1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Global warming question

Discussion in 'Science & Technology' started by ilikeboobs, May 8, 2008.

  1. ilikeboobs

    ilikeboobs Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Up your butt, Jobu.
    I just saw an ad on Yahoo, and the link led to this site:
    http://www.wecansolveit.org/?source=yahoo

    They say, "We CAN Solve Global Warming". That's pretty arrogant in my opinion.

    Here's my question - do you think that even if every human and every man-made invention that pollutes were to disappear today, do you REALLY TRULY AND HONESTLY THINK that all of a sudden (or even over a period of 20 years, just for giggles) the earth would stop heating up?

    I'm not looking for insults, I'm looking for yes/no answers.

    Discuss, chimps!
     
  2. Pidgey

    Pidgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2007
    Messages:
    1,125
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    48
    OO, EE, OO, AHH!-AHH!

    (ting-tang, walla-walla, bing-bang!)

    Your question seems posed from the assumption that the recent global warming (which is, as we speak, in apparent decline) is entirely or in large part due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. So, going on that assumption, I'd say "yes, the environment would absorb the excess CO2 in a matter of a few years if we went back to The Stone Age."

    However, we're not really completely sure or cannot completely quantify how that mechanism regulates itself anyhow. It DOES regulate itself and heretofore, CO2 levels have remained in an equilibrium state with the sea surface temperature average. The far-greater-than-we-have-witnessed amplitude swings in the ice core and sedimentary records demonstrate this reality that is not in contention.

    What we do not know is exactly what mechanism initiates the immense shift from the interglacial steady states to the glacial steady states in the past that come with exceptional regularity every ~100,000 years. We're just about right on time for the next one, some say slightly overdue. There is some interesting research out there pointing to the likelihood that a confluence of the obliquity, precession and eccentricity components of Earth's orbit around the sun ultimately causes the big shift.

    At the moment, we do have a signal from the sun that something has changed for which we have no prior data or observations to make a judgment call on: the conveyor belt has slowed down rather dramatically, but that is beyond the scope of this reply.

    Historically, the ice core and sedimentary records show that CO2 levels consistently drop with the sea temperatures so everything's going to go back to normal while most of us are freezing to death, nothing to worry about.

    Pidgey
     
  3. Not Amused

    Not Amused New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'm not sure that it would make any difference at all.

    Although I keep being told that all the data which has been peer reviewed makes it likely and that the overwhelming consensus is that global warming/climate change is very likely caused by man I am still on the fence.

    The problem as I see it is this. The data models that have been used, appear to have failed to take into account very important fundamental factors, such as the effect of solar activity, ocean activity and historical data.

    To me, this makes the data models used, flawed to such an extent that I cannot understand how reputable scientists have peer reviewed such data in the first place, as this is not science as I know it (unless of course I'm missing something very important here).

    The IPCC reports make sure they hedge their bets in every sentence, if one believes that man is the entire causation of climate change, then one has to be prepared to take a leap of faith.

    The problem is, what if they're wrong? We still end up with half the population starving, the other half financially bankrupt, there are some within the IPCC and the scientific arena who would be glad to see us regress back into the dark ages. I would like to see the data peer reviewed via the scientific public domain, rather than in house peer reviews.

    I don't have a problem with the basic physics of global warming. But I do have a problem with the belief that man is the cause based on the data models used and overall conclusions that are, to the best of my knowledge lacking in scientific methodology and rely on tweaks to make the evidence fit. Especially whenever the climate appears to do the opposite to the data conclusions provided by the models.

    The IPCC are not answering basic questions put forward, one has to ask why the secrecy? If they are so sure, then let's get it all out into the public domain where other scientists (including solar scientists) can also peer review the data.
     
  4. revolution4PAUL

    revolution4PAUL New Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    77
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .




    http://www.livevideo.com/video/UKUF...55B21056C/the-great-global-warming-swind.aspx

    Global warming is a scam!!!! co2 levels DO NOT EFFECT TEMPS as stated in Al Gores "convenient lie" movie... Opps, i meant his movie "inconvenient truth"..



    http://youtube.com/watch?v=YEJ5pHVKjiI (this is not the original link that i posted, this one is actually superimposed... this one is better!!!!)

    ok, for you skeptics out there... look at al gores graph, do you not see that co2 lags temp? do you not notice the slight difference that the temp comes before co2? what do you think that graph would look like if he superimposed the two lines? why doesn't he superimpose both lines? pause the video on the graph, look... tell me that im wrong...

    BECAUSE MOST OF US HAVE BEEN FOOLED.... OPEN YOUR EYES, LOOK FOR YOURSELF... its ok, he fooled me too at first.

    its his own damn graph! you dont see the marginal difference, in that the co2 levels LAG the temp level? its roughly an 800 year lag, and it has to do with the ocean being able to absorb dissolved co2 with colder temps. this is why temps effect co2 levels and not the other way around.

    the colder the temps the more co2 the ocean can absorb. the ocean is so vast and deep that it takes many years for the ambient temps to change the ocean temps.

    why is mars experiencing a global warming effect too? how come mars is so cold when its atmosphere is almost completely co2.

    explain the great temp fluctuation's in our past history?????? there have been great ice ages, and in the midevil period(i think the temps were greater than ours for a thousand years or so) the average global temps were hotter than they are today(i bet you didnt know that one)..heres the million dollar question, so how could co2 possibly effect temps to such a degree when there were no SUV's, factories, etc, etc???? is it that outlandish to think that maybe temps effect co2 levels and not the other way around?

    heres an experiment for you guys to do. take a glass of water and put like four or five ice cubes in there(make sure the ice cubes are not touching the bottom of the glass). next mark the water level on your glass with a marker. wait until the ice cubes melt and then observe the water level. what you will observe is that the water level did not change after the ice melts.

    im not a advocate for oil companies or pollution.. i believe the oil companies are scum of the earth and we have technology that would revolutionize the world and would save families countless money if they would let it be available to the public. so dont start saying that im anti-green or any nonsense along those lines. pollution and co2 are totally different entities, if you hear me say that pollution is ok for the environment than you can discredit my posts.

    the problem with our race is that if we truly believe something its so hard for us to think outside the box, people dont like to be fooled. to think that the people that we have controlling our gov't are lying to us on a daily basis is really really sad.... just look at 911, if you believe that the "terrorists" did it than thats your prerogative. i believe there are too many unanswered questions to buy that garbage. we are invading the middle east because of a terrorist group that we will never find. we might be going to Iran and invading them because they too "harbor terrorists" just look at WTC building 7!!!!!!!! watch it come down, do some research.. its awfully sad... WAKE UP PEOPLE, WAKE UP!
     
  5. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    Except that only takes into account ice that is already in the water. Most glacier where I live are on the ground and cannot be accounted for in that way.

    I am somewhat on the fence with the role that CO2 plays, but I have seen with my own two eyes a glacier recede considerably in my lifetime. Over a period of only 20 years it melted to a level a half mile back into the valley. Whereas it was thought it hadnt moved that much in a 10thousand year period.
     
Loading...

Share This Page