulate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, because regardless of what you've heard this accelerated climate change we're experiencing is human induced. Recent Ice core samples reveal that to be true, we have records of global CO2 concentrations from before and after the industrial revolution and there is a marked increase.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

right...i've read somewhere that the human effects of greenhouse emissions account for only 2%...that is only 2% of the total amount of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere is attributable to direct human influence.

the biggest thing we have to worry about is the inevitable temperature increase so that methane stores in the ocean floors get released, accelerating natural greenhouse emissions exponentially.

lemme post back the link for that 2% claim...i've used it for a research article once before so i'm sure i can find it...

You know the human contribution to the total amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere doesn't have to be in the majority, just enough to induce warming of a few degrees over a relatively short time scale and it will be disastrous. So even if it is a 2% contribution (which I disagree with, it's much more, and I'd love to read this 'article') we're still tipping the scales.

:idea:

[aspaan]

Actually that's global dimming, caused by other particulate matter that's in the atmosphere, like sulfur and nitrate compounds that are NOT greenhouse gasses and don't contribute to warming. This is actually the reason that we haven't been feeling the full effect of the greenhouse gas emission. You reasoning is pretty vague,

We shouldn’t complain about pollution in general because it’s delaying the real problem, which is caused by pollution anyway? LoLz, As intelligent as that path of logical deduction maybe.

1stly, you didn't bother to look at what type of pollutant has what effect on the Earth. Global dimming has been keeping global warming at bay, but that doesn't mean that these pollutants are benign.

2ndly, continuing to pollute the air with particulate matter may increase the dimming effect but will also make the air unbreathable.

The real solution is to curtail both particulate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, because regardless of what you've heard this accelerated climate change we're experiencing is human induced. Recent Ice core samples reveal that to be true, we have records of global CO2 concentrations from before and after the industrial revolution and there is a marked increase.

:idea:

I had never ever head of global dimming.

anyway how do you explain this section

In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the 28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998 constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between 1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were increasing at their greatest rate.

Does something not strike you as odd here? That industrial carbon dioxide is not the primary cause of earth's recent decadal-scale temperature changes doesn't seem at all odd to many thousands of independent scientists. They have long appreciated - ever since the early 1990s, when the global warming bandwagon first started to roll behind the gravy train of the UN Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - that such short-term climate fluctuations are chiefly of natural origin. Yet the public appears to be largely convinced otherwise. How is this possible?

[dr_sinister1001]

I had never ever head of global dimming.

anyway how do you explain this section

The global dimming was talked about in your 2nd article, how could you have missed it?

And the cooling effects we've experienced can be explained by global dimming. In periods of high industrial activity, greenhouse gasses aren't the only pollutants being put into the atmosphere, other particulate matter is getting up there too, and these pollutants block the sun's radiation or form clouds which also have a blocking effect. A lot of the cooling comes from Air Traffic, airplane contrails pretty much cover the skies above large cities, this is why the real effect of global warming has been masked, in actuality the temperature difference is much higher but we only observe a marginal difference because we're still polluting. But we're starting to get cleaner and more eco-friendly, but developing nations and the energy industry are still reliant on old greenhouse gas producing energy so as we reduce the amount of particulate matter in the atmosphere the global dimming reduces but the warming will still increase, basically we're fucked. Unless we start to make some serious changes.

:idea:

[Space-Cowboy]

It most probably won't happen any time soon: If you take for example the latest hybrid [and other non-petroleum reliant] cars that are designed/developed... they are generally bought out by Oil conglomerates and then destroyed... $$$ is the bottom line.

In terms of developing nations, the technology isn't readily available.... and/or the infrastructure is just too expensive to adapt.


And so energy conglomerates won't be readily willing to drop the dimes to make the changes. Corporate Social Responsibility is still a very new concept.



P.S. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie Corporations.

[RacingSoul]

China and India who are other large producers of greenhouse gasses are entirely exempt, so their greenhouse gas emission goes unchecked; who can blame them right?

Should India and China be pressured to reduce their greenhouse emission?

:idea:

the idea behind that is "differentiated responsibility of nations" which basically means that all nations must bear responsibility for dealing with global environmental problems, but different nations hav different capacities & resources with which to respond to these problems. now china & india r large greenhouse gas producers no doubt abt that, but they're not the largest...that spot still goes to the US & sum not all european nations. it's not that china & india dont take it seriously but it's their national growth that's a priority to them, so they only put that amount of effort into elimination of environmental problems that ensures minimal GHG emissions w/o hampering their economic growth...it's like a curve that keeps growing when a country is developing real fast but levels off once they're fully developed...when this happens to india & china i'm sure they'll b putting in a lot more effort but dont b expecting that anytime soon.

PS: envrironmental science is my minor at uni.

[Space-Cowboy]

the idea behind that is "differentiated responsibility of nations" which basically means that all nations must bear responsibility for dealing with global environmental problems, but different nations hav different capacities & resources with which to respond to these problems. now china & india r large greenhouse gas producers no doubt abt that, but they're not the largest...that spot still goes to the US & sum not all european nations. it's not that china & india dont take it seriously but it's their national growth that's a priority to them, so they only put that amount of effort into elimination of environmental problems that ensures minimal GHG emissions w/o hampering their economic growth...it's like a curve that keeps growing when a country is developing real fast but levels off once they're fully developed...when this happens to india & china i'm sure they'll b putting in a lot more effort but dont b expecting that anytime soon.

PS: envrironmental science is my minor at uni.


Exactly, in 3rd world nations and developing nations, environment always takes a backseat to economy.

[Accounting/Economics major].

[dr_sinister1001]

the idea behind that is "differentiated responsibility of nations" which basically means that all nations must bear responsibility for dealing with global environmental problems, but different nations hav different capacities & resources with which to respond to these problems. now china & india r large greenhouse gas producers no doubt abt that, but they're not the largest...that spot still goes to the US & sum not all european nations. it's not that china & india dont take it seriously but it's their national growth that's a priority to them, so they only put that amount of effort into elimination of environmental problems that ensures minimal GHG emissions w/o hampering their economic growth...it's like a curve that keeps growing when a country is developing real fast but levels off once they're fully developed...when this happens to india & china i'm sure they'll b putting in a lot more effort but dont b expecting that anytime soon.

PS: envrironmental science is my minor at uni.


Right, the EU and North America are still producing more greenhouse gasses per-capita, so they definitely have a responsibility to curb their emissions. But climate change is blind to politics, the only thing that matters is the volume of greenhouse gasses. The fact is India and China are large producers of greenhouse gasses and I think the responsibility is in the west, to help them switch to cleaner energy, i.e. nuclear power, hydro, wind etc. But ignoring the problem just because these nations are developing is like suicide, with the type of economic boom India and China is experiencing, especially China, by the middle of this century if left unchecked their greenhouse emissions will sky rocket and then we'll really be fucked.

:idea:

ps. I'm a recreational management major =)

[RacingSoul]

Right, the EU and North America are still producing more greenhouse gasses per-capita, so they definitely have a responsibility to curb their emissions. But climate change is blind to politics, the only thing that matters is the volume of greenhouse gasses. The fact is India and China are large producers of greenhouse gasses and I think the responsibility is in the west, to help them switch to cleaner energy, i.e. nuclear power, hydro, wind etc. But ignoring the problem just because these nations are developing is like suicide, with the type of economic boom India and China is experiencing, especially China, by the middle of this century if left unchecked their greenhouse emissions will sky rocket and then we'll really be fucked.

