Global warming for real?

[FlashCridic1124]

Over the years and years upon which the earth has been around, temperature's have naturally changed drastically though the centuries from time to time. It is not to say that a rise in temperature in present time may not be because of green house gas's(the O-zone doesn't just disappear on it's own).
Yes the global temperature may rise overall do to human causes, but does this mean we will all die upon the icecaps melting? I should think not as there is a surface tension and the entire world in which the resulting 'flood' must spread.
To add to this, this would take many many years for the icecaps to completely melt and it would slowly make the ocean rise slightly but there would be no massive flood unless the icecaps where to instantly melt and drop into the ocean causing a wave of mass proportions to flood the earth. To say the truth, time is the key element to such an event. This also goes to say that since such long periods of time would occur during this time, the earth would slowly adapt as time went on, of course the O-zone layer is still an issue however that seems to be the biggest problem. To also say this in conclusion, the icecaps had once spanned a great portion of the earth a many million years ago during the iceage and had dwindled since to become what we know as the northpole.

[Musician]

Even if it isn't immediate, our civilizations are sedentary, so we'd still lose a significant amount of land. Not to mention Global Warming is what ultimately triggers an ice age. Global Warming does occur naturally, however (from what I've heard) it has been dramatically aided this time around. Some scientists believe this could trigger much more devastating environmental changes this time around due to our carelessness.

[KeithHybrid]

Think of it this way: unless the trees are coniferous (like pine trees), or close to the equator they souldn't have leaves this time of year. If they do, then something is out of whack with the enviornment.

[FlashCridic1124]

I never said there wouldn't be any destruction, I was pointing out that it's not as bad as the media makes it sound is my basic point. For example, I don't believe that most of the land with be flooded by hundreds of feet of water destroying large cities completely or anything.

[FlashCridic1124]

At 2/25/08 07:50 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Think of it this way: unless the trees are coniferous (like pine trees), or close to the equator they souldn't have leaves this time of year. If they do, then something is out of whack with the enviornment.

Well I beg to differ, that may be so however the winters so far have been far colder than normal lately, from what I've experienced, and no hurricanes have been hittng near the equator lately in the US or anything. Well perhaps there is a climate change but does this signify destruction...I can't answer that for sure, but do to flood or possibly temperatures that will change in ways we can't foresee?

[thedo12]

well winter came like 2 months early this year

[FlashCridic1124]

At 2/25/08 07:57 PM, thedo12 wrote: well winter came like 2 months early this year

exactly, although, climate change does cause weird weather, it could be something else, maybe an irregular climate change maybe global warming itself, no evidence of exactly what the future will hold and if the global warming we're told is the real deal to say

[SuperDeagle]

At 2/25/08 08:06 PM, FlashCridic1124 wrote:

At 2/25/08 07:57 PM, thedo12 wrote: well winter came like 2 months early this year

exactly, although, climate change does cause weird weather

Or maybe the Earth's axis tilted over a teeny wee bit to the left.

[Duoflippy]

In my opinion the only bad thing that can result from Global Warming is bad El Nino which can kill a lot of fish and cause the price of fish to skyrocket.

Other than that, warmer weather isn't all that bad.

[riemannSum]

At 2/25/08 07:50 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Think of it this way: unless the trees are coniferous (like pine trees), or close to the equator they souldn't have leaves this time of year. If they do, then something is out of whack with the enviornment.

Global Warming has caused MAYBE a one degree change over the course of the time frame in question. The problem is not that it is happening, but WHO is causing it. Do some research and find out that global warming is a totally natural thing, which is being made out to be the fault of humans due to a correlation. Then look up, 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc.' Educate yourself.

[EndGameOmega]

At 2/25/08 08:30 PM, riemannSum wrote:

At 2/25/08 07:50 PM, KeithHybrid wrote: Think of it this way: unless the trees are coniferous (like pine trees), or close to the equator they souldn't have leaves this time of year. If they do, then something is out of whack with the enviornment.

Global Warming has caused MAYBE a one degree change over the course of the time frame in question.

No global warming HAS caused a 0.74 *C (1.33 *F) increase in temperature over the past century. Reference: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract /103/39/14288

The problem is not that it is happening, but WHO is causing it. Do some research and find out that global warming is a totally natural thing, which is being made out to be the fault of humans due to a correlation.

