Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Whoa, it's cold in the winter? And it's 2008?!? I must warn everyone!

At 12/6/08 08:50 PM, Rideo wrote: So I guess when a child abuser stops beating his kids it's disruptive right?

It's certainly a disruption, that's for sure. Wether or not it's good is another thing.

At some time Elfer wrote:

Text

*thumbs up*
Finally a good post!

At 12/6/08 06:40 PM, CBP wrote:

At 12/6/08 12:02 PM, Rideo wrote:

You remember Katrina? One of the worst hurricanes ever? Tropical storms like this are getting worse as global warming gets worse. I would classify that as a disruption.

GODDAMNIT! Will you global warming activists stop using Katrina as an example of extreme weather. Katrina was no worse than any other Cat 3 hurricane, it just seems so.
Look at the amount of damage caused in Florida, which was $1-$2 billion and 14 deaths.
Louisiana however, was hit when Katrina lowered to Cat 2. It caused almost $70 billion in damage and killed 1,464 people, with the majority of that being in New Orleans. While that seems bad, remember, New Orleans was a FUCKING BOWL! Any water surge above 15 feet and the entire city was under.

At 12/7/08 09:14 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: There is still a major risk that land based glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica might suddenly collapse.

Look at previous data, the temperature has grown much higher than it is now, and much higher than the medieval climate optimum, yet polar bears are still alive, penguins are still alive, we still have both the arctic and anatarctic caps, if they didn't melt when the climate was much warmer, why would they melt now that we're actually in a much cooler time period?

Also I suggest you start doing some research, the antarctic sheet is growing, not shrinking. In 2007 the Antarctic sheets were measured at record size, 16 million square kilometers which is the largest it's ever been in recorded history. The ice between canada and greenland has reached it's highest levels in 15 years.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davids on/2008/02/16/western-greenland-ice-grow ing-still-global-warming

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160

Also:
400 prominent scientists dispute man-made global warming theory

If you would like facts to cite for the following, check google.

Wow, the earth got warmer in 1810 when the little ice age ended.

Wow, people advanced technologically when their crops grew better as the little ice age ended.

But hey, I'm ignoring the big picture- this is the warmest point in 100,000 years!

Which was the big ice age, if you remember. The world has been warming for 10,000 years, note the following empty phrases:

Younger-Dryas effect
The Big Thaw
Ice ages are cold.

*The above empty phrases are taken directly from recorded lectures given by Anthropology professor Brian M. Fagan of Univerity of California Santa Barbara. He has a B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. in Anthropology from Pembroke, Cambridge. He is my source for the concept that ice ages are cold.

Oh, the teaching power of sarcasm. While I have gathered this data from many places (including three lectures by college professors and the history channel), I have discovered the root of global warming on my own.

Jared Diamond helped. His books look nice on my coffee table.

At 12/7/08 02:39 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 12/7/08 09:14 AM, Conspiracy3 wrote: There is still a major risk that land based glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica might suddenly collapse.

Look at previous data, the temperature has grown much higher than it is now, and much higher than the medieval climate optimum, yet polar bears are still alive, penguins are still alive, we still have both the arctic and anatarctic caps, if they didn't melt when the climate was much warmer, why would they melt now that we're actually in a much cooler time period?

First of all, it isn't so much about how hot it is or how cold it is, but how fast the change in temperature is. Temperature is changing at a very high rate at the moment. If ice caps slowly melt into the ocean over a period of thousands of years it won't matter. If they collapse suddenly it will. My biggest concern is the fact that the west antarctic ice shelf is likely to slip into the ocean. It doesn't matter whether it was warmer than it was in medieval times. During the little ice age glaciers gained a lot of territory, and that territory is being lost right now. Yes, penguins and polar bears are still alive, but they aren't doing nearly as well as they were fifty years ago, they are suffering from global warming's effects.

Also I suggest you start doing some research, the antarctic sheet is growing, not shrinking. In 2007 the Antarctic sheets were measured at record size, 16 million square kilometers which is the largest it's ever been in recorded history. The ice between canada and greenland has reached it's highest levels in 15 years.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lynn-davids on/2008/02/16/western-greenland-ice-grow ing-still-global-warming

Look at the homepage of newsbusters.org. The title of the website is "NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias" The second I saw that title I realized it was way too biased a site to be trusted.

http://www.globalwarming.org/node/160

If you remember I wasn't so much concerned that WAIS would melt. I was more concerned for the melting that had happened before this brief few years of cooling (Which is one anomaly on a larger trend). During that period water has collected under the ice sheet which poses a major risk of it falling into the ocean. If it slowly melts it would not be nearly as catastrophic as if it collapsed.

Also:
400 prominent scientists dispute man-made global warming theory

400 out of how many?

At 12/7/08 02:59 PM, RWT wrote: If you would like facts to cite for the following, check google.

Wow, the earth got warmer in 1810 when the little ice age ended.

Wow, people advanced technologically when their crops grew better as the little ice age ended.

But hey, I'm ignoring the big picture- this is the warmest point in 100,000 years!

Which was the big ice age, if you remember. The world has been warming for 10,000 years, note the following empty phrases:

Younger-Dryas effect
The Big Thaw
Ice ages are cold.

*The above empty phrases are taken directly from recorded lectures given by Anthropology professor Brian M. Fagan of Univerity of California Santa Barbara. He has a B.A, M.A., and Ph.D. in Anthropology from Pembroke, Cambridge. He is my source for the concept that ice ages are cold.

Oh, the teaching power of sarcasm. While I have gathered this data from many places (including three lectures by college professors and the history channel), I have discovered the root of global warming on my own.

Jared Diamond helped. His books look nice on my coffee table.

I'm not arguing that we are the sole cause of global warming. There are a myriad of factors that contributed to it. However, we sped up the process. The questions you must ask yourself are "Is global warming harmful?" and "If so, how what can humans do to protect themselves?"

Regardless of whether or not global warming exists, we must still react the same way, as there are many other problems caused by our actions that no one is disputing. For instance, depletion of fossil feuls, smog, foreign policy problems created by oil resources, deforestation, etc. We should still try to act in the ways that would prevent global warming, as it will also help to solve these related problems.

At 12/7/08 04:14 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: First of all, it isn't so much about how hot it is or how cold it is, but how fast the change in temperature is.

Which I already pointed out on the previous page was moving at it's natural pace.

they are suffering from global warming's effects.

Which is proceeding at it's natural pace unaffected by humans.

Look at the homepage of newsbusters.org. The title of the website is "NewsBusters.org | Exposing Liberal Media Bias" The second I saw that title I realized it was way too biased a site to be trusted.

I'll give you that.

If you remember I wasn't so much concerned that WAIS would melt. I was more concerned for the melting that had happened before this brief few years of cooling (Which is one anomaly on a larger trend). During that period water has collected under the ice sheet which poses a major risk of it falling into the ocean. If it slowly melts it would not be nearly as catastrophic as if it collapsed.

Let's look at the data thus far presented and the problem:

Problem: If temperature change happens too fast, glaciers might break off and rise sea levels. Glaciers might melt if it gets too warm.

Data: We have seen that the glaciers did not exhibit such events during the medieval climate optimum when temperature was greater than it is now nor at times when the temperature was even greater than the MCO and temperature change is proceeding at it's natural pace.

You also have not defended against the fact that hydrocarbon use does not correlate with increased arctic air temperatures. So even if you're correct in worry about rising temperature, you still have not found a cause nor a way to combat it.

Also:
400 prominent scientists dispute man-made global warming theory

400 out of how many?

Is that all you have to say?

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the politicians are giving us the science and the scientists are the ones opposing them?

Shouldn't we trust 400 scientists over 1000 politicians (IPCC) on a scientific matter?

At 12/7/08 04:27 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 12/7/08 04:14 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: 400 out of how many?

Is that all you have to say?

Doesn't it strike you as a little odd that the politicians are giving us the science and the scientists are the ones opposing them?

Shouldn't we trust 400 scientists over 1000 politicians (IPCC) on a scientific matter?

I'm assuming that his point is that there's a lot more than 400 scientists out there. It's like the time the Discovery institute published a list of about 100 scientists who disagreed with the theory of evolution, and the NCSE responded by creating project Steve, which has a list of roughly 1000 scientists named Steve who agree with evolution.

At 12/7/08 04:19 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: I'm not arguing that we are the sole cause of global warming.

I had that arguement saved up, and it felt like the time to use it:

That's because people have started dring hybrid cars. Coal burning plants have installed better filters. People have started using solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power. People have made improvements onto their homes to increase feul efficiency.

Moreover, a period of time as short as ten years doesn't really prove much in the long term. Global warming takes much longer than ten years.

--

There are a myriad of factors that contributed to it. However, we sped up the process. The questions you must ask yourself are "Is global warming harmful?" and "If so, how what can humans do to protect themselves?"

If the world heats to a point, we all die. That's obvious. Has the earth heated to the point where species have been wiped out? That is also evident. Can we prevent this? No.

Regardless of whether or not global warming exists, we must still react the same way, as there are many other problems caused by our actions that no one is disputing. For instance, depletion of fossil feuls, smog, foreign policy problems created by oil resources, deforestation, etc. We should still try to act in the ways that would prevent global warming, as it will also help to solve these related problems.

Then why even be concerned with global warming?

At 12/6/08 08:50 PM, Rideo wrote:

At 12/6/08 06:40 PM, CBP wrote: You remember Katrina? One of the worst hurricanes ever? Tropical storms like this are getting worse as global warming gets worse. I would classify that as a disruption.

One bad storm does not equal total disruption, we've seen a drop in hurricane occurance, wouldn't that be a good thing?

Yes it would, but I never said that disruption means bad. It is not just one bad storm, remember Ike? That was another as well as several more in the Gulf of Mexico that were much worse than usual.

See above. Also, even if that was all, it is a change from the normal routine, hence a disruption.

So I guess when a child abuser stops beating his kids it's disruptive right?

It is disruptive, it is good, but it is disruptive. A disruption is a change in the normal routine, here is an example. A man hires someone to kill a person like Ghandi. The hitman shoots at this guy, but a nearby powerful electromagnet moves the bullet. This is a disruption, but it is a good disruption.

Disruptive has a negative connotation, yet the data clearly show's that hurricanes occurance has lessened, that the climate is actually becoming more stable. You can technically call this a disruption, but I would say it's a damn good disruption.

Less tropical storms is a good disruption, but more powerful storms is a bad disruption. What I meant by disruption in the first place has nothing to do with hurricanes. I meant that the reason the 2008 was such a cold year is that the warmer air in some parts of the world disrupts the normal flow of air, and in doing so makes the cold air fronts that are normally in places like Canada head toward the United States, and the warm air that is usually down here goes up there. This is the reason for the ice caps melting etc.

Katrina is ruled out as being a cause of global warming because we see less storms and more stability the warmer a climate gets.

It's the power of Katrina that was affected by global warming. Hurricanes gain more wind speed over warm water, and the water that Katrina passed over had been heated by global warming, causing it to gain power. The same is true for Ike and Gustav.

"The Earth's climate is more stable during warm periods. The warming heats the polar regions more than the equatorial regions, reducing temperature differences and thus reducing the power of storms."

The warming in the polar regions is causing the ice caps to melt.

"History shows that a warmer world is better for human health on average. It tends to boost agricultural productivity, which reduces hunger and the illnesses that inadequate nutrition help produce. In addition, weather patterns are generally more stable with fewer catastrophic weather events, and warm weather produces far fewer deaths than cold weather. These factors contribute to longer average life spans and increased human populations during climactic warm periods compared to cooler times."

I don't know if you have noticed, but overpopulation is a problem as it is. How is increased human populations a good thing?

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba516/

Look, if man made global warming were real, it would actually be a good thing. As I previously pointed out, we are below the established medieval climate optimum.

Man-made global warming is real, and it will be devastating to the Earth's ecosystem as the link below points out.

Here is a link that may be enlightening.

Man-made global warming is real, and it will be devastating to the Earth's ecosystem as the link below points out.

Here is a link that may be enlightening.

You're an idiot. For one, the link wasn't conclusive on human-triggered global warming.

I'll give you this- humans are contributing to global warming. But we're responsible for less than .1% of the warming experienced currently.

Before you say anything, I'm a liberal. I'm economically conservative, but I am a liberal.

At 12/7/08 06:01 PM, RWT wrote:

Man-made global warming is real, and it will be devastating to the Earth's ecosystem as the link below points out.

Here is a link that may be enlightening.

You're an idiot. For one, the link wasn't conclusive on human-triggered global warming.

I know it didn't prove that humans triggered global warming, the link was to show the effects of global warming, which is what Rideo was trying to deny.

I'll give you this- humans are contributing to global warming. But we're responsible for less than .1% of the warming experienced currently.

How did you come up with that number?

Before you say anything, I'm a liberal. I'm economically conservative, but I am a liberal.

What does that have to do with anything? This is about global warming, not political affiliation.

At 12/6/08 12:02 PM, Rideo wrote: It's rising because we're coming out of the little ice age. When you come out of an ice age, usually the temperature rises...

That's the same as saying that the climate is getting warmer because the climate is getting warmer. Coming out of an Ice Age is an effect, not a cause.

What about the graph I've posted already that shows that arctic air temperature corresponds directly with solar activity while being completely unaffected by the increase in hydrocarbon usage?

I honestly don't know what is up with your graph. It's already been established in the scientific community that sun activity has declined since the 70's. We know this because of data collected by radiometers on European and US spacecraft. I find it interesting that your article presents facts that seem to differ from what's already been proven.

And this demonization of CO2 is ridiculous. CO2 is a trace gas, it makes up 0.038% of the atmosphere. Water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 yet the amount of average water vapor in the atmosphere is 1%.

The percentage of the atmosphere it takes up isn't relevant. Green house gases are the sole contributors to global warming. To produce a more relevant statistic you would have to recognize what percentage of the GHGs in the atmosphere each gas accounts for . Even then, the statistic wouldn't be completely accurate, you still have to account for how effective each green house gas is at trapping infrared radiation.

You mention water vapor. It's true that water vapor contributes to the green house effect. In fact it accounts for about 60-70% of global warming. However, you also have to recognize that water vapor isn't a gas that acts on it's own. By that I mean, the amount of water vapor in the air is attributed directly to the temperature. The hotter it is, the more water vapor the atmosphere can contain.

Carbon Dioxide is a gas that on it's own can be attributed to about 25% of climate change. Not only that, but when Carbon Dioxide enters the atmosphere, it stays there for about 100-200 years, as opposed to water vapor which can only stay in the atmosphere for several weeks. So when Carbon Dioxide output soars like it has the last couple of decades, it causes a significant and much more permanent increase in temperature. This allows the atmosphere to contain more water vapor which in turn increases the temperature further.

Long story short: just because CO2 can be classified as a trace gas doesn't mean that it has little or no effect on climate change.

At this point we are 1 degree lower than the medieval climate optimum, so it would be a good thing to see a rise in temperature actually. Warmer temperatures cause less storms, it's also known to raise comfort levels in humans and make them more amiable and empathetic.

I've never heard that Global Warming causes less storms, but I know that it's been shown to make storms more violent. When Hurricane Katrina passed over the warm waters of the loop current in the Gulf of Mexico, it caused a massive increase in wind speed. Katrina went from a category 3 hurricane to a category 5 hurricane because of it's contact with warm water.

Furthermore, even if that is true, the detriments of global warming far outweigh it's benefits. An increase in temperature can cause glaciers to melt and shorelines to rise. Causing floods in some areas of the world and droughts in others. Africa's agriculture output could halve by 2020 under the current predictions. Similarly, China's grain production will be cut by 5-10% by 2030. The social ramifications of this drop in resources could increase the number of displaced civilians across the world due to military and economic factors. There's a lot more to be worried about than there is to be relieved about.

Yes, the US climate has improved. Oh and what? This article isn't biased! They clearly state that the sea level is rising, which is not a good thing, this isn't the article of some crazed foaming at the mouth right winger denouncing everything the left has to say or something like that, this is article is made by real climate scientists making observations on the climate. And what they've found is, hydrocarbon use does not make the climate warmer, we are in a natural trend proceeding at a natural rate and the climate is more stable than it was previously, but the sea level is rising.

There are plenty of reasons to think the article is biased. For one, the author of the article (Arthur Robinson) is a signatory on "A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism", a petition including 100 scientists who express skepticism of the evolutionary theory. He's also a proclaimed conservative christian. Given the fact that the article has a lot of charts and statistics that I feel are subject to question given my previous knowledge on the subject, I think it's reasonable to be skeptical of this article's neutrality.

I think we could survive an Ice-Age, Global Warming would be pretty hard to survive...So yeah, this is kinda good...Make's me relieved to know that my Young won't burn to a horrible scorched(And toasty!) death, and could freeze instead...(Could, we might be able to Survive an Ice Age with the technology we have.)

Stupid algore, global warmings fake punk!

I haven't really noticed, it actually seemed warmer down where I live. But I have never really been the kind of guy who gets cold.

That's because people have started dring hybrid cars. Coal burning plants have installed better filters. People have started using solar, geothermal, hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear power. People have made improvements onto their homes to increase feul efficiency.

Moreover, a period of time as short as ten years doesn't really prove much in the long term. Global warming takes much longer than ten years.

thats bullshit 15 years ago the politicians and scientists were talking to global cooling
we obviously need to be afraid of something thank, you kyoto

At 12/5/08 05:12 PM, JackTipper wrote: Climate change seems to be the new word to describe the con that is global warming.

;;;;
Oh, how right you are about this 'CON'
I wish there was a universal way to SHUT AL GORE & his group of cronies up !
There is no GLOBAL WARMING... THERE IS CLIMATE CHANGE.... see the difference ?

The fact that recent (ie; last 150+ years) that mankings increasing numbers & increasing use of fossil fuels, is affecting climate. Is poorly understood & is really just a "chicken little-the sky is falling ,the sky is falling" alarmist bullshit. This planet was formed out of cosmic gas & dust & huge amounts of heat.
What would they call that, I wonder...the world is creating itself ?
To attempt to say that we have/are destroying the Earth with the little amount of short term information available is idiotic. We know we are having an adverse impact...but our polution of the oceans & waters is just as serious if not more so than the Farce of "Global Warming"

I'm not saying that changes shouldn't be made, I'm not saying that we are not experiencing climate change, what I'm trying to get out there is all of this is a tool being used (in my opinion wrongly) to attempt to make change happen... not just change, but EXPENSIVE changes that will allow Governments even more access to what little money they don't take from us now in taxes to help defeat a problem that isn't actually fully understood.

So could we at least attempt to correct each & every idiot you encounter who claims "ITS GLOBAL WARMING" by correcting them to the fact we are experiencing a climate change of which some of it is related to activities by mankind.
REAL PROBLEMS though; I believe things like fresh water shortages, acid rain...these are REAL problems we have proof is being caused by us...global warming & cooling trends have been going on longer than mankind has recorded history.