:idea:

ps. I'm a recreational management major =)

i dont kno abt china but india already has started using alternative energy sources like compressed natural gas for public transit & taxis...they also use gas that is 5% ethanol so it releases less greenhouse gases, it's mandatory over there (NOW :rolleyes: ) for vehicles to undergo "honest" pollution checks...but if u look at china they dont give a shyt abt these problems, their economy comes first to them which is solely based on cheap quality products produced in such high quantity that most of'em r jus wasted adding to the already existing pollution there...u cant say that abt india, indians care abt the quality of stuff they make so they're more sensible. the transition is happening but it'll take a long time before u start to see its effects.

PS: i was pretty good at chemistry until i got to uni :ashamed:

[paulie walnuts]

if the westerners want to bankroll the process, then who are china and india to object? if whitey wants to pay for civilian nuke tech, wind parks, etc. and provide all their high-efficiency technologies for fossil fuel usage, then they've got every right to ask china and india to cooperate. but simply suppressing chinese and indian growth directly incurs human cost, and is clearly not an option. these are the last people on earth obligated to take one for the team.

[Alright De$i]

Nothing you can do to stop global warming, it's way too late. Cutting carbon emissions won't stop a thing. Fact : ''we're 3 degrees away from destruction'' - channel 4 documentary claims.

All I say, is we're all gonna die. Oh well, I'll be in the same boat as everyone else, as bush at least.

[notoriou$punjabi]

i feel guilty whenever i push the gas pedal

[Pompeii]

Is anyone concerned? I sure am.

The US remains a signatory to the Kyoto protocol in 'spirit' only and refuses to ratify the treaty on purely economic grounds. China and India who are other large producers of greenhouse gasses are entirely exempt, so their greenhouse gas emission goes unchecked; who can blame them right? Every country has the right to develop, but at what cost? Climate change is a very real concern and I think that much is obvious by now.

So the dilemma is what is more of a priority, economic progress or the environment? As humans we seem wait for our problems to blow up in our faces till we start to really do anything about it.

Should the United States ratify the Kyoto protocol?

Should India and China be pressured to reduce their greenhouse emission?

:idea:

Here'e a quick summary, from me, of an article I was reading on the very same issue.

The Kyoto Protocol is probably the most bitterly contested international treaty ever to be realised, its modest goals appear strange and the two main reasons for this being economics and politics. The treaty marks a great divide, on one side of which stand those who are certain it is essential to earth’s survival and on the other those who are opposed on economic and ideological grounds. Perhaps the most damning criticism of Kyoto is that it is a toothless tiger. And that is indisputably true, for the momentum of climate change is now so great that Kyoto’s target of reducing C02 emissions by 5 odd per cent is little more than irrelevant don’t you think?

If we are to stabilise our climate, Kyoto’s targets need to be strengthened by 2050 or so and at least cuts of 70% are required to keep atmospheric CO2 at double the pre-industrial level. Another prominent concern is that the Protocol’s carbon budget for participating countries, the situation becomes more complex when the economies of the nations are taken into account. Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse emissions of any industrialised country, 25% higher than the US when all sources are accounted for. Australia’s growth in emissions over the last decade has been faster than any other oecd country. 90% of Australia’s electricity is generated by burning coal, this is a matter of choice rather than necessity. Those who put self betterment before the preservation of natural systems are dammed fools.

One possible method of reducing CO2 emissions is a massive expansion in the world’s nuclear energy programs. I mean nuclear power already provides 20% or so of the worlds electricity and that’s with no CO2 emissions. Having said that there are a few problems with this method and that is safety, disposal of waste and bombs. Imagine living in a world where everybody has a couple of nuclear bombs lying around.

Nuclear power could play a prominent role in averting climate change disaster. China & India are probably going to pursue the nuclear option, for there is currently no inexpensive, large-scale alternative available to them. Both nations already have nuclear weapons programs, so the risk of proliferation is not great but any major expansion of nuclear power will depend upon the viability of new safer reactors.

[dr_sinister1001]

Here'e a quick summary, from me, of an article I was reading on the very same issue.

The Kyoto Protocol is probably the most bitterly contested international treaty ever to be realised, its modest goals appear strange and the two main reasons for this being economics and politics. The treaty marks a great divide, on one side of which stand those who are certain it is essential to earth’s survival and on the other those who are opposed on economic and ideological grounds. Perhaps the most damning criticism of Kyoto is that it is a toothless tiger. And that is indisputably true, for the momentum of climate change is now so great that Kyoto’s target of reducing C02 emissions by 5 odd per cent is little more than irrelevant don’t you think?

If we are to stabilise our climate, Kyoto’s targets need to be strengthened by 2050 or so and at least cuts of 70% are required to keep atmospheric CO2 at double the pre-industrial level. Another prominent concern is that the Protocol’s carbon budget for participating countries, the situation becomes more complex when the economies of the nations are taken into account. Australia has the highest per capita greenhouse emissions of any industrialised country, 25% higher than the US when all sources are accounted for. Australia’s growth in emissions over the last decade has been faster than any other oecd country. 90% of Australia’s electricity is generated by burning coal, this is a matter of choice rather than necessity. Those who put self betterment before the preservation of natural systems are dammed fools.

One possible method of reducing CO2 emissions is a massive expansion in the world’s nuclear energy programs. I mean nuclear power already provides 20% or so of the worlds electricity and that’s with no CO2 emissions. Having said that there are a few problems with this method and that is safety, disposal of waste and bombs. Imagine living in a world where everybody has a couple of nuclear bombs lying around.

Nuclear power could play a prominent role in averting climate change disaster. China & India are probably going to pursue the nuclear option, for there is currently no inexpensive, large-scale alternative available to them. Both nations already have nuclear weapons programs, so the risk of proliferation is not great but any major expansion of nuclear power will depend upon the viability of new safer reactors.

I'm down with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by as much as is required to halt global warming regardless of economic considerations. It's true that the Kyoto protocol may not be enough, but it's a start.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

Global warming is an extinction level event and how we deal with it now will probably be the deciding factor on whether the human race will still exist in the next century.

:idea:

[Felonius Monk]

I'm down with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by as much as is required to halt global warming regardless of economic considerations. It's true that the Kyoto protocol may not be enough, but it's a start.

:idea:
The Kyoto protocol is actually far from enough. It wont make a susbstantial difference in emissions in absolute terms. Its value is largely symbolic - and i don't mean to play it down. Even the symbolic value is huge. Once the committment to do 'something' is made... the next step of doing more will come naturally.

[Felonius Monk]

edit: fack. misread the post.

[Space-Cowboy]

Global warming is an extinction level event and how we deal with it now will probably be the deciding factor on whether the human race will still exist in the next century.

:idea:


Over-dramatic much? :rolleyes:



We'll survive.

[..::Bobby::..]

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the last 650,000 years.

According the the BBC.

[..::Bobby::..]

Over-dramatic much? :rolleyes:



We'll survive.


You're one incredibly stupid person. There could be irreversible effects. Obviously you're totally oblivious to that fact that nature sustains is self in a nice equilibrium and we humans go and fuck with that. I don't know where you get your information from. But Global warming is a serious issue. We have some really extreme conditions taking place all around the world. We really need to make a change.

[kohli_sahib]

You're one incredibly stupid person. There could be irreversible effects. Obviously you're totally oblivious to that fact that nature sustains is self in a nice equilibrium and we humans go and fuck with that. I don't know where you get your information from. But Global warming is a serious issue. We have some really extreme conditions taking place all around the world. We really need to make a change.

ok there greenpeace. calm down a little bit. no need to insult the guy.