Very few respected climatologist hold such views; Most agree that humans are the driving factor behind global warming. Considering that we have increase CO2 levels by 39%, and methane levels by 149% it not really hard to see why.

Then look up, 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc.' Educate yourself.

And you sprouting your own fallacy; Post hoc states explicitly that just because A and B are collated dose not imply that A causes B. Now that dose not mean that A and B don't have some kind of casual relation, just that without a controlled survey and study (to which we have anyway so the point is still moot) direct causation can not be concluded. Your committing a fallacy of equivocation by misinterpreting the use of the word implies; which has a very different context and meaning with in logic then its vulgar counter part.

[joshhunsaker]

i've read so many articles that have "scientifically indicated" that both global warming is a very real threat and also that it is simply a cycle that occurs due to naturally released carbon dioxide that will balance itself out (spoken by my geology professor) that I find it's practically stupid to try to logically pick a side about it short of becoming a full-blown geo-physicist.

[Icelord182]

its funny how this thread has gone so far without the word greenhouse gasses being mentioned, greenhouse gasses are only affecting global warming a teeensy bit, i'd guess only like, 3% the rest is just the world is going back to its NORMAL temperature, not hotter, we have just had an ice age. I am no geo-physisist either, but that much is clear.

However despite that, and my username, it could do with getting hotter, im losing my tan.

[EndGameOmega]

At 2/26/08 06:17 AM, Icelord182 wrote: its funny how this thread has gone so far without the word greenhouse gasses being mentioned, greenhouse gasses are only affecting global warming a teeensy bit, i'd guess only like, 3%

Um, no. Green house gasses account for most if not all of the temperature fluctuations over the past century.

the rest is just the world is going back to its NORMAL temperature, not hotter, we have just had an ice age.

No, we may have had an ice age about 450-150 years ago, there's some speculation on whether or not it actually occurred. If we consider the past trends and the current solar output we should be in the beginnings of an ice age right now. That we aren't is rather disturbing, and will be a problem in a few decades when the sun's output beings to rise again.

I am no geo-physisist either, but that much is clear.

Clearly your not, no offense.

However despite that, and my username, it could do with getting hotter, im losing my tan.

Err... Heat!=tan, UV=tan. Though with global warming the ozone should end up decreasing eventually so...

[dELtaluca]

At 2/26/08 06:38 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

If we consider the past trends and the current solar output we should be in the beginnings of an ice age right now. That we aren't is rather disturbing

no, if you consider past trends, we are still in the relatively early stages of coming out of an ice age.

[EndGameOmega]

At 2/26/08 07:07 AM, dELtaluca wrote:

At 2/26/08 06:38 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

If we consider the past trends and the current solar output we should be in the beginnings of an ice age right now. That we aren't is rather disturbing

no, if you consider past trends, we are still in the relatively early stages of coming out of an ice age.

Bull. The global temperature was declining before the 60's, and the global levels of CO2, CH4, and other greenhouse gases should have been on the decline. We're also in a period of decreased solar activity. You also have certain biological activity such as the decreasing rodent population near to the poals. The warming trends we're feeling are not caused by us leaving an ice age.

[riemannSum]

At 2/26/08 03:33 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:
No global warming HAS caused a 0.74 *C (1.33 *F) increase in temperature over the past century. Reference: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract /103/39/14288

Ok? 1 degree ~ .74 degrees... What's your point?

Very few respected climatologist hold such views; Most agree that humans are the driving factor behind global warming. Considering that we have increase CO2 levels by 39%, and methane levels by 149% it not really hard to see why.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Control stated that it couldn't say with accuracy that humans were the driving factor.

And you sprouting your own fallacy; Post hoc states explicitly that just because A and B are collated dose not imply that A causes B. Now that dose not mean that A and B don't have some kind of casual relation, just that without a controlled survey and study (to which we have anyway so the point is still moot) direct causation can not be concluded. Your committing a fallacy of equivocation by misinterpreting the use of the word implies; which has a very different context and meaning with in logic then its vulgar counter part.

