Archive: 49 posts

---

The ice is melting, sea levels are rising, hurricanes are raging and it's all your fault. Scared? Dont be, Its not true Dont read this without considering other arguments, This is my opinion backed by solid fact but it is not the only opinion It's a common misconception that the reason our planet is getting hotter is because CO2 levels are rising. There is in fact no correlation between CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the temperature on ground and in air. I could talk for hours on the subject but if you have an hour spare than the video below will explain many of the key points that I would stress. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5576670191369613647#

2010-11-17 20:01:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

Oh, common take some debating classes and come back with an argument.

2010-11-17 20:04:00 Author: Syroc Posts: 3193

---

Oh, common take some debating classes and come back with an argument. I apologise, accidently clicking the tab key followed by the enter key meant that my thread was posted with a mere sentence or two. I planned to write my argument but the video explains some of the points I would bring up in such a beautiful manner

2010-11-17 20:13:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

http://infosthetics.com/archives/climatechangecritique.jpg As you can see, (or maybe not, the picture is kinda bad ) the temperature rises as CO2 levels increase. Also remember, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. Believe it or not, water vapour is actually a large contributor.

2010-11-17 20:17:00 Author: Plasmavore Posts: 1913

---

http://infosthetics.com/archives/climatechangecritique.jpg As you can see, (or maybe not, the picture is kinda bad ) the temperature rises as CO2 levels increase. Also remember, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas. Believe it or not, water vapour is actually a large contributor. Green house gasses make a small percentage of the atmosphere and of this water vapour makes up 95% of green house gasses. Im just quoting the video, it's all in there, and in terms of CO2 humans are incredibly small contributors. Temperature rises began long before cars and machines were invented, if C02 levels did have a direct impact on the temperature of the earth, than during the war period, temperature should have risen which it did not, it dropped.

2010-11-17 20:29:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

Heh, this film is like a showcase for polemic.

2010-11-17 20:39:00 Author: Syroc Posts: 3193

---

Green house gasses make a small percentage of the atmosphere and of this water vapour makes up 95% of green house gasses. Im just quoting the video, it's all in there, and in terms of CO2 humans are incredibly small contributors. Temperature rises began long before cars and machines were invented, if C02 levels did have a direct impact on the temperature of the earth, than during the war period, temperature should have risen which it did not, it dropped. That, actually kinda makes sense, isn't there a theory that dinosaurs were killed because of weather alterations and not a meteorite? and I can assure they didn't drive cars. http://nemp.otago.ac.nz/writing/2002/media/Punctuation.jpg

2010-11-17 20:50:00 Author: Ragnarok Posts: 898

---

That, actually kinda makes sense, isn't there a theory that dinosaurs were killed because of weather alterations and not a meteorite? and I can assure they didn't drive cars. http://nemp.otago.ac.nz/writing/2002/media/Punctuation.jpg Not that long ago, we've had cold periods remember such as the ice age. It's believed that a volcano of unimaginable size erupted, it released so much ash into the atmosphere that it changed the conditions that the dinosaurs were adapted to living in. We all felt the effect of mount Etna errupting, imagine that on a much larger scale. It's my opinion that the temperature of the world is always changing, some may know of what we call the 'little ice age' and a much hotter period before that. It's sad to hear people refer to C02 as a polutant, because its neccesary to life.

2010-11-17 21:00:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

The fact that you're arguing about climate change on the basis of whether or not the temperature is going up says everything here I think.

2010-11-17 22:06:00 Author: rtm223 Posts: 6497

---

The fact that you're arguing about climate change on the basis of whether or not the temperature is going up says everything here I think. We know that temperature is rising, we are debating whether it's the fault of us humans, if it can be called a debate that is, things like this nether run smoothly and it's clear which argument I support. My own beliefs support the idea that this is natural and the temperature is likely to drop again in the future.