[Space-Cowboy]

You're one incredibly stupid person. There could be irreversible effects. Obviously you're totally oblivious to that fact that nature sustains is self in a nice equilibrium and we humans go and fuck with that. I don't know where you get your information from. But Global warming is a serious issue. We have some really extreme conditions taking place all around the world. We really need to make a change.


Thanks for the CNN update, shithead.
I didn't say it wasn't a serious issue, I just said, it's not gonna destroy the human race by the next century. Now, get your mouth of my cock.





I swear, there should be a minimum IQ test to be allowed to post in the SD forums......

[EwLookItsYou]

Is anyone concerned? I sure am.

The US remains a signatory to the Kyoto protocol in 'spirit' only and refuses to ratify the treaty on purely economic grounds. China and India who are other large producers of greenhouse gasses are entirely exempt, so their greenhouse gas emission goes unchecked; who can blame them right? Every country has the right to develop, but at what cost? Climate change is a very real concern and I think that much is obvious by now.

So the dilemma is what is more of a priority, economic progress or the environment? As humans we seem wait for our problems to blow up in our faces till we start to really do anything about it.

Should the United States ratify the Kyoto protocol?

Should India and China be pressured to reduce their greenhouse emission?

:idea:

India and China may be different countries but we all live on Earth and fuck economic "benefits" because its not as important as taking care of the environment.. We are way past due in taking care of pollution and chemical by-products. If higher authorities like the government don't start shaping up in this issue then the rest of the country won't.. sure there are activists and environmentalists, but we need our countries to invest money in the environment. If the US refuses to ratify the Kyoto protocol.. that's stupid because even that isn't enough and if the US won't even do that...
Its really fucked how economy seems to take priority over health and environment..
Its also messed up how we let things build up and then let the generations after us clean up the mess, except this is not something they can clean up, this is something that has to start now to prevent things from going wrong inthe future.
But thast why so many kids over here have autism and stuff.. chemicals aren't being used for good, its being used for profit regardless of the effects. but thats another issue

[Canadian_jatti]

every country should be a part of it and its really jus for the future generations becuz we wont be seein huge effects of it in our lifetime

[bigkid]

Nothing you can do to stop global warming, it's way too late. Cutting carbon emissions won't stop a thing. Fact : ''we're 3 degrees away from destruction'' - channel 4 documentary claims.

All I say, is we're all gonna die. Oh well, I'll be in the same boat as everyone else, as bush at least.

Thats why all the TLC and History Discovery channels talk about terraforming mars to make the planet habitable, i say its never too late to make a change.

Definitely not a waste of time or effort to prevent pollution.

[Pompeii]

I'm down with reducing greenhouse gas emissions by as much as is required to halt global warming regardless of economic considerations. It's true that the Kyoto protocol may not be enough, but it's a start.

:idea:


I agree Kyoto is definitely a start but realistically the two major contributors to the CO2 emissions, America & Australia, won’t even ratify to the current Kyoto targets because of prohibitive costs. They believe, I can understand why, that a strong economy offers the best insurance against all future shocks, & both obviously are hesitant to do anything that might slow economic growth. Ratification would also mean a drop in wage growth and a phenomenal increase in domestic energy costs, just to name a few effect.

[xplosion]

i got an exam on this tommorow, kyoto protocol!!!! serious issue or not, i'm can swim so its all gud

[dr_sinister1001]

I agree Kyoto is definitely a start but realistically the two major contributors to the CO2 emissions, America & Australia, won’t even ratify to the current Kyoto targets because of prohibitive costs. They believe, I can understand why, that a strong economy offers the best insurance against all future shocks, & both obviously are hesitant to do anything that might slow economic growth. Ratification would also mean a drop in wage growth and a phenomenal increase in domestic energy costs, just to name a few effect.

Emission control is good economics. Climate change is real, but right now industry perceives it as an external cost. Internalizing the externality is the solution, that's like economics 101.

:idea:

[Tigr]

For every scientist that is screaming global warming, I can find one who says that it's not happening and we are actually in a cooling phase.

Global warming Scientist give data of rising temperature in big cities...sure the local temperature is rising because of concrete jungle, and just due to the fact that there are more people in big cities...but just look at the temperature graph of Albany and its decreasing. Carbon dioxide contributes in a miniscule way to global warming, and scientist cannot even agree if the levels have increased. What contributes mor eto global warming is methane and water vapor....methane being produced by cows and pigs.

Global Warming reminded me of the fiasco the environmentalist created when they banned DDT. Malaria was almost eradicated from the world....but environmentalist created a hullaboo that it was the worst thing for you. Malaria came back after the banning of DDT...and has killed millions of human beings since the DDT Ban. It turns out DDT has a better safety profile than the insecticide used currently, and the original study on DDT was faulty. In essence the environmentalist killed off million people.

There is an excellent book by a very reputed writer on this Global Warming hysteria being created. Michael Creighton's 'State of Fear.' Its a very well researched book. I suggest you all read it before you go shouting for measures that will destroy US economy and not cause a bit of difference.

[dr_sinister1001]

For every scientist that is screaming global warming, I can find one who says that it's not happening and we are actually in a cooling phase.

Global warming Scientist give data of rising temperature in big cities...sure the local temperature is rising because of concrete jungle, and just due to the fact that there are more people in big cities...but just look at the temperature graph of Albany and its decreasing. Carbon dioxide contributes in a miniscule way to global warming, and scientist cannot even agree if the levels have increased. What contributes mor eto global warming is methane and water vapor....methane being produced by cows and pigs.

Global Warming reminded me of the fiasco the environmentalist created when they banned DDT. Malaria was almost eradicated from the world....but environmentalist created a hullaboo that it was the worst thing for you. Malaria came back after the banning of DDT...and has killed millions of human beings since the DDT Ban. It turns out DDT has a better safety profile than the insecticide used currently, and the original study on DDT was faulty. In essence the environmentalist killed off million people.

There is an excellent book by a very reputed writer on this Global Warming hysteria being created. Michael Creighton's 'State of Fear.' Its a very well researched book. I suggest you all read it before you go shouting for measures that will destroy US economy and not cause a bit of difference.

Are you kidding me? You won’t find anyone who will claim that climate change isn't a reality... Also no self-respecting atmospheric chemist will claim that the average global temperature isn't rising. The only debate is if that the climate change is anthroprogenic or natural, but all the new data published since 2001 points to an anthroprogenic escalation of a natural climate cycle.

2ndly, anyone that claims that atmospheric CO2 has little to no effect on global temperature is fucking retarded. Lab science aside, there is a library of field evidence that points to high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gasses equating with higher global temperatures.

3rdly, if you think banning DDT was a bad idea you're a fucking moron.

:idea:

[Tigr]

Are you kidding me? You won’t find anyone that will claim that climate change isn't a reality... Also no self-respecting atmosphere chemist will claim that the average global temperature isn't rising. The only debate is if that the climate change is anthroprogenic or natural, but all the new data published since 2001 points to an anthroprogenic escalation of a natural climate cycle.

OK Moron...
Earth has never been in a state where the climate has remained in a status quo. Just 10,000 years ago we were in an Ice Age. There are so many factors that contribute to climate change, that 0.08ppm increase in C02 has no relevancy as how it can affect climate when other factors including sun activity, earth orbit etc etc affect the climate by a considerable more amount. The greenland ice sheet is actually growing ( Timothy Cook..University of chicago..Einarson Porleifur " Geology of Iceland (professor at University of Iceland)).

