Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
CO2 warms up the atmosphere? At high levels of concentration it does but what about 2%? CO2 is dissolved in the oceans and it leaves the water as temperatures rise (like a carbonated soda after it becomes warm). So the hotter it gets the more CO2 enters the atmosphere. Well, if CO2 was a strong variable in the Earths temperature than the atmosphere would continue getting hotter and then more CO2 would enter the atmosphere. This would create a "snowball" affect and the earth would max out at very high temperatures until there was no more CO2 dissolved in the oceans. The problem with that is that the atmosphere was the hottest it has been during the Mesozoic period (dinasours) in the last 560 million years. So why did the temperature come down after that into an iceage lasting up to the last 10,000 years. Hmmm.....maybe there is more to this than us little humans can understand.
Personally, I think that weather cycles on Earth fluctuate for natural reasons such as the precession of the equinoxes and cyclical solar activity. The planet we live on goes through natural cooling and warming cycles as evidenced by the many ice ages proven to have taken place in the past.
I haven't seen any convincing evidence that man himself is negatively impacting global weather despite the considerable effort being made to cultivate this perception.
What could lie behind this agenda? What are the real reasons for pushing the "man made" theory. (I have my suspicions, I'm just curious as to what other people think.)
The poll is not exactly fair. I believe in both. I think there are warming and cooling cycles for sure. However, I do believe that we need to be more conscious of what we're doing to the planet that can harm it.
there are plenty of other benefits to the planet from global warming. Because warming is concentrated at the poles, large sections of the continental landmasses in the Northern Hemisphere that are currently too cold to be used for productive agriculture would become usable. Current agricultural lands would be warmed, but not as seriously impacted as warming closer to the equator is less severe. Also, warming is supposedly more prevalent during the winter months, lessening the length and severity of cold months leading to longer growing and allowing us to spend less of our resources on heating (wood, fossil fuels, electricity). Furthermore, warming would increase air temperature near and water temperature in the oceans, leading to increased evaporation and moisture in the atmosphere. This moisture would then fall as rain on the continents, further increasing the land's agricultural carrying capacity, thus allowing us to grow more food (and lessen the severity of current water shortages).
so more co2 is actually GREENER
Man further bending and changing nature to his will is not GREENER
I guess the next question would be what environment you're working with?
Was your response vague purposefully?
Oh wait, I missed the part where you said you design low carbon buildings. So, would you say that the perception , whether factual or not, of AGW is profitable for you?
Actually I just didn't have time to expand on my reply, nor do I wish to blow my own trumpet.
As far as profitability is concerned it has been highly detrimental to my career- If I had just become a commercial architect I could have been a much wealthier man that I am right now.
Last edited by archineer; 12-04-2010 at 07:07 AM..
The science is overwhelmingly in favor of global warming being a very real problem. The anti GW crowd grabs hold of some truly specious arguments to try and cling to their positions on this (things like "well, it snowed in Texas!" or "these scientists exchanged emails which, if we twist and contort what they're saying enough, can be interpreted as saying they're fudging data!")
It's a natural human instinct to resist the idea that we've done something. Nobody ever wants to take blame for actions, and the reality is individually none of us has done much. As an ever-growing collective, however, we are placing things into what was already a very delicate ecosystem that are throwing things out of balance. And while a degree or two may not seem like much, for something like Earth that maintains such a precarious balance, it has huge effects.
That being said, the world won't end during my lifetime, so I don't really care.
Thats all true but I have to wonder how the anti science crowd reconciles their selfishness with what they are leaving behind for their children and grandchildren.
You'd think these folks would at least care enough about the planet to not leave it permanently altered for their offspring.
Not so. And therein shows the level of their selfishness.
Pretty sad, but denial aint a river in Egypt, it's part of the American psyche.
I'd like to choose both answers, because they're both obviously correct.
Ditto. Both choices are correct. Other things to be cognizant of is the rate of occurrence and the intensity of events. Observing only whether something is or is not happening is but a fraction of the picture. Then look at long term trends.
The science is overwhelmingly in favor of global warming being a very real problem. The anti GW crowd grabs hold of some truly specious arguments to try and cling to their positions on this (things like "well, it snowed in Texas!" or "these scientists exchanged emails which, if we twist and contort what they're saying enough, can be interpreted as saying they're fudging data!")
It's a natural human instinct to resist the idea that we've done something. Nobody ever wants to take blame for actions, and the reality is individually none of us has done much. As an ever-growing collective, however, we are placing things into what was already a very delicate ecosystem that are throwing things out of balance. And while a degree or two may not seem like much, for something like Earth that maintains such a precarious balance, it has huge effects.
That being said, the world won't end during my lifetime, so I don't really care.
[/quote]
That's a diffrence in cultural perspective. All of us are a part of some bigger group in which we identify and are connected. We tend to take up most of the cultural belief systems of those associations.
Many cultures look welll beyond their own generation, or their childrens' generation. It's our investment in the our own future. it's similar to the posit on the future debt we are leaving our grandchildren (if you have them).
Would anyone intentionally leave toxic contamination to their childrens' or grandchildrens' habitat?
Actually, the data shows a cooling period for the past 10-15 years, so hows that stack up with your FACTS ?
F O S.
Every glacier on the planet is shrinking at an unusually fast pace, the polar ice caps are shrinking and 2010 is going down as one of the hottest years on record, I think you may want to recheck your own "Facts".
Casper
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