2010-11-17 22:10:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

That film is hilarious. They are having a lot of fun with graphs I have to say. I don't know where to start so I will just pick the bit about volcanos emitting more CO2 than humans. If a department of the US government (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)can be trusted volcanoes release more than 130-250 million tonnes of CO2 per year (it depends on the volcanic activity of course), humans on the other hand produce some 8billion tonnes per year. What is important to remember that while natural CO2 emission may outweigh human emissions that the earth climate system is finely balanced. Left alone the CO2 concentration will not change suddenly (relatively speaking). It will be trapped in the sea and on land through natural processes. Now if you add manmade emissions to that you are adding more than carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle) can cope with, so overtime the CO2 concentration will rise. It is true that CO2 is not a pollutant in small doses, and yes it is necessary for life as we know it, but as you will have no doubt noticed in your lifetime, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. We don't have health regulations concerning the concentration of CO2 for no reason. Now coming back to whether or not the temperature rise is caused by humans. First of all strictly speaking global warming is a misnomer. Climate change is name that fits the ongoing process much better. In some areas the average temperature rises, in other it falls. Some areas become drier, some become wetter. I think no one argues about that. What is not as clear is how much of an impact humans have on this process. I find it very hard to deny that humanity plays no role whatsoever in this process. Yes, it may well be that we are in a natural warming period, but at the same time there is no denying that we have the ecosystem immensely over time and especially since the beginning of the 20th century. I am not just speaking about CO2 emission here, you also have to factor in the deforestation, ozone depletion (which coincidentally has an even smaller share than CO2 in the atmosphere, yet we can see the effects of it very clearly) and the way we use land. Few people will argue that all these changes that happened over the last century had no impact on the environment what so ever. It could all just be a coincidence, but the rapidity at which all these process happen point in the other direction. One last point, I said in the beginning that I think that this movies very polemic, for the sake of fairness I should also mention that I thought the same about An Inconvenient Truth. Fact of the matter is we (or rather the scientist dealing with the problem on a daily basis) don't fully understand the phenomena. Global climate is far to complex a system to make predictions about. However, denying that humanity plays no role in it is quite frankly laughable. We do affect it in some way, and even if we don't should we really cut down all forest and spew large amounts of (potentially) harmful substances into the air that we breath day in and day out?

2010-11-17 22:34:00 Author: Syroc Posts: 3193

---

I can't be bothered to go into any argument of any depth. I've done it too much already. The way I see it is, even if climate change isn't our fault or it doesn't exist, would you be willing to take that risk? There's nothing bad about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, limiting how much we waste, how much energy we use etc, so why wouldn't we take these actions? I'm just going to summarise my views because I'm tired of having long winded debates regarding climate change. The way I see things is, even if climate change isn't happening or if humans are not the cause of it, would you be willing to take the risk in believing that? Taking action to protect natural environments, reduce our dependence on finite resources, limit the amount of waste we produce and the amount of energy we use is not something we should be doing solely because they will stop climate change. We should be taking this action to improve the way we live in general, if there's not a problem now there will be soon.

2010-11-17 23:40:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

That film is hilarious. They are having a lot of fun with graphs I have to say. I don't know where to start so I will just pick the bit about volcanos emitting more CO2 than humans. If a department of the US government (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php)can be trusted volcanoes release more than 130-250 million tonnes of CO2 per year (it depends on the volcanic activity of course), humans on the other hand produce some 8billion tonnes per year. What is important to remember that while natural CO2 emission may outweigh human emissions that the earth climate system is finely balanced. Left alone the CO2 concentration will not change suddenly (relatively speaking). It will be trapped in the sea and on land through natural processes. Now if you add manmade emissions to that you are adding more than carbon cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle) can cope with, so overtime the CO2 concentration will rise. It is true that CO2 is not a pollutant in small doses, and yes it is necessary for life as we know it, but as you will have no doubt noticed in your lifetime, too much of a good thing can be a bad thing. We don't have health regulations concerning the concentration of CO2 for no reason. Now coming back to whether or not the temperature rise is caused by humans. First of all strictly speaking global warming is a misnomer. Climate change is name that fits the ongoing process much better. In some areas the average temperature rises, in other it falls. Some areas become drier, some become wetter. I think no one argues about that. What is not as clear is how much of an impact humans have on this process. I find it very hard to deny that humanity plays no role whatsoever in this process. Yes, it may well be that we are in a natural warming period, but at the same time there is no denying that we have the ecosystem immensely over time and especially since the beginning of the 20th century. I am not just speaking about CO2 emission here, you also have to factor in the deforestation, ozone depletion (which coincidentally has an even smaller share than CO2 in the atmosphere, yet we can see the effects of it very clearly) and the way we use land. Few people will argue that all these changes that happened over the last century had no impact on the environment what so ever. It could all just be a coincidence, but the rapidity at which all these process happen point in the other direction. One last point, I said in the beginning that I think that this movies very polemic, for the sake of fairness I should also mention that I thought the same about An Inconvenient Truth. Fact of the matter is we (or rather the scientist dealing with the problem on a daily basis) don't fully understand the phenomena. Global climate is far to complex a system to make predictions about. However, denying that humanity plays no role in it is quite frankly laughable. We do affect it in some way, and even if we don't should we really cut down all forest and spew large amounts of (potentially) harmful substances into the air that we breath day in and day out? Some very good points, I'm glad you shared What I mean with my personal argument is sometimes we use climate change as an excuse and I'm tired of the monotone debate that everyhing will end in chaos, and as you mentioned it's clear that non of us live a sustainable lifestyle, unless your a budhist monk that is. Its true that we do have a contribution whether it be directly from us or from other examples like deforestation taking place in the Amazon. My point revolves around the idea that climate has changed drastically in the past and can still be just as wild and unpredictable. We are, over time, having more of an impact but our world was changing, getting warmer before we could have possibly effected the climate, things have been heating up since an earlier time. I think that yes we do have an influence on the climate but it can be just as likely that the increase in temperature is natural and in comparison to the natural rise, we may not be as significant. ....And yes, they do love their graphs

2010-11-18 00:46:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

The way I see it is, even if climate change isn't our fault or it doesn't exist, would you be willing to take that risk? There's nothing bad about reducing our dependence on fossil fuels, limiting how much we waste, how much energy we use etc, so why wouldn't we take these actions? I agree with this 100%. If climate change is not happening, we should still have a cleaner planet. Rivers are being polluted, damaging water sources and spreading diseases. Air is being contaminated, causing lung diseases. Are you saying that just because global warming is not occurring because of human action that we should let all of this happen? Global warming is not the only effect of misusing our planets uses. It's just the one that is brought up the most.