Some reputable people that support my view...
IPCC study by Cambridge University, Paper by James Chandler, Arnold Davidson (University of Chicago), Titled "Question of Evidence." Francis Drake, "Science of Climate change" Oxford University. Allan Freeze, University of California Berkeley "Environmental Pendulum"
...I can fit 40 pages of references



2ndly, anyone that claims that atmospheric CO2 has little to no effect on global temperature is fucking retarded. Lab science aside, there is a library of field evidence that points to high concentrations of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gasses equating with higher global temperatures.



I can find a library of field evidence that finds that 0.08 ppm of CO2 in atmosphere will have absolutely no effect that can be measurable


3rdly, if you think banning DDT was a bad idea you're a fucking moron.


I guess you must be a bigger moron for thinking that Pyrethrins, bendiocarb or other insecticide is a better alternative even though these chemicals have a lot worse safety profile than DDT. DDT was a very safe chemical compared to what's out there today in the market. Even Dr Linus Pauling and Dr. Art Robinson had this to say about DDT in an article...

"Rachel Carson wrote a "novel," not a scientific study subject to peer review, but a novel, called Silent Spring. Fear spread across the face of this land -- I could see this as I read articles, journals, editorial comments, and ads in the New York Times suggesting mothers were poisoning their nursing children with DDT-tainted breast milk. DDT was allowed, a very slight amount, even in baby food.

"Whipped into a frenzy by Rachel Carson's book, fearing cancer, people were in effect fearing the unknown. After Earth Day in 1970, it was clear to politicians that the public was demanding getting rid of the most innocuous of chemicals -- DDT. It was legally banned in 1972 by people who knew better at the time -- people who were "supposed to know." People who said they were protecting us and wildlife. Were they? Did they?

It took us what has seemed like forever to wade through the junk science held up to be valid, to get to the hard peer-reviewed data. There have been literally thousands of studies of every possible aspect of DDT. What peer-reviewed, replicated scientific data supports the ban on DDT? None."

[dr_sinister1001]

OK Moron...
Earth has never been in a state where the climate has remained in a status quo. Just 10,000 years ago we were in an Ice Age. There are so many factors that contribute to climate change, that 0.08ppm increase in C02 has no relevancy as how it can affect climate when other factors including sun activity, earth orbit etc etc affect the climate by a considerable more amount. The greenland ice sheet is actually growing ( Timothy Cook..University of chicago..Einarson Porleifur " Geology of Iceland (professor at University of Iceland)).


Some reputable people that support my view...
IPCC study by Cambridge University, Paper by James Chandler, Arnold Davidson (University of Chicago), Titled "Question of Evidence." Francis Drake, "Science of Climate change" Oxford University. Allan Freeze, University of California Berkeley "Environmental Pendulum"
...I can fit 40 pages of references





I can find a library of field evidence that finds that 0.08 ppm of CO2 in atmosphere will have absolutely no effect that can be measurable



I guess you must be a bigger moron for thinking that Pyrethrins, bendiocarb or other insecticide is a better alternative even though these chemicals have a lot worse safety profile than DDT. DDT was a very safe chemical compared to what's out there today in the market. Even Dr Linus Pauling and Dr. Art Robinson had this to say about DDT in an article...

"Rachel Carson wrote a "novel," not a scientific study subject to peer review, but a novel, called Silent Spring. Fear spread across the face of this land -- I could see this as I read articles, journals, editorial comments, and ads in the New York Times suggesting mothers were poisoning their nursing children with DDT-tainted breast milk. DDT was allowed, a very slight amount, even in baby food.

"Whipped into a frenzy by Rachel Carson's book, fearing cancer, people were in effect fearing the unknown. After Earth Day in 1970, it was clear to politicians that the public was demanding getting rid of the most innocuous of chemicals -- DDT. It was legally banned in 1972 by people who knew better at the time -- people who were "supposed to know." People who said they were protecting us and wildlife. Were they? Did they?

It took us what has seemed like forever to wade through the junk science held up to be valid, to get to the hard peer-reviewed data. There have been literally thousands of studies of every possible aspect of DDT. What peer-reviewed, replicated scientific data supports the ban on DDT? None."

- No one has said that the earth's climate is static... So I don't know what you're talking about there.

- Actually atmospheric CO2 is closer 300 - 400 ppm by volume not 8ppm, also CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas that is anthroprogenically produced.

- And the Greenland ice sheets are not melting... Seriously I don't know where you get your facts from...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm

- There is no field evidence that points towards atmospheric CO2 being negligible to global climate change, quit with the bullshit... it's one thing to spew conservative talking points, but to lie is just fucking shameful, stop.

- And there are scores of Journals that have been published on the toxicity of DDT and its metabolites and we can clearly see the effect of DDT after its ban...

I mean honestly, who are you? Satan's messenger boy? Ignore climate change... Lift the bann on DDT, what's next?

:idea:

[Tigr]

- No one has said that the earth's climate is static... So I don't know what you're talking about there.

- Actually atmospheric CO2 is closer 300 - 400 ppm by volume not 8ppm, also CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas that is anthroprogenically produced.



Read what i wrote. The increase in C02 concentration at the most is around 8 ppm.

-
- And the Greenland ice sheets are not melting... Seriously I don't know where you get your facts from...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.stm


BBC is one of the most Liberal media, and will publish distort any news that agrees with its agenda. If you read the article carefully, the study which it refers to has only started, and those are just some 'preliminary measurementss' by some quack. I would rather believe University of Chicago's scientist data over this...a place that's independent of any political bias and home of Milton Friedman.

-
- There is no field evidence that points towards atmospheric CO2 being negligible to global climate change, quit with the bullshit... it's one thing to spew conservative talking points, but to lie is just fucking shameful, stop.


That's the best you can do. If you have any basic understanding of statistics, it would be plain to you that any changes caused by an increase in 0.08 ppm of C02 are negligible to measure. Heck, water vapor is a 10's of times worse greenhouse gas than c02. The worst greenhouse gas in atmosphere in any quantity is methane...and cows are the biggest polluters. So lets ban all the cows.

-
- And there are scores of Journals that have been published on the toxicity of DDT and its metabolites and we can clearly see the effect of DDT after its ban...


:idea:

Yes..and its safety profile is not any worse than any pesticide or herbicide in the market today. The only effects after its ban has been that hundreds and thousands of people have been killed from diseases it would have eradicated by its use.

Are you stupid or just brainwashed?

[dr_sinister1001]

Read what i wrote. The increase in C02 concentration at the most is around 8 ppm.


BBC is one of the most Liberal media, and will publish distort any news that agrees with its agenda. If you read the article carefully, the study which it refers to has only started, and those are just some 'preliminary measurementss' by some quack. I would rather believe University of Chicago's scientist data over this...a place that's independent of any political bias and home of Milton Friedman.



That's the best you can do. If you have any basic understanding of statistics, it would be plain to you that any changes caused by an increase in 0.08 ppm of C02 are negligible to measure. Heck, water vapor is a 10's of times worse greenhouse gas than c02. The worst greenhouse gas in atmosphere in any quantity is methane...and cows are the biggest polluters. So lets ban all the cows.



Yes..and its safety profile is not any worse than any pesticide or herbicide in the market today. The only effects after its ban has been that hundreds and thousands of people have been killed from diseases it would have eradicated by its use.

Are you stupid or just brainwashed?
- Actually CO2 concentrations have gone up 100 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution, not just 8ppm...

