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.
my opinion is pretty simple.
i think those who believe the that humans are the main cause of it are dumb. the earth is going to cool/heat again.
i think that those who believe that humas have nothing to do with it are dumb. we contribute alot to our atmosphere.
so basically, there has to be a middle ground. humans are part to blame, but without humans it will happen anyway. maybe humans are just speeding up the heat/cool effect.
i say "heat/cool" because the smart scientist cannot figure out if it is heating or cooling, for they say global cooling, then global warming. then they got really smart and named it climat change. its is a catch 2020 phrase.
I don't believe that a less than one percent gas increasing to a less than one percent gas has any significant effect... one doesn't have to be a genius to figure that out... can it have an effect? sure but we are no where close to that amount... and the biter? They want MONEY to go to somebody to fix it... I am not stupid either... not money to some THING but money to some BODY...
I recently read that "scientists" are now wondering why the warming trend seems to have STOPPED 20 years ago. Global temperatures are not where "the models" say they should be at this time!
Then there is the minor little factoid that temperatures seem to be increasing on other planets in the Solar System. How is mankind driving those temperature changes?
I agree, the global climate is changing. But, I don't know why. I'm not sure the "scientists" know why, either!
If you try to model an extremely complex system, you will fail in terms of long term accuracy due to the butterfly effect. Get ONE little thing wrong and the whole thing might as well be thrown out. Consider all the feedback mechanisms of all of the earth's "spheres".
The OP was all about discussing all the systems as they relate to global temperature.
All man is doing is releasing some chemicals into the air and chopping down plants. That has an effect, and the properties of some chemicals include more heat as a result of radiation absorption.
...Although we don't know just how much this translates to in temperature, since the earth reacts to this change in chemicals in it's own way.
...Think about the weather, a few decades ago we struggled with getting the forecast right three days ahead of time! Now we are pretty damn good at three days, but the weather is less complex of a system to model than the climate.
You are an agent of chaos. You are doing something, doing something gets results done for you in the mean time...
...But in the long run, nobody knows if you descendants will be happy with what you've done.
my opinion is pretty simple.
i think those who believe the that humans are the main cause of it are dumb. the earth is going to cool/heat again.
i think that those who believe that humas have nothing to do with it are dumb. we contribute alot to our atmosphere.
so basically, there has to be a middle ground. humans are part to blame, but without humans it will happen anyway. maybe humans are just speeding up the heat/cool effect.
i say "heat/cool" because the smart scientist cannot figure out if it is heating or cooling, for they say global cooling, then global warming. then they got really smart and named it climat change. its is a catch 2020 phrase.
Actually we can be fairly accurate at determining whether last year was hotter than this year. Take a look at satellite photos, it's very clear that summer ice in the north pole is decreasing less and less each year.
Also, you are a bit close minded. You think we are either speeding up or slowing down, but have you ever considered the middle ground where we are actually counterbalancing effects?
I don't believe that a less than one percent gas increasing to a less than one percent gas has any significant effect... one doesn't have to be a genius to figure that out... can it have an effect? sure but we are no where close to that amount... and the biter? They want MONEY to go to somebody to fix it... I am not stupid either... not money to some THING but money to some BODY...
One percent is still a lot. 1 percent of change can lead to the domino effect of a greater change, whilst at the same time there are systems in place, such as the ocean to make the effect insignificant...
...Or are there?
Another thing, you are saying you want the situation to be fixed right?
How can you fix something if you don't know what you are doing?
And then there are these humans, these massive societies that get cranky when change happens to them. They get pissed off when their homes get destroyed or when their crops wither up.
...No worries though, because chances are with global warming there are many good things too, such as more farmland available, along with a bigger growing season.
...It's all too complex until we get to the bottom of this.
my opinion is pretty simple.
i think those who believe the that humans are the main cause of it are dumb. the earth is going to cool/heat again.
i think that those who believe that humas have nothing to do with it are dumb. we contribute alot to our atmosphere.
so basically, there has to be a middle ground. humans are part to blame, but without humans it will happen anyway. maybe humans are just speeding up the heat/cool effect.
i say "heat/cool" because the smart scientist cannot figure out if it is heating or cooling, for they say global cooling, then global warming. then they got really smart and named it climat change. its is a catch 2020 phrase.
OK, I'll accept this premise. But from here, let me offer a scenario: Pretend mankind was able to dramatically decrease emissions and effectively stop global warming and associated cases of extreme weather, drying lakes, desertification, loss of icecaps and permafrost, etc. Well, unless human population and development were reversed, we'd still be F'd.
My point is simple, mankind's massive encroachment on the earth is leading/will continue to lead to the complete degredation of the earth with no hope of recovery unless mankind encounters some "natural" setbacks. Natural like plagues, viruses and wars where nukes and nasty chemicals are not involved. The latter being completely unlikely.
It's what philosophers have been saying for decades: man's undoing will be the complete inability to manage its own growth.
my opinion is pretty simple.
i think those who believe the that humans are the main cause of it are dumb. the earth is going to cool/heat again.
i think that those who believe that humas have nothing to do with it are dumb. we contribute alot to our atmosphere.
so basically, there has to be a middle ground. humans are part to blame, but without humans it will happen anyway. maybe humans are just speeding up the heat/cool effect.
i say "heat/cool" because the smart scientist cannot figure out if it is heating or cooling, for they say global cooling, then global warming. then they got really smart and named it climat change. its is a catch 2020 phrase.
Your statement is another perfect example of why AGW is a scam. Not once did Michael Mann's hockey schtick SCAM produce a cooling effect, yet his hockey schtick was (and still is in many circles) hailed as the be all, do all theory that is the equivalent to Newton's theory on gravity, even though this clearly is NOT the case.