2010-11-18 02:20:00 Author: Jaslow Posts: 775

---

If I won the lottery and I had to give half the money to a charity or organization, it would go to William McDonough (http://www.ted.com/talks/william_mcdonough_on_cradle_to_cradle_design.html) and his work. I think it's amazing what he is doing. He designs closed cycle manufacturing that uses recyclable polymers that can be recycled forever. That video showcases some of the things he does or makes: books with plastic pages and ink that dissolves in hot water, 100% infinitely recyclable carpet, documents on chemical analysis, and eco-friendly architecture, just to name a few. He designed an amazing eco-friendly city in China that is under construction. Like with MrFunctionality's post, it's better to just watch the video. The actual argument on global warming here is way above my understanding of the subject, but I agree with syroc that humans are partly if not completely to blame for the climate change.

2010-11-18 03:06:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251

---

I have always found technological debates about climate change (like arguing on the internet) fairly ironic. There is usually someone who will argue that we should all stop using technology. Your using some form of computer I'm glad to see that this thread has't taken a downturn (as much as syroc might want it too ) I don't really have much to contribute, it is impossible for anyone to say that human make no impact on this planet. We have come dependent on non renewable energy means and it will be that way for a while to come. However I do want to point out what I see, our means of renewable energy are solar tidal wind ECT. Climate change for any people is seen as "Global Warming" now that is a contradictory term in itself that was jumped on by the media because it sounds interesting. The fact is that weather patterns are changing, I am not the only person who must of realised that the stronger winds and warmer weather will eventually benefit us as the renewable energy will be more reliable XD Anyways, the discussion of climate change is a stupid subject, (no offence to anyone who feels strongly about it) talking will get you nowhere, if you want to change your lifestyle do it, don't try to force other people to change. they will do it if they feel it important. On the other hand don't try to persuade people that they are wrong if you don't think humans have an affect on the environment. We all know humans have an effect on the environment. How large an effect that is; is unimportant. Also no one has said 2012 yet, that's amazing............ Oh crap.

2010-11-18 14:49:00 Author: robotiod Posts: 2662

---

You know, that medieval period does not correspond to Al Gore's about temperature rise, as then it is shown much higher... Then again, Al Gore's goes back to some several 100 000 years while the the other goes 200 years back... So some clashing information, yes? I do know though that CO2 is proven to block/absorb (?) light though, so heightening levels would still cause some disturbance. As said in William McDonough's video (thank you Cin, for posting it!) In a part of the Pacific ocean there is now 6 times more plastic than plancton which says something. Even if global climate change is not manmade there should be some decency in this world. For an example, not destroy the habitats of other animals for industrial purposes nor just waste away all of earth's resources. Anytime I see someone on my school throw some plastic onto the ground I want to kick them behind and tell her/him to put it in the thrash can (which may even be a few meters away). Pollution like that is just unrespective towards earth.

2010-11-18 16:43:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627

---

I do believe that we should continue with the green movement and reduce our impact on the planet, but what shocks me is that the media blasts you with front page headlines about how you and your children may possibly die in the future, when thousands of African children die daily and barely get a mention on page 30, below the fold. Our governments have spent years now debating climate change phenomenom at tremendous cost and energy when in some places on our planet citizens can't even get a clean drink of water. Environmental groups spend thousands of dollars sending out mailings (on paper) bemoaning global warming and, ironically, deforestation. What I propose is that we take care of our planet, after we have helped all those people dying NOW.

2010-11-18 16:58:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

So far "global warming" has led to some pretty awesome snow storms, so yeah if it does or does not exist is fine with me >:3 ooOOoo while we're at it lets knit the planet a sweater.