Here's an article on a study done by Noaa, which confirms that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm

- As for the melting of the Greenland ice sheets, you'd be out of your mind to denounce that fact.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40429000/jpg/_40429071_sat_image203.jpg

NASA was behind the study, not some 'quack' and these findings are preliminary they're 20 years in the making, you fucking moron.

Heck, water vapor is a 10's of times worse greenhouse gas than c02. The worst greenhouse gas in atmosphere in any quantity is methane...and cows are the biggest polluters. So lets ban all the cows.

- Well now it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about...

Water vapor maybe may account for a large portion of the greenhouse effect, but it is a feedback molecule that dissipates... it is not a contributor to climate change. CO2 accounts for the next large portion of the greenhouse effect but it takes decades even centuries to dissipate so it has a forcing effect as opposed to a feedback effect. Also methane while a more absorbent greenhouse gas is not nearly as forcing as the atmospheric CO2. These gasses don't have an additive effect, some screen others CH4 is not nearly as dense as CO2, which is in a position to absorb far more radiation than CH4. The problem with people like you is that you've never picked up a science book in your life yet you like to spout off the random rhetoric you read somewhere like you know what you're talking about.

So ask yourself... who’s the stupid brainwashed imbecile here?

:idea:

[Cunard]

question.........would environmentalists let me drive my hemi?

[chakdephute]

question.........would environmentalists let me drive my hemi?

just run 'em over, you run us all little coupe drivers off the road anyway, so why not them...

run over PETA as well :p

[Cunard]

just run 'em over, you run us all little coupe drivers off the road anyway, so why not them...

run over PETA as well :p

i drove a SMART car off the road the other day :rofl:.....i didnt let him merge into traffic cause i didnt want to switch lanes and drive in the left lane with all the puddles....had just washed my truck :lol:

[Tigr]

- Actually CO2 concentrations have gone up 100 ppm since the beginning of the industrial revolution, not just 8ppm...

Here's an article on a study done by Noaa, which confirms that.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm

- As for the melting of the Greenland ice sheets, you'd be out of your mind to denounce that fact.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40429000/jpg/_40429071_sat_image203.jpg

NASA was behind the study, not some 'quack' and these findings are preliminary they're 20 years in the making, you fucking moron.



- Well now it's apparent you don't know what you're talking about...

Water vapor maybe may account for a large portion of the greenhouse effect, but it is a feedback molecule that dissipates... it is not a contributor to climate change. CO2 accounts for the next large portion of the greenhouse effect but it takes decades even centuries to dissipate so it has a forcing effect as opposed to a feedback effect. Also methane while a more absorbent greenhouse gas is not nearly as forcing as the atmospheric CO2. These gasses don't have an additive effect, some screen others CH4 is not nearly as dense as CO2, which is in a position to absorb far more radiation than CH4. The problem with people like you is that you've never picked up a science book in your life yet you like to spout off the random rhetoric you read somewhere like you know what you're talking about.

So ask yourself... who’s the stupid brainwashed imbecile here?

:idea:

If C02 was responsible for temperature change then Albany and NY City will have the same temperature difference as they both have same levels of C02 and they are only 140 miles apart. Yet Albany has gotten colder,and the other has gotten a lot warmer. Climate is a very complex system. I can find number of atmospheric variables that increased during this period of average temperature increase.

I don't know what garbage you are talking about when you copy and paste that shit about feedback molecule concerning watervapor. Water vapor dissipates, but is created constantly via evaporation. Earth's surface is 3/4ths water in case you forget. You said "Also methane while a more absorbent greenhouse gas is not nearly as forcing as the atmospheric CO2. These gasses don't have an additive effect, some screen others CH4 is not nearly as dense as CO2, which is in a position to absorb far more radiation than CH4"

Hello...is anyone there?? (I hear wind blowing) The concentration gradient in an atmosphere at these low concentration isn't dependent on densities. its the same at Mt everest as it is at sea level. The reason for that is wind ...which is probably the cause of the constant whistling noise as it blows through your brain.

EPA does not control for C02 as a greenhouse gas but there are myriads of controls for methane (talk to a landfill operator). These controls are based upon thousands of studies. Earth's atmosphere has had varying amounts of c02 in its past, and to say 8-100ppm increase in its concentration over other gases it replaced (which probably were greenhouse gases themselves) is asinine...because any effects cannot be measured with any statsitic confidence.

The biggest proponent of global warming today is Al Gore, yet he couldn't even convince Clinton of signing the Kyoto treaty. Clinton for all his faults is brilliant, and he knows Kyoto treaty is all hogwash...it would cripple the US economy without having any effect on the climate change.

Now fuck off Mr wannabe

[dr_sinister1001]

I don't know what garbage you are talking about when you copy and paste that shit about feedback molecule concerning watervapor.

Well it's really quite simple you see... You don't understand it because you're a shit talker. You spout off all these talking points like you actually know what you're saying. But as soon as I introduce a concept that wasn't in that monthly Exxonmobil 'fact' sheet on "de-bunking" climate change which you read, whilst curled up by your fireplace enjoying that cup of apple cider... your whole argument comes crashing down. Basically you're one of two things, a poser, or seriously misguided. Either way, from what you've said so far, if you really believe what you're saying, you're still a pathetic fucking human being.

- There is no doubt CO2 is responsible for climate change, you can't use local climate models to describe a global climate difference... Instead of reading off counterpoints from some biased petroleum-funded think tank's web site, how about you make some of your own arguments? Because all of the ones they've put forth are no longer valid. For example, the average temperature of the entire planet is rising; this is an observable fact, using the local temperature of Albany to disprove CO2 as the culprit in global warming is ridiculous... Especially since we know that particulate matter has a masking effect on warming, global dimming is estimated to have masked almost 40% of the actual temperature increase. So no, that argument does not prove that atmospheric CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.

- Regarding the water vapor, the water vapor in the atmosphere is in a consistent cycle, there is no more H2O being added to the cycle, unless of course the ice at the poles melts, which is a caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. So factoring water vapor into a climate change model is futile, because it has a short cycle. CO2 however does not dissipate it remains in the atmosphere for decades forcing climate change and human activity has increased CO2 by more or less 60 - 100 ppm in the last century, we can see that from ice core samples and atmospheric records from the beginning of the century.

- In regards to atmospheric methane it exists in such a low concentration that it is masked by the atmospheric CO2, greenhouse gasses do not have an additive effect, but that doesn't mean CH4 isn't a problem... more than half of the CH4 released into the atmosphere is anthroprogenic. Methane would be far more forcing than CO2 were it to exist in the same concentrations, but that would only happen if we started putting more CH4 into the atmosphere. Or if we allow the atmospheric CO2 to force the climate to such a point where it becomes warm enough for natural methane vents to be released. But blaming nature for CH4 emissions is not only childish but also nonsense because as it stands the natural contribution of CH4 is less than half of the total emissions.

There's a difference between using your brain and just going along with what you read... Only the weak minded allow themselves to be told that what they see with their own eyes is not true... Global warming is something that anyone even those without a science background can see and accept, we can feel the temperature rising, last summer was one of the hottest summers on record. We can observe the melting of the glaciers, as well as observe the water levels rise... And then you have people tell you that all of this isn't happening?? Now if that isn't a prime example of a stupid fucking human being, I honestly don't know what is.

:idea:

[..::Bobby::..]

Thanks for the CNN update, shithead.
I didn't say it wasn't a serious issue, I just said, it's not gonna destroy the human race by the next century. Now, get your mouth of my cock.





I swear, there should be a minimum IQ test to be allowed to post in the SD forums......
No one should be punished for accident of birth, but you look too much like a wreck not to be.