When you can prove man caused the Ice Age AND the decline of the Ice Age, come back.
For my argument I only need to state the fact that people are taking chemicals and putting them into a gaseous form and releasing them into the atmosphere.
There are a number of skeptics of anthropogenic global warming among the frequenters of the City-Data Politics and Other Controversies forum. I am not going to argue against that, since anthropogenic global warming is a very complex issue, involving not only the modeling of the various systems using chemical, geological, biological and other sciences, but it also involves politics and foreign policy, both very sensitive issues to some members of the forum.
What I want to know is what your opinion is of the relationship between humans and the third planet from the sun.
I would like to begin with saying that according to many scientists, the earth has gone from hell and back. The earth has been at points of both extreme cold and extreme heat already, with both conditions not being suitable for human life as we are now. This theory is not far-fetched, given the diverse and violent tectonic history of the earth.
I would also like to remind that the current theory is that we are not the ONLY organisms that would alter the chemical composition of the planet, since the introduction of cyanobacteria millions of years ago. The introduction of oxygen to the atmosphere was a VERY significant change to all life forms.
...But besides biosphere, there are other systems at play that affect the conditions in which the various forms of life live in.
The hydrosphere is one of the systems that living things depend on. Not only does it cover most of the earth, it is the environment in which many organisms survive. The main component of the hydro sphere is water, a molecule that has peculiar characteristics. For one thing, water in it's liquid form needs a lot of energy to be heated up one degree, in fact, it needs four times as much energy to be heated one degree than dirt. Water circulates the oceans, and provides a medium to transfer energy, nutrients, and itself to various systems that uses. In it's solid form it reflects radiation off the earth, provides insulation to the ground, and provides fresh water when it melts. In it's gas form, water can lift itself off the ground and be transported across the continents. It also acts as an energy transfer, and it can cause unpleasant conditions to people through the means of a storm.
Another system is the lithosphere. Much of the earth is still pretty damn hot, although the surface significantly cooled off. But, the surface is still changing due to the circulation of liquid below the lithosphere. Although they are microscopical for the most part, over millions of years, they can alter the distribution of the earth and oceans significantly, altering the interaction between water and land. At it's current condition, the lithosphere is responsible for the ice age, due to blocking off transfer of water between the pacific and Atlantic oceans at the point which is now Central America. Another component to the lithosphere are volcanoes. Volcanoes can release matter to the atmosphere and release lava to the ground. This matter temporarily stays in the atmosphere, and it can block radiation to the surface. At times volcanoes have been known to destroy villages, cause famines, and even mass extinctions, if enough of them go off at one time, or if many of them erupt for a long period of time.
Another system is that between the sun and the earth. The sun gives off energy and the earth reflects it. This exchange is equal, but various systems have tipped the balance before, leading to a very cold and very hot earth in the past.
Since the rise of humans in recent times, we have gained the technology to cause chemical reactions and bring up carbon dioxide and other gases to the atmosphere. Remember how I said that water in it's liquid form takes a lot more radiation to be heated up one degree than dirt? Well, certain gases do not need a lot of radiation before turning it into thermal energy. One gas to keep in mind is methane. A huge amount of methane is stored within the earth will be released if the permafrost in the soil in the northern hemisphere melts. This could be a runaway effect, according to some. The runaway effect supposedly tips the radiation balance towards an unfavorable position to humans. However there are many systems in place that will react to this warming and will perhaps act as a balance. Furthermore humans also have been known to chop down trees, a consumer of global warming gases. However, with advancement of global warming, trees in the low population areas of the north will advance north and increase in numbers.
Somethings else to be considered are the benefits of global warming. Being in an ice age means a shorter growing season, which means less food for humanity. While global warming COULD displace populations, climate change happened before and is nothing new. The only thing new is that there are more people that could be displaced.
The earth is a very complicated system, but so is human activity. Humans have a demand for energy, but that energy is the result of a chemical reaction which alters the composition of the atmosphere. Humans also have a preference against certain changes, but they are also agents of change.
As I said before, I am not here to convince your opinion on how people should handle the politics of global warming.
However, I would like you to recognize that there are many complex systems on earth and they all contribute to the radiation balance on earth. Humans are a part of the system and not only they contribute to it (though significance and the quality of consequences can be debated) but they react to it as well. But we are not the only system, and many systems are outside of control.
Who knows, maybe we are starting a runaway effect. Or maybe we are acting as a balance towards other systems and are actually making life more pleasant for ourselves in the future. Or maybe it won't matter at all since we are still at the mercy of the lithosphere and a super volcano will eliminate us all and essentially make our effects null and void
...Chances are this system is too complicated to predict the long term effects. When listening to politicians dictate global warming policy, think about the complexity of system. Furthermore, think about the benefits and consequences of a certain policy first. Recognize that chances are politicians have good intentions. Equally recognize that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
...I guess you could say that I created this thread to remind you that essentially you are an agent to chaos. In my opinion global warming just might be the one problem that capitalism might not be able to figure out.
It is incumbent upon those promoting a theory to disprove the null hypothesis. It is not the purpose of science to disprove every theory that is promoted- the converse is true.
I am always amused by the liberal "scientists" who think that "science" is throwing some mud on the wall, sitting back, and demanding that everyone else disprove the contention.
Believe in "global warming"? Let's see the hard and fast evidence, with a p<.05, that proves-
1. CO2 causes increased temperatures (not the other way around)
2. CO2 changes are the primary driver for global temperature changes
3. The CO2 changes are due primarily to man
4. If #3 is true, anything can be done about it
There you have it. Just a "simple" task for you global warming proponants. Unless you can prove 1-4 with sound, irrefutable science, your contention is an unproven hypothesis. In short, it is simply conjecture which deserves little interest.
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.