2010-11-18 17:32:00 Author: Bradlee Posts: 96

---

So far "global warming" has led to some pretty awesome snow storms, so yeah if it does or does not exist is fine with me >:3 ooOOoo while we're at it lets knit the planet a sweater. I agree with the snow, the last 2 years we have had some good snow which is surprising because western UK never gets snow and I am at the most western point (or so they say XD)

2010-11-18 17:50:00 Author: robotiod Posts: 2662

---

Well, during the prehistorid periods, the Earth's temperature was higher than it is now: Average Earth temperature during the Triassic Period: 17 *C (62.6 *F) Average Earth temperature during the Jurassic Period: 16 -17 *C (60.8 - 62.6 *F) Average Earth temperature during the Cretacious Period: 18 *C (64.4 *F) Average Earth temperature today: 14 - 15 *C (57.2 - 59 *F) Also, atmoshperic CO2 was more than it is now: Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level during the Triassic Period: 1750 Parts Per Million Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level during the Jurassic Period: 1950 ppm Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level during the Cretacious Period: 1700 ppm Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level presently: 387.18 ppm See, Earth goes through cycles. It's all natural. I'm not saying that we aren't helping the increase along a bit, but this whole thing is getting blown out of proportion. The Earth's CO2 levels and temperature are on the rise no doubt, but most of it is because at this time the Earth is naturally warming. And just to throw a few extra things out there: - The Earth isn't the only thing that warms and cools: sun strength varies too. - Satellite data shows little to no warming of the Earth as long as they've been operative. Which makes sense, due to the fact that warming would seem very gradual while taking tens of thousands of years to warm up an average of 4-5 *C. - The Earth's temperature and CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years In the end, I support my opinion, you support yours, but I'd much rather read data than opinions supported by the opinions of well-known people... Also: http://www.ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle/images/MilankovitchCycles.jpg/image_large These cycles increase and decrease the amount of solar forcing imposed within our climate system and that actually causes the temperature to rise and fall with calculable regularity. The more time the earth or land mass spends closer to the sun (at perihelion), the more energy it receives thus warming. The more time it spends farther form the sun (at aphelion) the less energy it receives and the earth cools. •The 'eccentricity' cycle period is around 100,000 years. This causes the orbit of the earth to elongate or become more elliptical. Imagine that the more elliptic it becomes, the less time during the year it spends near the sun. So the planet receives less solar energy and cools a bit. •The 'obliquity' cycle tilts the earth every 41,000 years and that causes the land mass of the norther hemisphere to face more towards the sun or less towards the sun. •The 'precession' cycle occurs about every 26,000 years and influences the wobble of the polar axis. This also influences earths climate by causing winters and summers to be warmer or colder depending on the amount of land surface being more or less exposed to the sun. You see that there? It's an orbit! It changes, the Earth can be closer to the sun, further from the sun, tilted toward the sun, away from the sun. The truth is, there are a lot of factors, and we may never know what's truthfully all going on. Although, I for one am voting for "Natural Cycle".

2010-11-18 17:50:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

Ok, on the matter of ice core data and the relation between CO2 and temperature: It is no surprise that it appears as if the CO2 levels lag behind temperature for one very simple reason: It takes time for the CO2 to settle in the ice and of course also to be released again. It is no instantaneous process. You are probably not surprised to hear that the ice volume also lags behind the temperature. Natural process on the scale we are talking about take a long time. Secondly, CO2 levels are not the same globally. A minor point, but one you shouldn't ignore. The same holds true for temperature data gathered from ice cores. Thirdly, there is no denying that there is a relation between CO2 and the temperature. Let me just quote piggalbing because he provided us with these lovely numbers: Well, during the prehistorid periods, the Earth's temperature was higher than it is now: Average Earth temperature during the Triassic Period: 17 *C (62.6 *F) Average Earth temperature during the Jurassic Period: 16 -17 *C (60.8 - 62.6 *F) Average Earth temperature during the Cretacious Period: 18 *C (64.4 *F) Average Earth temperature today: 14 - 15 *C (57.2 - 59 *F) Also, atmoshperic CO2 was more than it is now: Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level during the Triassic Period: 1750 Parts Per Million Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level during the Jurassic Period: 1950 ppm Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level during the Cretacious Period: 1700 ppm Avg. atmoshperic CO2 level presently: 387.18 ppm Clearly then the CO2 levels correspond to the temperature. In fact, when the CO2 was high the temperature was high. One final thing I would like you to consider is that over the past 650.000 years CO2 level have not been above 290ppm. Today, as piggabling points out, we are at 387ppm. How long did it take to get to those levels? Roughly 150 years, which of course takes us right back to the start of the industrialisation. The main point is that ice core data does not contradict the general understanding that CO2 level influence the temperature.

2010-11-18 18:23:00 Author: Syroc Posts: 3193

---

"Anyways, the discussion of climate change is a stupid subject, (no offence to anyone who feels strongly about it) talking will get you nowhere, if you want to change your lifestyle do it, don't try to force other people to change. they will do it if they feel it important." @Robotiod: One person can't make much of a difference. Getting people on the side fighting climate change is very important; you need a large group of people to make a difference. "I do know though that CO2 is proven to block/absorb (?) " @Moonwire: CO2 vibrates when hit by infrared that relects from the earth's surface, 'heating' the atmosphere. In the end I think we need to consider time-frames. The fact that the earth has changed temperature since the jurassic isn't greatly important. This was over 150 million years ago. Clearly organisms have had time to adapt to climate change, this is why mammals have become so much more dominant in the animal kingdom. Short-term temperature changes are usually claimed to be the cause for mass-extinctions throughout the history of life on earth. Basically: we need to be careful. And we need to ween ourselves off of fossil fuels before we run out! Algae are responsible for most of the photosynthesis that occurs on earth, so stopping harmful pollution of the sea is very important too.