[Space-Cowboy]

No one should be punished for accident of birth, but you look too much like a wreck not to be.


..... And yet, your mouth is still firmly wrapped around my fallacial piece... ..... Don't you have something better to do? Like tracking down this so-called fantasy group you like to call Illuminati?...


:rofl:

It's ok, if I were as gullible an idiot as you, I'd believe in things like the Illuminati, and Bigfoot, and the theory of Atlantis too......

;)

[..::Bobby::..]

..... And yet, your mouth is still firmly wrapped around my fallacial piece... ..... Don't you have something better to do? Like tracking down this so-called fantasy group you like to call Illuminati?...


:rofl:

It's ok, if I were as gullible an idiot as you, I'd believe in things like the Illuminati, and Bigfoot, and the theory of Atlantis too......

;)
You have the face of a saint. Saint Bernard, that is. Now shut up.

[Space-Cowboy]

You have the face of a saint. Saint Bernard, that is. Now shut up.


And you have the IQ of one. Now, please stop talking, you're taking up valuable oxygen.

[..::Bobby::..]

And you have the IQ of one. Now, please stop talking, you're taking up valuable oxygen.You look like you've been pulled backward through a Knobhole why don't you just remove that picture?

[Space-Cowboy]

You look like you've been pulled backward through a Knobhole why don't you just remove that picture?


And you have the intelligence of a knobhole, why don't you stop talking and refrain from ruining an otherwise interesting thread?

[..::Bobby::..]

And you have the intelligence of a knobhole, why don't you stop talking and refrain from ruining an otherwise interesting thread?
I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.

[Space-Cowboy]

I'd like to see things from your point of view but I can't seem to get my head that far up my ass.


You can't?.... :sarb: I figured, with all the fallatio that you perform, you'd be a little more flexible....


Anyway..... I've owned you, so I'm out of this thread.......... :wavey:

[Tigr]

Well it's really quite simple you see... You don't understand it because you're a shit talker. You spout off all these talking points like you actually know what you're saying. But as soon as I introduce a concept that wasn't in that monthly Exxonmobil 'fact' sheet on "de-bunking" climate change which you read, whilst curled up by your fireplace enjoying that cup of apple cider... your whole argument comes crashing down. Basically you're one of two things, a poser, or seriously misguided. Either way, from what you've said so far, if you really believe what you're saying, you're still a pathetic fucking human being.

- There is no doubt CO2 is responsible for climate change, you can't use local climate models to describe a global climate difference... Instead of reading off counterpoints from some biased petroleum-funded think tank's web site, how about you make some of your own arguments? Because all of the ones they've put forth are no longer valid. For example, the average temperature of the entire planet is rising; this is an observable fact, using the local temperature of Albany to disprove CO2 as the culprit in global warming is ridiculous... Especially since we know that particulate matter has a masking effect on warming, global dimming is estimated to have masked almost 40% of the actual temperature increase. So no, that argument does not prove that atmospheric CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.

- Regarding the water vapor, the water vapor in the atmosphere is in a consistent cycle, there is no more H2O being added to the cycle, unless of course the ice at the poles melts, which is a caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. So factoring water vapor into a climate change model is futile, because it has a short cycle. CO2 however does not dissipate it remains in the atmosphere for decades forcing climate change and human activity has increased CO2 by more or less 60 - 100 ppm in the last century, we can see that from ice core samples and atmospheric records from the beginning of the century.

- In regards to atmospheric methane it exists in such a low concentration that it is masked by the atmospheric CO2, greenhouse gasses do not have an additive effect, but that doesn't mean CH4 isn't a problem... more than half of the CH4 released into the atmosphere is anthroprogenic. Methane would be far more forcing than CO2 were it to exist in the same concentrations, but that would only happen if we started putting more CH4 into the atmosphere. Or if we allow the atmospheric CO2 to force the climate to such a point where it becomes warm enough for natural methane vents to be released. But blaming nature for CH4 emissions is not only childish but also nonsense because as it stands the natural contribution of CH4 is less than half of the total emissions.

There's a difference between using your brain and just going along with what you read... Only the weak minded allow themselves to be told that what they see with their own eyes is not true... Global warming is something that anyone even those without a science background can see and accept, we can feel the temperature rising, last summer was one of the hottest summers on record. We can observe the melting of the glaciers, as well as observe the water levels rise... And then you have people tell you that all of this isn't happening?? Now if that isn't a prime example of a stupid fucking human being, I honestly don't know what is.

:idea:

You missed the entire point. The point being whether increased levelsC02 is causing the rise in temperature or not. There is no scientist worth his salt can prove that this miniscule rise in c02 cause weather pattern changes when other factors like wobble in earths axis, sunspot activity, earth's orbit variance etc. etc. contribute a huge amount more to the climate. Perhaps you should try to understand the basic statistics ( Analysis of Variance and confidence limits) before you go ahead with your argument. ...Take water vapor for example. If the temperature rises, there will be more of it. More clouds will then lower the temperature...its not a static concept. If temps were to increase, more C02 would be absorbed by the ocean, and more converted to 02 by plantlife due to longer growing season. The point of all this is that climate is too complex to assign a cause and effect relationship directly to increased miniscule concentration of C02

Bottom line.. believe what you like. Go ahead drive a hybrid...i will opt for a SUV (oops I already drive one).....we could use some global warming in Michigan anyway.

[dr_sinister1001]

You missed the entire point. The point being whether increased levelsC02 is causing the rise in temperature or not. There is no scientist worth his salt can prove that this miniscule rise in c02 cause weather pattern changes when other factors like wobble in earths axis, sunspot activity, earth's orbit variance etc. etc. contribute a huge amount more to the climate. Perhaps you should try to understand the basic statistics ( Analysis of Variance and confidence limits) before you go ahead with your argument. ...Take water vapor for example. If the temperature rises, there will be more of it. More clouds will then lower the temperature...its not a static concept. If temps were to increase, more C02 would be absorbed by the ocean, and more converted to 02 by plantlife due to longer growing season. The point of all this is that climate is too complex to assign a cause and effect relationship directly to increased miniscule concentration of C02

Bottom line.. believe what you like. Go ahead drive a hybrid...i will opt for a SUV (oops I already drive one).....we could use some global warming in Michigan anyway.

Actually I addressed that point thoroughly... Though it wasn't your point, no it belongs to Exxonmobil’s panel of shady scientist. Also all this time you've been arguing that warming isn't happening, but now you've switched tracks, warming is happening but CO2 isn’t responsible? But when it comes to arguments you just keep repeating yourself, because you don't know where you're going with all of this. You’re a fucking moron you know that?

I guess you didn’t read this,

- There is no doubt CO2 is responsible for climate change, you can't use local climate models to describe a global climate difference... Instead of reading off counterpoints from some biased petroleum-funded think tank's web site, how about you make some of your own arguments? Because all of the ones they've put forth are no longer valid. For example, the average temperature of the entire planet is rising; this is an observable fact, using the local temperature of Albany to disprove CO2 as the culprit in global warming is ridiculous... Especially since we know that particulate matter has a masking effect on warming, global dimming is estimated to have masked almost 40% of the actual temperature increase. So no, that argument does not prove that atmospheric CO2 isn't the cause of global warming.

I guess I completely missed the point...

And no one is discounting the possibility of warming from other sources, but atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions are things that we as humans have contributed to climate change, our activity has sped up a process, which would otherwise be gradual. To deny the effects of CO2 as a climate-forcing greenhouse gas is foolish.

