Global Warming Poll

Global Warming, Real or Not?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
BEFORE YOU VOTE! READ WHAT I HAVE BELOW!

Now, some scientists in Antartica made a drill in the ice to look for traces of Global Warming in earlier times, what they found, was a cycle of 10,000 years where, every 10,000 years, we get closer to the sun, thus, causing 'Global Warming'. Yes, it's global warming, but it won't last.

And guess what? The cycle, started again, in conjuction with the Industrial Revolution! What a coincidence huh?

So, the question is: Is Global Warming our fault?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gman

Jr Member
This is exactly what i was talking about today in school. I really believe that its just a cycle. But we don't really know yet because its only been a few years since the theories of global warming were made.
 

Walter Spase

Well-Known Member
A Cycle means that the earth will return to its starting point. I don't believe that 10,000 years ago the population of the world clear cut the forests off the face of the planet, pumped toxic gases into the atmosphere. Then simply replanted all the trees and reduced emissions, and repopulated the world with species extinct because of our actions.

We are operating in a linear manner, consuming more than we replace, we will never be where we started if we keep going in this direction.

Global warming may operate on a cycle, and it may stop sometime in the future... but we will never stop consuming the resources this planet has to offer faster than we can replace them. We are hurting the Earth whether we are causing global warming or not.

And no I am not a tree huger, I work for a company that does business with Oil companies... but I still recognize fault in the system.
 

DreadMullet

Well-Known Member
yes the climate of the earth is changing... yes the earth has cycles it goes through... and yes we are playing a part in it, but its not as severe as some lead us to believe it is.

that being said. we do need to start changing the way we do things, we need to switch to alternative fuels... but it should be a slow steady process that isnt going to cause massive price increases on the people... we arent going to change in the next 4 years, more like the next 15 years, and we still arent going to be totally independent of coal and natural gasses and stuff...

this isnt going to be somethign that we can rush into.
 

mroreo123

Member
OrrionCarn said:
Now, some scientists in Antartica made a drill in the ice to look for traces of Global Warming in earlier times, what they found, was a cycle of 10,000 years where, every 10,000 years, we get closer to the sun, thus, causing 'Global Warming'. Yes, it's global warming, but it won't last.

And guess what? The cycle, started again, in conjuction with the Industrial Revolution! What a coincidence huh?
Cycle or not, the RATE at which the climate is changing is not natural. That IS our fault. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere now is astronomical compared to any cycle in the past.

Spase said:
We are operating in a linear manner, consuming more than we replace, we will never be where we started if we keep going in this direction.

Global warming may operate on a cycle, and it may stop sometime in the future... but we will never stop consuming the resources this planet has to offer faster than we can replace them. We are hurting the Earth whether we are causing global warming or not.
I absolutely agree with you there. (y)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Toby

Member
It's hyped, and there's no way scientists can estimate the weather in 10.0000 years (they can try, but I mean accurately. hell, they are useless for even a 4-day forecast).

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything against it, especially concerning efficiency. I'm not only talking about cars here, but it's the obvious example.

BTW, the Prius is the most environmentally damaging car currently made. Proof that you should use your brain and not believe the hype.

@Dreadmullet: A fast switch is normally the cheapest. Sure, the acquisition cost is higher, that's the catch. But the sooner you do, the faster it'll start to be worth it. Think european (diesel) cars. Expensive, but amazing mileage (Here in Europe, were petrol/diesel is very expensive, it's a real no-brainer.)
 

rundown

Sr Member
The global warming is a proces that has bin on earth before the humans where on it.
Whe just make it goes faster due our co2.

Whe should be worried tho. Lot of things will change, and we shall have to prepare.
 

DreadMullet

Well-Known Member
here is another link for ya, John Christy director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama speaks out about his opinion on global warming in the wall street journal... IPCC scientist speaks out its an older article, but given the earths life span i dont think a 2 year old article is that old.

this is my favorite thing that he said
But what is the economic and human price, and what is it worth given the scientific uncertainty?

My experience as a missionary teacher in Africa opened my eyes to this
simple fact: Without access to energy, life is brutal and short. The
uncertain impacts of global warming far in the future must be weighed
against disasters at our doorsteps today. Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen
Consensus 2004, a cost-benefit analysis of health issues by leading
economists (including three Nobelists), calculated that spending on
health issues such as micronutrients for children, HIV/AIDS and water
purification has benefits 50 to 200 times those of attempting to
marginally limit "global warming."

Given the scientific uncertainty and our relative impotence regarding
climate change, the moral imperative here seems clear to me.
i may like this because i usually live in the present, i like to address the issues of today... and if i have time start addressing the issues of tomorrow, today... if that makes sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mroreo123

Member
TF_Productions said:
It's hyped, and there's no way scientists can estimate the weather in 10.0000 years (they can try, but I mean accurately. hell, they are useless for even a 4-day forecast).
I disagree on this point. They aren't estimating the day-to-day weather (which I agree, they aren't too accurate), but we're talking about global-scale average CLIMATES.

To put it in perspective, it's akin to how it's impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy where the stock market will go on a day-to-day basis, but when you look at it over a period of decades, the trend is that it goes up. And good luck trying to guess where a single bird will fly tomorrow, but where will the flock be next winter? South. The following summer? North. (Okay, the bird analogy was a stretch, but you get the idea.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Yttrium

Jr Member
Just like Nanotechnology and Stem-Cell Research, Global Warming is one of the areas of science where there is a heck of a lot of hype. In all of these cases, the scientists add to the hype in order to increase the amount of grant money that goes towards it. If the hype gets big enough, the media catches on an blows things way out of proportion.

Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe that there will be some effects of these three things, just not what most people expect. My predictions are:

Nanotechnology = We'll get materials that are a little stronger and a little lighter. We'll also get faster computers.

Stem-Cell Research = The average life expectancy in the developed world will increase by about 0.25 years.

Global Warming = Some places will become a bit more hospitable and some places will become a bit less hospitable.
 

jawshwaa

Member
its a proven fact that our sun goes through cycles every 200 hundred years or so , the last one was when washington crossed the Potomac , thats why the river was frozen and there was snow, when normally it would just be really cold , (they had recorded reocord temperatures that year also), the government is using this to form their own agenda , hillary clinton and al gore put a tax before congress a year or so ago , called a carbon tax , they want to tax the air you breathe because they think that we (the people) are the main source of global warming? (and the more kids you have the higher the tax , reproducing is only hurting our planet more, so pay up) and why is it global warming?sure summer was hot but it didnt last long , and it hasent been over 80 degrees here in my town since summer last year. i dont know about you guys but i haven't noticed things getting any warmer. only cooler, every thnig else on this planet is a cycle , and so is this climate change were having , were just people we cant stop mother nature.
 

mkshane81

Well-Known Member
You beat me to the punch humboldt.... :cautious: ....I think the earth is warming, but not necessarily because of us. Just like everything else, there is certain political gain to be made by creating such hype!!
 
we do need to start changing the way we do things, we need to switch to alternative fuels... but it should be a slow steady process that isnt going to cause massive price increases on the people... we arent going to change in the next 4 years, more like the next 15 years, and we still arent going to be totally independent of coal and natural gasses and stuff...
Yes, 15 years is more logical than 4 :p If they made it less expensive then yes, I'd have a better chance of converting to green.

its only been a few years since the theories of global warming were made.
Yeah, that's another good point, it was only brought up a few years ago.

Another point, what about these Global Warming Concerts? They put out more CO2 with their concerts then what they're protesting!

We are operating in a linear manner, consuming more than we replace, we will never be where we started if we keep going in this direction.
Yes, that's why we have recycling. We just need to encourage more people to put paper, glass and plastics in the green bin. But, some people can take it too seriously, Obama (I've heard), wants to put in a law that if your CO2 footprint is larger than another person, you get taxed more. :eek:

What about 'Living with Ed'? That guy is gonna lose his marrage it looks like, because he gets all this green stuff without asking his wife! And they're still on the grid, they still use city power! I'm off the grid, so in a sense, I'm green with the solar power I have, but I still have a small generator, pulls out a bunch of Amps at a 1/8th of diesel an hour.

And I for one, am not a tree hugger as well.

This is just a thought thread everyone, no flame wars (I forgot to put that in the top)

And I agree completely with MrOreo123, Yttrium, Humboldt_spartan and mks81.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BFDesigns

Well-Known Member
Yttrium said:
Global Warming = Some places will become a bit more hospitable and some places will become a bit less hospitable.
Just like it is in the world right now :D

Well, as far as I'm concerned this cycle of global warming has gone on since the earth had climate, and no matter how hot it gets it's still not as warm as it was during the time of dinosaurs which were living as far north as northern Canada and as far south as the tips of Argentina and Chile. Global warming does exist but we have accelerated it just a tad with what we have been pumping into the atmosphere for the past 150 years. However, the process of the actual warming part could be reversed very quickly if one of the super volcanoes decided to explode (which will probably be Yellowstone in 2012; 50,000 years overdue for an eruption) or if we pumped a bunch of sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere.

All we really need to do though in order to make the tree huggers happy and stop the warming trend is to build carbon sequestering farms, put up more wind power, and stop trying to block the development of nuclear power plants (because of 3 Mile Island) and plasma arc waste disposal plants (like they're trying to do in Florida). A pickup truck full of Uranium 235 could power San Fransisco for 50 years. And they're coming out with more and more advancements and ways to make nuclear plants safe and more efficient every day.

EDIT: Forgot to add that I am definitely not a tree hugger. I'm more concerned with the logistics of the green switch than anything else. Green technology, at least in the form of Zero Point technology and wind, are way more efficient in producing power than coal fired plants (a low grade wind turbine has an efficiency rating of around 56% vs, coal at 30%-35%; Zero Point motors produce 5 times more energy than they consume). And the nuclear option gives you the same efficiency as a coal plant with zero pollution and less fuel meaning that a nuclear plant's operating costs are significantly lower than a coal plant's costs. Also, and this is quite funny, a coal plant releases more radioactive material into the environment than a nuclear plant does, odd right? The only green technology that I cannot see taking off at large scale is solar power because of the expense of producing photovoltaic cells and CSP technology and just because of the scale that it requires to be a viable option; although covering 4% of the world's deserts with photovoltaic cells could exceed the world's energy needs.

Here's an interesting CSP (Concentrated Solar Power, like the PS10 in Spain or the PS20 in CA) concept: Solar Islands!


Which is just short of lightning harvesting.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mroreo123

Member
OrrionCarn said:
What about 'Living with Ed'? That guy is gonna lose his marrage it looks like, because he gets all this green stuff without asking his wife! And they're still on the grid, they still use city power!
Actually, I met someone at a party once that knows them personally. His wife is a pretty big tree hugger as well, but I guess she's more practical about it than Ed, and the show's producers play off that difference to make it a bigger problem than it actually is. Everybody likes drama, I guess. :)

OrrionCarn said:
This is just a thought thread everyone, no flame wars (I forgot to put that in the top)
I hope I didn't come off that way. Climate change is a very polarizing issue, so disagreements can get a little heated at times.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Sigma LS

Sr Member
Jesus, people never learn to lay off the earth and climate topics around here. Nobody listens to the scientists, it's all opinion and hearsay.

Let me lay out some of the current facts in the scientific community again.

1.The average temperature of the earth has risen since the 1950's and at an accelerated rate since the late 1990's
2.We have over doubled the current CO2 in Earth's atmosphere since 1850
3.Global Ice cover has melted at an accelerated rate since the early 2000's
4.Earth is currently in an Icehouse condition (We have ice at the poles)
5. The mid-Holocene Younger Dryas 5,000 years ago was much warmer than today
6. The Industrial Revolution began at the end of the Little Ice Age and is a terrible place to compare what levels of atmospheric gases "Should be"
7. In a colder climate like the late Pleistocene (12 ka) giant equatorial forests like the Amazon were 1/4 their current size
8. Grassland and prairie sequesters 4 times more carbon than a forest and carbonate platforms even more
9. The strongest greenhouse gas is water vapor followed by methane then CO2

Now let's take a little look at long term vs. short term. Here is a graph of climatic variability for most of the history of complex life on earth vs. the last 200 years.

phanerozoic-climate-change.jpg



Sunspot20cycle20global20temp.jpg





And earth's climate variability has to do with many orders of cycles superimposed on one another. If you feel like doing some research on the subject look up 1st order cyclicity, 2nd order, 3rd order, and 4th order (Milankovitch cyclicity)

So do some research and make an informed opinion. Climate variability just during the occupation of the planet by humans has been tremendous. Remember folks, in the 1970's people were worried about "Global Cooling". Take a look at the whole picture.

Some of this warming trend is our fault but certainly not all of it. How much is what many of your tax dollars are doing finding out. Doing things "Green" is smart if it is cost-effective (metal recycling, co2 scrubbers) and saves resources. But you are not going to "save the planet" by doing it. It will take a hell of a lot more than us to kill the planet. Remember kids conservation, not preservation.


LOCKED


PS- Wind power is BS. Even with the government paying half the cost to put in a turbine, it takes almost 30 years for the thing to produce enough power to pay itself off. That's not counting service to the machine during that time. Not that I care, they payed plenty well to put turbines up on one of our farms. IMO the way to go is fast-breeder fission and fusion.
 
Top