2010-11-18 18:26:00 Author: chimpskylark Posts: 335

---

I always do enjoy watching TED (http://www.ted.com/) and all their ideas, I love the "ohhh" feel when they present something and you nod agreeing though you are not even there

2010-11-18 20:25:00 Author: moonwire Posts: 1627

---

I do know though that CO2 is proven to block/absorb Carbon dioxide is a trace gas that doesn't produce any heat of its own, but it does act like a blanket. Most solar rays pass through it, warming the earth. Most heat radiated from earth is absorbed and then re-emitted by the CO2 or, more importantly, by water vapor. That's why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas", even though it doesn't actually retain heat in exactly that same way that a sealed greenhouse does. Nevertheless, it is certainly one factor that affects the amount of retained heat on earth and therefore the dominant temperature. BUT....... There are many confounding factors in the analysis of CO2 influence on warming. As global temperatures increase, some CO2 dissolved in the oceans is released into the atmosphere. At the same time, increased temperatures and CO2 encourage plant growth, which increases the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. Earth's climate is a complex and chaotic system. We only understand a few of the interactive components that influence temperature. There is no scientific certainty about all the causative factors, much less a consensus that humans have caused recent warming. And if you put greenhouse effects into the context of all the other temperature factors, like changes in solar activity, cloud cover, and ocean circulation. The human impact on warming becomes inconsequential.

2010-11-18 21:00:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

I've just got one quick question for you, Syroc. Not questioning your opinion, but you say it takes time for CO2 to settle? Then how is it that the increase has occurred over this last 150 years? Obviously, if your facts coincide, then the levels we're seeing now are from years before the industrialized era. Although, now we have air samples... Anyway, I just have a hard time believing a lot of this stuff. Not only because of the facts I see and have seen. Not long ago, if I recall correctly, someone hacked a computer and exposed some "actual" info about "global warming". I don't remember what actually happened in the end of all that, but from what I remember, a lot of info we see around is supposedly false. It may have just been a rumor, but it made even more skeptical than before.

2010-11-18 21:24:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

You see that there? It's an orbit! It changes, the Earth can be closer to the sun, further from the sun, tilted toward the sun, away from the sun. The truth is, there are a lot of factors, and we may never know what's truthfully all going on. Although, I for one am voting for "Natural Cycle". You make a good point, however you left out one important detail. The Big hole in the ozone layer. There has never been (as far as I know) a hole in the ozone layer. When you make a level where everything works perfectly in unison and you change one small detail that involves moving parts, What happens? The whole level changes along with it right? No ozone layer means no protection from UV rays. Welcome to planet Microwave formally know as Earth. Hope you brought the Popcorn

2010-11-19 00:14:00 Author: KILLA_TODDZILLA Posts: 653

---

True. I believe it could also be natural. I'm not saying that this is fact, but the sun could just be "burning" a hole right through it. Straight from my mind and implausible, but it could be possible. Although, the Ozone layer is returning to "normal" if in fact it was ever gone. We can't see it, and we're forced to believe that it's going away. Same thing with all of these theories and supposed "facts". I'm a skeptic by nature, so, like I said, I find a lot of this hard to believe when I take everything in. Also, riddle me this: Why is it that the ozone layer "depleting" over Australia and Antarctica when all of the industrialization was occurring elsewhere?

2010-11-19 00:22:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

Natural cycles? They do exist. But we're cutting down MASSIVE swaths of trees, eliminating entire species, destroying habitats, and we're burning fuels which would have otherwise remained naturally unburned. Honestly, we must be doing SOMETHING.

2010-11-19 00:23:00 Author: Astrosimi Posts: 2046

---

I'm not absolutely denying we're doing something, but I beleive we are doing far less than we are told we are. I am strongly against all of the deforestation and so forth, but we are a race of unlimited desires, and only a limited amount of resources. Unless we rob another planet of resources, we only have ours. As much as we want to stop cutting down trees, we are unconsciously forcing them to cut more down by demanding more and more and purchasing all of these things made by said resources. I'm on my way to contradicting myself... To clear my opinions up: -Global Warming and CO2: Overstated and overreacted -Ozone Layer: One strange oddity that could be explained different ways as I stated above -Deforestation and robbing our land of resources: Definitely happening and is terrible -Pollution: Happening, but it shouldn't, even though it's effects are overreacted also.

2010-11-19 00:30:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

For one the ozone layer can be see with spectrometer. Secondly this is not natural, its all man's fault , Between combustible engines producing massive amounts of pollutants to creating unnaturally large groups of domesticated animals (its the cow farts ). Thirdly this "soup" of nasty gases is collecting in those areas where the ozone is depleting. Finally the ozone will return to normal ( assuming that everybody cracks down and does their part) in around the late 2000's.

2010-11-19 00:37:00 Author: KILLA_TODDZILLA Posts: 653

---

For one the ozone layer can be see with spectrometer. Secondly this is not natural, its all man's fault , Between combustible engines producing massive amounts of pollutants to creating unnaturally large groups of domesticated animals (its the cow farts ). Thirdly this "soup" of nasty gases is collecting in those areas where the ozone is depleting. Finally the ozone will return to normal ( assuming that everybody cracks down and does their part) in around the late 2000's. What "soup" is this? keep in mind that 95% of Greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour. A very watery soup I assume....eeeew

2010-11-19 00:45:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

I don't know. I just don't see why it's over Australia and Antarctica when (like I stated before) idustrialization occurs elsewhere; more specifically England and the US. If the depletion is real at all. And by the way, soup is watery anyway.

2010-11-19 00:46:00 Author: piggabling Posts: 2979

---

-Global Warming and CO2: Overstated and overreacted -Ozone Layer: One strange oddity that could be explained different ways as I stated above -Deforestation and robbing our land of resources: Definitely happening and is terrible -Pollution: Happening, but it shouldn't, even though it's effects are overreacted also. What exactly is overreacted? Well, an acre of rainforest is removed every second, which is a forest of a small European country being removed each year. Humans to date have removed 25% of rainforest. About 90% of Earth's species live in rainforests. Many scientists predict that 100+ species go extinct every hour. One of the saddest things is that rainforests become wastelands just a few years after they are cut down, unlike many other forests. The plants actually regulate precipitation both on a regional and possibly global level and no more rain comes when the plants are cut down. http://www.rainforestsos.org/wp-content/uploads/images/aboutrainforests/about-deforestation-map.jpg Sea pollution like dead zones caused by chemicals emptying into the ocean from rivers are the cause of miles of ocean that are almost devoid of life. Estuaries are some of the most biologically diverse places on the planet, and there are fish and bird species that instinctively go to estuaries to raise their young. When an estuary becomes a dead zone, these species die out. Some of the most substantial world rivers are bordered by miles of farmland, and pesticides go straight into the rivers and then to the oceans. The nitrogen creates an algal boom that causes the ecosystem to shoot up in activity and then collapse. http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/additional/science-focus/images/dead_zones_map.jpg The North Pacific Gyre has a surface of six times more plastic than plankton: miles of bottles and scraps and trash just float in the middle of the ocean and nobody wants to clean it up. Because plastics take 20 - 1000 years to decompose, that swirling body of water will fill up with even more trash in the future. http://www.globalgarbage.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/north_pacific_gyre_world_map.png The depleting ozone not only causes cancer and cataracts to humans, but it kills phytoplankton, the basis for 99+% of aquatic ecosystems. On the other hand, closely-packed factories like those present in Beijing are creating ozone layers close to the surface that can cause lung-related health problems. http://www.kennuncorked.com/images_multiple_locations/sus_history_ozone_hole.jpg Global warming / climate change, I believe, is almost exclusively the result of human activity. Piggabling, your theories don't account for why things are changing so rapidly. If you compared a graph of human growth to graphs of climate change, the lines mimic each other. Deforestation works in two ways: carbon gas is released into the atmosphere when the trees burn, and those trees are no longer present to perform photosynthesis. That plays a bigger role than fossil fuels. One of the main problems that climate change presents is the rising of oceans. It's happening millimeter by millimeter, and miles of ice are dissapearing. http://www.organicauthority.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/seaice.jpg The current human population is about 7 billion, and scientists predict that the maximum human population of Earth is 9 to 11 billion. If the current trend of population growth continues, (the rate is slowing but it's still relatively rapid) then the human population will be 9 billion by 2050. The US Dep. of Defense has publicly documented their predictions about future wars for drinkable water. http://www.mongabay.com/images/pop.gif Notice that bump on the graph? That was the black plague... but as the exponential growth increases even faster, no world war or disease has even made a dent. The fastest growth rates actually come from less developed countries where the economy is formatted so that more family members is beneficial to your livelihood. The bulk of their population doesn't know anything about this problem to begin with. In all awful likelihood, the populations of the world will experience very hard times in future generations. Most of this is from memory, and I added some images I found... just a few random examples of what humans are doing to the Earth. Not a very positive post, but that's where my video comes in that I posted a few pages back.

2010-11-19 02:03:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251

---

What exactly is overreacted? What I think he means is that there are issues of greater concern that get pushed aside so that everyone can threat over their iglus melting. Like I mentioned earlier, thousands of children die every day. Figures like those you've so kindly posted are used by scientists to create panic so that more money goes to their research.

2010-11-19 02:15:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

Like I mentioned earlier, thousands of children die every day. What does that have to do with the thread? Those children die naturally because of the situation of their country whilst humans are driving tens of thousands of species to extinction or endangerment. Millions, not thousands, of children will likely die because of war, poverty, disease, or famine in upcoming excessive populations. The effects on the environment will be even worse. Figures like those you've so kindly posted are used by scientists to create panic so that more money goes to their research. Sure... You've got it all figured out...