- We have observed a drastic climate change in the past 100 years

- We know that within these same 100 years our industrial activity has contributed to almost a quarter of the current concentration of CO2 into the atmosphere, this isn't a 'miniscule rise', are you retarded?

- We know that CO2 is an IR active molecule and will absorb and emit radiation in that band readily

- Ice core samples can tell us about the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from the last period in the earth's history where the climate was this warm. And from those samples we can see that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 hasn't been this high for the past 600,000 years and we've raised that concentration by about 33% in the last 100 years. So only a fool would say that we are not forcing the climate with our industrial activity.

- We also know that particulate matter is causing a dimming effect blocking the true effect of the atmospheric CO2, which is why we observe local cooling effects, but on average a warming effect.

So where is the debate? These are facts... Exxonmobil can spin them into whatever fairytale it wants idiots like you to believe but at the end of the day, you can't deny what you see with your own two eyes.

:idea:

[..::Bobby::..]

You can't?.... :sarb: I figured, with all the fallatio that you perform, you'd be a little more flexible....


Anyway..... I've owned you, so I'm out of this thread.......... :wavey:You've owned me? - Dude the only person you owned was yourself when you posted that picture of yourself. How much more do I have to embarrass you on the Internet?

By the way its spelled with an "e" not an "a"

[Space-Cowboy]

You've owned me? - Dude the only person you owned was yourself when you posted that picture of yourself. How much more do I have to embarrass you on the Internet?

By the way its spelled with an "e" not an "a"


Having mastered the art, I suppose you yourself would know best. Bye noob.

[..::Bobby::..]

Having mastered the art, I suppose you yourself would know best. Bye noob.
what is your problem with me?

[Space-Cowboy]

what is your problem with me?


It all started with your idiotic response:

You're one incredibly stupid person. There could be irreversible effects. Obviously you're totally oblivious to that fact that nature sustains is self in a nice equilibrium and we humans go and fuck with that. I don't know where you get your information from. But Global warming is a serious issue. We have some really extreme conditions taking place all around the world. We really need to make a change.

Whereby I explained, politely, that I'm well aware of the grave consequences... and it is quite stark, quite troubling, and definitely a detriment to the human race.... but not ENOUGH to wipe us out completely but the end of the century. 3 or 400 years would have been more believeable.

[..::Bobby::..]

It all started with your idiotic response:



Whereby I explained, politely, that I'm well aware of the grave consequences... and it is quite stark, quite troubling, and definitely a detriment to the human race.... but not ENOUGH to wipe us out completely but the end of the century. 3 or 400 years would have been more believeable.Then you're an idiot.

Methane gas, abundantly trapped as a half frozen slush in the northern hemisphere's tundra permafrost regions and at the bottom of the sea may well be a ticking time bomb, says geologist John Atcheson in an article published by the Baltimore Sun (http://www.sqwalk.com/blog/000235.html) in December last year. Methane is about twenty times stronger as a greenhouse gas (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html) than carbon dioxide. Since arctic warming seems to procede faster than expected (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1391050,00.html), there is a real danger that deposits of methane and similar gases trapped in normally frozen ground, may thaw out and "belch" into the atmosphere, wreaking havoc with our computer simulations of global warming.

According to Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical engineering at Northwestern University, "explosive clouds of methane gas, initially trapped in stagnant bodies of water and suddenly released, could have killed off the majority of marine life and land animals and plants at the end of the Permian era" — long before dinosaurs lived and died. Ruskin believes (http://www.northwestern.edu/observer/issues/2003-09-25/methane.html) that methane may have been the driving force in previous catastrophic changes of the earth's climate, where 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were lost in - geologically speaking - the blink of an eye.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/02/01/global_warming_methane_could_be_far_worse_than_car bon_dioxide.htm



Now here's the scary part. A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and "burp" into the atmosphere, which would further raise temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further, and so on. There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - enough to start this chain reaction - and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is sufficient to melt the clathrates and release these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Once triggered, this cycle could result in runaway global warming the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers aren't talking about.


most recent of these catastrophes occurred about 55 million years ago in what geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when methane burps caused rapid warming and massive die-offs, disrupting the climate for more than 100,000 years.

The granddaddy of these catastrophes occurred 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, when a series of methane burps came close to wiping out all life on Earth.

More than 94 percent of the marine species present in the fossil record disappeared suddenly as oxygen levels plummeted and life teetered on the verge of extinction. Over the ensuing 500,000 years, a few species struggled to gain a foothold in the hostile environment. It took 20 million to 30 million years for even rudimentary coral reefs to re-establish themselves and for forests to regrow. In some areas, it took more than 100 million years for ecosystems to reach their former healthy diversity. #

In both cases, a temperature increase of about 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit, about the upper range for the average global increase today's models predict can be expected from burning fossil fuels by 2100. But these models could be the tail wagging the dog since they don't add in the effect of burps from warming gas hydrates. Worse, as the Arctic Council found, the highest temperature increases from human greenhouse gas emissions will occur in the arctic regions - an area rich in these unstable clathrates.

If we trigger this runaway release of methane, there's no turning back. No do-overs. Once it starts, it's likely to play out all the way.

- humans wouldn't have a chance!

http://www.sqwalk.com/blog/000235.html

[Space-Cowboy]

Then you're an idiot.

Methane gas, abundantly trapped as a half frozen slush in the northern hemisphere's tundra permafrost regions and at the bottom of the sea may well be a ticking time bomb, says geologist John Atcheson in an article published by the Baltimore Sun (http://www.sqwalk.com/blog/000235.html) in December last year. Methane is about twenty times stronger as a greenhouse gas (http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Emissions.html) than carbon dioxide. Since arctic warming seems to procede faster than expected (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1391050,00.html), there is a real danger that deposits of methane and similar gases trapped in normally frozen ground, may thaw out and "belch" into the atmosphere, wreaking havoc with our computer simulations of global warming.

According to Gregory Ryskin, associate professor of chemical engineering at Northwestern University, "explosive clouds of methane gas, initially trapped in stagnant bodies of water and suddenly released, could have killed off the majority of marine life and land animals and plants at the end of the Permian era" — long before dinosaurs lived and died. Ruskin believes (http://www.northwestern.edu/observer/issues/2003-09-25/methane.html) that methane may have been the driving force in previous catastrophic changes of the earth's climate, where 95 percent of marine species and 70 percent of land species were lost in - geologically speaking - the blink of an eye.

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/02/01/global_warming_methane_could_be_far_worse_than_car bon_dioxide.htm



Now here's the scary part. A temperature increase of merely a few degrees would cause these gases to volatilize and "burp" into the atmosphere, which would further raise temperatures, which would release yet more methane, heating the Earth and seas further, and so on. There's 400 gigatons of methane locked in the frozen arctic tundra - enough to start this chain reaction - and the kind of warming the Arctic Council predicts is sufficient to melt the clathrates and release these greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Once triggered, this cycle could result in runaway global warming the likes of which even the most pessimistic doomsayers aren't talking about.


most recent of these catastrophes occurred about 55 million years ago in what geologists call the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), when methane burps caused rapid warming and massive die-offs, disrupting the climate for more than 100,000 years.

The granddaddy of these catastrophes occurred 251 million years ago, at the end of the Permian period, when a series of methane burps came close to wiping out all life on Earth.