'After this, therefore because of this.' To be more explicit.

For example, I ate a dinner of fish, my stomach hurt a few hours afterwards, therefore, my stomach hurts because I ate the fish.

Thats the false reasoning.

Industrial revolution occurred, global warming happened, therefore industrial revolution caused global warming. Or not. Because the Earth naturally cools and warms on its own. A while ago we were concerned with global cooling. People are quick to blame humans because of air pollution, which is a different problem but provides an excellent, albeit false, correlation.

[morefngdbs]

At 2/25/08 07:57 PM, thedo12 wrote: well winter came like 2 months early this year

;
This is the reason I like it better when people call it "climate change" as opposed to 'warming'.
It sure hasn't warmed up around here & it's the most snow we've got in the last 5 years , & winter ain't over around here yet.

[EndGameOmega]

At 2/26/08 06:33 PM, riemannSum wrote:

At 2/26/08 03:33 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:
No global warming HAS caused a 0.74 *C (1.33 *F) increase in temperature over the past century. Reference: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract /103/39/14288

Ok? 1 degree ~ .74 degrees... What's your point?

My point was your statement was facetious; you emphasized may, suggesting that there was a significant degree of doubt about it, when in fact there isn't. The earth has warmed by .74 *C, there's no real argument angst this.

Very few respected climatologist hold such views; Most agree that humans are the driving factor behind global warming. Considering that we have increase CO2 levels by 39%, and methane levels by 149% it not really hard to see why.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Control stated that it couldn't say with accuracy that humans were the driving factor.

First off you're wrong the 2007 report states and I quote:

"Since the start of the industrial era (about 1750), the overall effect of human activities on climate has been a warming influence. The human impact on climate during this era greatly exceeds that due to known changes in natural processes, such as solar changes and volcanic eruptions." (page 135)

Secondly the IPCC aren't even a research group. They're primarily concerned with PR, press releases, and documents for policy makers.

And you sprouting your own fallacy; Post hoc states explicitly that just because A and B are collated dose not imply that A causes B. Now that dose not mean that A and B don't have some kind of casual relation, just that without a controlled survey and study (to which we have anyway so the point is still moot) direct causation can not be concluded. Your committing a fallacy of equivocation by misinterpreting the use of the word implies; which has a very different context and meaning with in logic then its vulgar counter part.

'After this, therefore because of this.' To be more explicit.

For example, I ate a dinner of fish, my stomach hurt a few hours afterwards, therefore, my stomach hurts because I ate the fish.

Thats the false reasoning.

Only if you implicitly state the A causes B without additional evidence. Global warming dose not meet this criteria it has evidence behind it beyond mere correlation. I was simply pointing out your usage of the statement was incorrect.

Industrial revolution occurred, global warming happened, therefore industrial revolution caused global warming.

But that's a straw man. A better way to explain it would be: "Industrial revolution occurred, massive amount of green houses gases where released (in fact more then in the past 650ky), then global warming happened despite evidence of a general cooling trend before, therefore industrial revolution caused global warming."

Or not. Because the Earth naturally cools and warms on its own.

Yes, and if we look at the evidence we should be in a cooling trend right now, not a warming one. There is no known or reasonable source for the high levels of green house gases in the atmosphere, except for human action.

A while ago we were concerned with global cooling.

No we weren't, there where no serious scientist who believed such things. The 1970 SEPT report even said that no cooling would take place, due in no small part to the rising CO2 levels (methane wasn't really considered at that time, though it was mentioned). The one's who popularized the global cooling theory was Newsweek, who had incorrectly interpreted the SEPT report. Hell they even printed a retraction and apology about it.

There was some speculation prior to the 70's that the earth might enter an ice age due to the Milankovitch cycle primarily (which is actually masking some of the effects from global warming). If not for the massive amount of green house gases in the atmosphere we would be in or rather entering an ice age.

People are quick to blame humans because of air pollution, which is a different problem but provides an excellent, albeit false, correlation.

No there is no false correlation in this case. Green house gasses raise planetary temperature that's a fact, green house gasses in the atmosphere have increased to a level not seen in over half a million years that's also a fact. There are no observed phenomena which can explain the massive increase in green house gases except human intervention. Ergo, humans are at lest in part responsible for the warming trend over the past hundred years.

[JayBirdSlim]

My whole issue with the phrase global warming is the lack of effort to do anything about it. Whether you think it is something which is imminent or far off if you recognize that there is an issue that arises why wouldn't you be more aggressive in taking care of it? The issue of the Ozone layer depleting is what concerns me. IF it gets hot it gets hot fine... but without a protective layer from radiation there isn't a whole lot of hope for much is there? Take a gander at any planet in the solar system that doesn't have an ozone layer and how do they look? Pretty lousy.

[FlashCridic1124]

Industrial revolution occurred, global warming happened, therefore industrial revolution caused global warming. Or not. Because the Earth naturally cools and warms on its own. A while ago we were concerned with global cooling. People are quick to blame humans because of air pollution, which is a different problem but provides an excellent, albeit false, correlation.

funny you should mention global coolng, I was going to bring that up but I misinterpreted something or somthing and read there was a scare of that do to possilbe nuclear warfare...

[JudgeDredd]

I don't wanna disappoint anybody who is expecting my opinion on this whole global warming business either one way or the other, but at this stage i'd have to say i reserve my judgement 'til any of the abovementioned "exceptional climate events" pan out a bit more..

**DASHES OFF TO BUY A JETBOAT WHILE THEY'RE CHEAP**

[Christopherr]

I never understood the argument for this anyways.

If it's getting hotter, people will start saying global warming... When it freezes, the argument becomes "unpredictable weather."

Excuse me, but the weather changes all the time, so I'm not worried.

[EndGameOmega]

At 2/26/08 09:48 PM, Christopherr wrote: I never understood the argument for this anyways.

If it's getting hotter, people will start saying global warming... When it freezes, the argument becomes "unpredictable weather."

Excuse me, but the weather changes all the time, so I'm not worried.

There are many problems associated with GW. The first is the weather, as global temperature increase temperature fluctuations also increase, producing more violent, as well as more frequent, and unpredictable storms systems. Then you also have crop reduction, and in more extreme cases failure. Even a single degree can do damage. There have already been reports of global rice output dropping by 10% per acre, compared to the early and late 70's.

But all this is actually some what trivial right now. The real problems will start to arise when global temperature increase by 5 or more degrees. Then you'll start seeing massive weather fluctuation, truly global crop failure (25-40% failure rates are predicted). Massive ocean dead zones will appear, killing off scores of fish. World wide humidity will increase by 30-65%, and diseases will be extremely prevalent.

But even that is trivial compared to a 7-9 degree increase. When the global temperature reaches this interval, there will be no going back, and it's extremely likely that there will be a run away green house effect.

Note that if green house gases continue to be released at the rate they are, we are looking at a 2-7 degree increase by the end of this century.

I'm not trying to be a fear monger, but that is the current situation as it's understood.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Why are you people arguing?

If it's caused by humans or not, climate change is inevitable and we should just get used to while we have the time.

And if it is caused by humans, then were not going to completly shut down all industry and limit ourselves to 1% methane emmisions.

Hell, maybe it would be even cheaper to live with global warming, since the Western World isn't going to impacted much by it.

People that think that by using ozone friendly lightbulbs really make a difference need to look outside and see how much more damage the power plant is doing.

[joshhunsaker]

and vitamin e is good for you anyway. We should all get out more.

[AdamRice]

At 2/26/08 11:34 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: People that think that by using ozone friendly lightbulbs really make a difference need to look outside and see how much more damage the power plant is doing.

What the fuck is an ozone friendly light bulb?

I hate it when people confuse ozone depletion and green house gas related climate change. Completely different topics.

[Noolie]

Global warming isn't happening. It's just climate shift. As one part of the world get's hotter, another gets colder and the climate... wait for it... shifts!

[AdamRice]

At 2/28/08 10:28 PM, Noolie wrote: Global warming isn't happening. It's just climate shift. As one part of the world get's hotter, another gets colder and the climate... wait for it... shifts!

No, regardless of whether you buy into man made global warming or not, the Earth's net temperature is increasing.

Do you know what net means?

[Noolie]

Then why have some areas had record snow falls, and record lows?