2010-11-19 02:22:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251

---

~~DING DING DING~~ O.K. global warming is whats on the table not a pee peeing contest. The dying children vs. deforestation thread can be made later cool?

2010-11-19 02:34:00 Author: KILLA_TODDZILLA Posts: 653

---

What does that have to do with the thread? Those children die naturally because of the situation of their country whilst humans are driving tens of thousands of species to extinction or endangerment. Millions, not thousands, of children will likely die because of war, poverty, disease, or famine in upcoming excessive populations. The effects on the environment will be even worse. Sure... You've got it all figured out... WTF? I dont assume i've got anything figured out, I simply quote the video in my origional post and popular arguments on the subject. Your page long reaction on the word overreacted however. And to link dying children to this topic....My argument is that climate change is natural even if we do have an impact on it, that we waste temendous amounts of money and energy on climate research when it could be used in other areassuch as aid in third world contries. And to aknowledge your facts I will quote myself from earlier 'There are many confounding factors in the analysis of CO2 influence on warming. As global temperatures increase, some CO2 dissolved in the oceans is released into the atmosphere. At the same time, increased temperatures and CO2 encourage plant growth, which increases the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. Earth's climate is a complex and chaotic system. We only understand a few of the interactive components that influence temperature. There is no scientific certainty about all the causative factors, much less a consensus that humans have caused recent warming. And if you put greenhouse effects into the context of all the other temperature factors, like changes in solar activity, cloud cover, and ocean circulation. The human impact on warming becomes inconsequential.'

2010-11-19 03:37:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

WTF? I dont assume i've got anything figured out, I simply quote the video in my origional post and popular arguments on the subject. Your page long reaction on the word overreacted however. To say that those images were made to arouse panic is a bit ridiculous, no? Anyway, that doesn't change their validity. My reaction wasn't that long if you factor out the pictures, and if you think it's too long, no one is forcing you to read it. (I don't mean to be rude here) And to link dying children to this topic....My argument is that climate change is natural even if we do have an impact on it, that we waste temendous amounts of money and energy on climate research when it could be used in other areassuch as aid in third world contries. And to aknowledge your facts I will quote myself from earlier Fair enough, but 'tremendous' seems like an exaggeration and 'waste' is arguable. Weather forecasters need to compile much of this information anyway. No government wants to be unprepared in the event of a flood, dust storms, ozone radiation, and other consequences of climatic changes that scientists are researching. 'There are many confounding factors in the analysis of CO2 influence on warming. As global temperatures increase, some CO2 dissolved in the oceans is released into the atmosphere. At the same time, increased temperatures and CO2 encourage plant growth, which increases the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere. Earth's climate is a complex and chaotic system. We only understand a few of the interactive components that influence temperature. There is no scientific certainty about all the causative factors, much less a consensus that humans have caused recent warming. And if you put greenhouse effects into the context of all the other temperature factors, like changes in solar activity, cloud cover, and ocean circulation. The human impact on warming becomes inconsequential.' This quote has no numbers or examples? If "There is no scientific certainty about all the causative factors", then how is it that "the human impact on warming becomes inconsequential"? There are huge similarities between recent ecological problems and recent human activity. I haven't seen any posts try to debate that. Sure, it could be a coincidence or something that just adds speed to it all, but I find it unlikely.

2010-11-19 04:02:00 Author: Incinerator22 Posts: 3251

---

I don't know. I just don't see why it's over Australia and Antarctica when (like I stated before) idustrialization occurs elsewhere; more specifically England and the US. If the depletion is real at all. And by the way, soup is watery anyway. It's been a while since I've looked into these things but if I remember correctly it mainly collects in those areas due to wind currents.

2010-11-19 04:43:00 Author: SR20DETDOG Posts: 2431

---

As mentioned earlier, climate change, and all around geological changes, are a naturally occuring process wherein the planet undergoes massive environmental shifts in a cyclical pattern that goes about over millions of years; there have been multiple Ice Ages and interglacial periods before humanity as we know it even existed. However, even if climate change isn't entirely the fault of humanity, we would almost certainly be accelerating the cycle while simultaneously depleting resources and overpopulating the planet like Incinerator already mentioned. And the thing about moving into different geological periods is that when that happens, a great majority of the planet's entire population of living things dies off leaving only what creatures that could survive to go on and evolve to repopulate a radically different world. I'd imagine humans stand a good chance of being part of those that could survive through ingenuity, provided they don't end up metaphorically or literally cannibalizing themselves in the process, though this does not make me particularly enthusiastic about having kids. You can talk about how saving lives in the present is a more worthy endevor then "wasting time" on "the sky is falling" theories, but overpopulation is already one of the biggest looming threats to our species and population collapses and conflict over resources in places across the globe are practically an inevitability largely due to the fact that there are too many people around who often live too long. Thinking about saving those who have died or those who will inevitably die in the present may be a noble stance, but it is also a very short sighted one. We can work to reduce the number of people who die due to any number of reasons aside from climate change, but even if we didn't humanity would go on despite them save a few doomsday scenarios. Climate change ultimately gives way to the threat of mass-extinction events, which endangers our species as a whole and needs to be addressed in some way or another.

2010-11-19 04:46:00 Author: Dapiek Absaroka Posts: 512

---

@Dapiek Absaroka Yeah!! For whatever reason the earth is heating up, but we still have to deal with the problems this "heat up" causes. Personally, I wouldn't like to feel myself cooking in my own home X( @piggabling depends on what you mean by "world"

2010-11-19 05:20:00 Author: Amigps Posts: 564

---

What I think he means is that there are issues of greater concern that get pushed aside so that everyone can threat over their iglus melting. Wow, racist. This is my opinion backed by solid fact I wasted my time reading this thread and you didn't make any real arguments. That video shows no truth. This thread needs a lock.

2010-11-19 15:21:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800

---

Wow, racist. I wasted my time reading this thread and you didn't make any real arguments. That video shows no truth. This thread needs a lock. I'm deeply sorry for wasting 2 maybe 3 minutes of your life, the guilt will haunt me forever....but im curious now, what do you consider a real argument? EDIT: Now the thread has a lock....It really complements it, dont you think? http://www.tiffanyshop.org/product_images/1225101/0/0.jpg

2010-11-19 16:13:00 Author: MrFunctionality Posts: 637

---

So everyone knows: the ozone hole is unrelated to carbon dioxide, mostly caused by cfc's, chemicals containing chlorine used in aerosols and fridges. Luckily, the world's done pretty well in regulating them, aerosols don't use them any more, for example. Coincidentally, I think that now compressed carbon dioxide is normally used in aerosols. Luckily, the ozone layer is recovering pretty well. The problem with carbon dioxide is, fossil fuels produce it, and the world is incredibly reliant on fossil fuels. Even if we did limit carbon dioxide production it takes on average 100 years to leave the atmosphere. Methane is a particurlarly nasty greenhouse gas, 20 times more potent than CO2. Alot of human-related methane is produced by cows, many of which are pastured on land that used to be rainforests. It is also found trapped in vast quantities in ice, so if the earth warms up enough for the ice to melt, it'll exacerbate the problem. And, unlike carbon dioxide, it isn't removed from the atmosphere in photosynthesis. In case anyone is interested: the molecules of greenhouse gases absorb the energy of electromagnetic waves such as infra-red radiation when the length of the bonds within roughly match the amplitude (height) of the e.m wave. Its accepted that the C=O bonds in carbon dioxide roughly match the amplitude of infra-red. Man, I love talking about science

2010-11-19 16:45:00 Author: chimpskylark Posts: 335

---

I'm deeply sorry for wasting 2 maybe 3 minutes of your life, Maybe I read really slow and it took me 15 minutes!! /cry in the corner T_T

2010-11-19 16:49:00 Author: Bremnen Posts: 1800

---

Lets just find a new planet then, we've already jacked this one up the best we could and we've been around for as long as we've been keeping track. We'll probably still be able to live on this planet for another millenia or so before we start sprouting gills(due to the impending nuclear war between North Korea and North Korea cause lets face it they don't even like themselves). Then once we get to that planet, fudge that one up in a thousand years and move on. I don't mean to be a here and now kind of guy but we probably won't be alive to see the full effects of "global warming", I'm not saying lets abandon going green, just lets go green without a having to say, "If you don't, you will die." Now if you excuse me, I have to go leave the water running >

2010-11-19 17:23:00 Author: Bradlee Posts: 96

---

Here's the thing, Global warming is a natural thing that happens on Earth. What we have to remember is, we are adding more greenhouse gasses and such than would be there if our pollution was non existent. To say that we are being told lies and that Humans have absolutely no contribution to the mess is just plain ignorant and stupid if you don't mind me saying.

2010-11-20 04:09:00 Author: TheBlackKnight22 Posts: 695

---

Don't mind me double posting here but just want to stress that deforestation has a MAJOR influence on things like CO2 in the air. The less trees there are, the less CO2 gets absorbed by plant life. Killing off species is also horrible at that.

2010-11-20 04:13:00 Author: TheBlackKnight22 Posts: 695

Posts: 1077139    Threads: 69970    Members: 9661    Archive-Date: 2019-01-19

Aus dem Archiv wurden alle persönlichen Daten wie Name, Anschrift, Email etc. - aber auch sämtliche Inhalte wie z.B. persönliche Nachrichten - entfernt.
Die Nutzung dieser Webseite erfolgt ohne Speicherung personenbezogener Daten. Es werden keinerlei Cookies, Logs, 3rd-Party-Plugins etc. verwendet.