More than 94 percent of the marine species present in the fossil record disappeared suddenly as oxygen levels plummeted and life teetered on the verge of extinction. Over the ensuing 500,000 years, a few species struggled to gain a foothold in the hostile environment. It took 20 million to 30 million years for even rudimentary coral reefs to re-establish themselves and for forests to regrow. In some areas, it took more than 100 million years for ecosystems to reach their former healthy diversity. #

In both cases, a temperature increase of about 10.8 degrees Fahrenheit, about the upper range for the average global increase today's models predict can be expected from burning fossil fuels by 2100. But these models could be the tail wagging the dog since they don't add in the effect of burps from warming gas hydrates. Worse, as the Arctic Council found, the highest temperature increases from human greenhouse gas emissions will occur in the arctic regions - an area rich in these unstable clathrates.

If we trigger this runaway release of methane, there's no turning back. No do-overs. Once it starts, it's likely to play out all the way.

- humans wouldn't have a chance!

http://www.sqwalk.com/blog/000235.html

Thanks again for the update shithead.... like I said, I haven't disagreed with any of the above except for the fact that it all happening within the span of this century. Now shut up.... your precious Illuminati might be spying on you at this very moment.

[..::Bobby::..]

Thanks again for the update shithead.... like I said, I haven't disagreed with any of the above except for the fact that it all happening within the span of this century. Now shut up.... your precious Illuminati might be spying on you at this very moment.

You're one fucking Muppet with a baboon ass face. You said something to the extent it wouldn't kill us.

[Space-Cowboy]

You're one fucking Muppet with a baboon ass face. You said something to the extent it wouldn't kill us.


I said it's not gonna happen by the next century, read what I wrote idiot.

[..::Bobby::..]

I said it's not gonna happen by the next century, read what I wrote idiot.
That is beyond the point.

[jumpn jza]

you do realise global warming due to man made emmissions is juts a bunch of hippie generated bull shit

it is part of the natural cycle of earth

nah man, theres enough scientific evidence that global warming is caused by man made pollution...so yes i am concerned, the country which needs to clean up its act is the U.S...but with that idiot president, nothing would work...

[dr_sinister1001]

do any of you really believe this? not a single reputable scientist lends any sorta credibility to this whole "global warming" phenomenon.

im pretty left-of-center, but when i read stuff like this, it REALLY, REALLY, REALLY makes me wanna switch to the right, cuz the left is full of so many dumbass hippies.

Every scientist out there is scared of saying out loud that that global warming is hogwash cuz then they'd get taken down by all the neo-nazis who run these so-called environmentalist think tanks, which are nothing but a way to sucker as much money out of people's pockets as possible, and once you get taken down by these neo-nazis, you cant ever get a grant or get anything published in academia. there's a reason why every piece of "pro" global warming literature still has tons and tons of data that do not support and/or refute global warming.

sinister, i usually like a lot of things you say, but i just cant believe you think that these fears associated with global warming is real. dont you see how these people are trying to make you feel like all hell's gonna break lose, and the world's gonna end, and we're gonna die, just so you'd be scared and give in to them? these are the same scare-tactics our government used before the iraq war and for the patriot act. you were smart enough to see through those scare tactics. so im surprised you cant see through these.

i remember, back in 1989, these "scientists" started talking about global warming and how much of the earth would be engulfed by the world's oceans due to a rise in sea-level, all attributed to global warming. i remember them saying half of bangladesh and all of sri lanka and the maldives would be under the sea by 2000. it's 2006. none of that has happened. they were using those scare tactics for their ulterior motives, and they got exactly what they wanted from the governments of the developing countries - votes in the UN in favor of global climate control. did the governments really do anything to stop/slow down global warming? nope, not really. did the sea levels rise? no, not really. all these island states and the low-lying countries still exist, dont they? the governments spend boatloads on planting trees all over the country, tried to reduce pollution (which didnt do much at all, except retarding the economic growth of those poor economies) and all they got out of it was zip zilch nada.

dont you guys see a pattern to this? all these dooms-day forecasters keep saying the world's gonna be extinct in a hundred or two hundred years and what not, and the human race is gonna get wiped out soon. when we had that last ice age, the freakin dinosaurs got extinct, but mankind is still here. the entire world went through so much change during that time and even then, the early man, without the help of any of the modern technology we have today, survived. you don't think we can survive through this when we have so much technology available to us?

bottomline: dont believe something just cuz everyone's saying it. do your own research. read between the lines.


Have you done any research into it? 'Cause I have. And climate change is pretty convincing and I'm not scared, scientists aren't trying to scare the public, they're trying to warn them of a real problem. Where do people build cities? Along coastal areas, this isn't a secret and a rise in the water level by just a few meters can really cause huge problems in these coastal cities. It's not a matter of being left or right, this isn't a moral controversy this is just about seeing the facts and doing something about it.

:idea:

[dr_sinister1001]

Well what do you consider conclusive evidence? I don't think I've ever used wikipedia articles or googled sources to back up anything I've ever said. But what makes evidence conclusive? The logic behind the argument or the person who’s saying it?

Either way your peer-reviewed journals have a slant to them, I know this because I've read more than enough of them myself. It sounds like your class was more concerned with the economics of climate change as opposed to the actual science behind it all. In any event facts are probably more pertinent, rather than opinions about climate change, which is really what you're reading in most academic journals.

But looking at climate change from a purely logical viewpoint, I'm not sure how anyone can deny the problems.

Well there are some basic facts that cannot be ignored...

- The greenhouse effect is a very real cycle, we know that certain atmospheric gasses have a property known as IR activity so they absorb and re-emit IR radiation, acting like a blanket insulating the Earth and maintaining a more or less steady temperature.

- The basic effectiveness of the greenhouse effect relies both on the intensity of the source (in this case the sun) and the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. So if the sun were to get more intense the temperature would rise (we have no control over this), similarly if the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere (such as CO2) were to increase then the temperature would rise (we do have control over this).

- We know that the majority of the greenhouse effect is sustained by water vapor which is constantly evaporating and condensing in a quick cycle, which ensures that concentration of this water vapor is more or less constant. We also know that the other major gas that drives the greenhouse effect is CO2. CO2 stays in the atmosphere without dissipating for long periods of time, essentially there is no cycle which can quickly draw the CO2 out of the atmosphere, not even photosynthesis (especially in lieu of the kind of deforestation that's been happening everywhere humans exist).

So the concentration of CO2 keeps increasing, thus increasing the effectiveness of the greenhouse effect. Is this really happening? Yes, the glaciers in the North and South Pole are definitely melting away, not an everyday event considering how old that ice is. And like the ice cubes in your drink, as they melt they increase the amount of liquid water... pretty basic stuff.

The complexity arises in the issue of statistical data, which is never very reliable in the 1st place, because statistics just spit out numbers, it's up to someone to interpret those numbers into an explanation. But often that someone will simply use the data and disregard all other factors and interpret the data incorrectly, hence you get all these conflicting theories, some say that warming isn't happening, some say that floods are imminent... But really none of them are looking at all the facts (either purposely or inadvertently) and so what you read in peer-reviewed academic journals or on wikipedia is just as misleading.

For example, a lot of people were saying that CO2 couldn't really be the cause of warming, because if the atmospheric concentration readings are accurate, looking at the change in concentration from the beginning of the century to the present, the climate should be much hotter (statistical data)... But then new findings showing that the climate is actually being regulated by the other IR inactive particulate pollution in the atmosphere became available... So now we have to factor in the levels of particulate pollution in the atmosphere and how they have a masking effect on the greenhouse gasses, essentially dimming the greenhouse effect.

If there's a lesson to be learned from all of this, it's that we shouldn't discount the obvious, regardless of what statistical data tells us... And Climate Change is pretty obvious to anyone...

:idea: