How could you NOT believe in global warming?

[McTurbo]

Just so you know, the Theory of Gravitation is, in fact, wrong. It is a darn good approximation at "hunam scale", but wrong none the less. That being said, the thory being wrong does NOT mean that people would suddenly be floating around It just means this particular theory trying to explain how massive bodies interact is wrong.

i personally feel gravity is the effect of mass on space/time . its my theory (guess) feel free to prove me wrong.. good luck with the gravity part let alone the space time continuum

[Kurioxan]

In approximately 500 million years all atmospheric CO2 will be gone stopping photosynthesis and the production of atmospheric O2. Approximately 20 million years after that O2 will be be gone killing all animal life.

Life will get a way around it... maybe non O2 dependent lifeforms, who knows... but its far too adaptable for it to just go puff.
maybe the lifeforms we know, but doubt "life" in general would

[LiiLoSNK]

Flies on an elephant's back.

[Kurioxan]

knowing without a doubt that we're not actively killing a vast majority of the life on the planet.

Human action has done hardly anything compared to mother natures extinctions...
but yes, i agree that we should all thrive for a greener, cleaner future

[Tojara]

I think people are silly to believe it's not happening at all, because it certainly is.

Argument regarding how it's happening is certainly valid. Some people believe it's a natural cycle and we have very little effect on the climate, others believe that we have a huge effect on the climate. Of course there are those who believe it's a mixture of two.

Personally I really don't know. I know a volcano can produce more 'bad' in a couple days than humans can do in years and those have been around since the planet has formed. My guess? We are probably accelerating the process but I don't think it's to such a massive extent that some are making it out to be.

[Aalyy]

We are probably accelerating the process but I don't think it's to such a massive extent that some are making it out to be.

By "some" you mean these respected scientific organizations?

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico)
Russian Academy of Sciences
Academy of Science of South Africa
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)
Australian Academy of Science
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences

[guff]

i personally feel gravity is the effect of mass on space/time . its my theory (guess) feel free to prove me wrong.. good luck with the gravity part let alone the space time continuum

why would I try to prove you wrong? And what's with the attitude? I did not mean to offend you in any way.

[Rommon64]

I think people are silly to believe it's not happening at all, because it certainly is.

Argument regarding how it's happening is certainly valid. Some people believe it's a natural cycle and we have very little effect on the climate, others believe that we have a huge effect on the climate. Of course there are those who believe it's a mixture of two.

Personally I really don't know. I know a volcano can produce more 'bad' in a couple days than humans can do in years and those have been around since the planet has formed. My guess? We are probably accelerating the process but I don't think it's to such a massive extent that some are making it out to be.

Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).


Source: http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php

[Wildtree]

I think people are silly to believe it's not happening at all, because it certainly is.

Argument regarding how it's happening is certainly valid. Some people believe it's a natural cycle and we have very little effect on the climate, others believe that we have a huge effect on the climate. Of course there are those who believe it's a mixture of two.

Personally I really don't know. I know a volcano can produce more 'bad' in a couple days than humans can do in years and those have been around since the planet has formed. My guess? We are probably accelerating the process but I don't think it's to such a massive extent that some are making it out to be.

We may contribute to an extent that we worsen the situation so much, that if natural disasters of larger magnitude happen, there's no easy recovery from it anymore, if at all.
We don't know.
What we do know is, that we do pollute the atmosphere more than it's ever been polluted before any disastrous climate change, as an ice age for example.

[McTurbo]

and of everyone of those places nearly all of em have people from those same locations that disagree with the findings. as a group they may say one thing but that doesn't mean its a universal decision by everyone there just a greater majority who cant prove without a doubt their findings.. both sides are quoting flawed and suspect data that fits their side of the story while ignoring or dismissing the other sides data... hence no one agrees.

[Garnier Fructis]

and of everyone of those places nearly all of em have people from those same locations that disagree with the findings. as a group they may say one thing but that doesn't mean its a universal decision by everyone there just a greater majority who cant prove without a doubt their findings.. both sides are quoting flawed and suspect data that fits their side of the story while ignoring or dismissing the other sides data... hence no one agrees.

There are still biologists who question evolution. Guess there's no consensus there yet.

[Crashdummy]

This isn't a statistical thread proving that scientifically, global warming must be true. However, it's just become so clear in my eyes that global warming has been occurring that it just seems obvious.
How ,you say? I live in Canada, and I'm 21. When I was smaller (the age where you loved building snow forts and playing in the snow) I distinctively remember huge mountains of snow piling up in my front yard...I mean huge, 7-10 feet piles that had to be plowed consistently from my driveway. I also remember halloweens where there was snow ( although not every one).
Fast forward to they past two years, living in the same neighborhood, in the middle of December....barely two inches of snow. Whereas 8-10 years ago there was probably upwards of 2-3 on the ground, with a mountain 8 feet high on my yard.
Thoughts?

2 years is such an small period in climatology that cant be used for anything. Millons of things could have caused a couple of inches less of snow.

Global warming exists, the problem is, how big is the impact really? and how much does human contribute to it?

Ecologist always exagerate (for example, the ozone hole was not such a big problem like ecologist claimed), and anti ecologist always minimize.

Unbiased opinions are rare.

[McTurbo]

why would I try to prove you wrong? And what's with the attitude? I did not mean to offend you in any way.

oh you haven't offended me someone quoted above that theory's are not guesses.. yet that's exactly what they are.. best guess based on observation using scientific processes and will remain a given or proven theory until such time as it can be proven wrong or adjusted to new findings.. (aka best guess using proven data)

Sorry didnt realize i was coming across with an attitude not my intentions.

[Aalyy]

and of everyone of those places nearly all of em have people from those same locations that disagree with the findings. as a group they may say one thing but that doesn't mean its a universal decision by everyone there just a greater majority who cant prove without a doubt their findings.. both sides are quoting flawed and suspect data that fits their side of the story while ignoring or dismissing the other sides data... hence no one agrees.

Find me the scientists from these organizations who disagree. And then tell me how qualified you are to accept and analyze the evidence presented and rejected by the vast majority of scientists. In fact, you've made quite a few claims in one paragraph. None of which are actually backed up by facts or sources.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 11:14 AM ----------

Ecologist always exagerate (for example, the ozone hole was not such a big problem like ecologist claimed), and anti ecologist always minimize.

LOL, what???

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 11:15 AM ----------

oh you haven't offended me someone quoted above that theory's are not guesses.. yet that's exactly what they are.. best guess based on observation using scientific processes and will remain a given or proven theory until such time as it can be proven wrong or adjusted to new findings.. (aka best guess using proven data)

Sorry didnt realize i was coming across with an attitude not my intentions.

So the theory that germs make us sick or that our bodies are composed of trillions of individual cells are just guesses?

[Wildtree]

In approximately 500 million years all atmospheric CO2 will be gone stopping photosynthesis and the production of atmospheric O2. Approximately 20 million years after that O2 will be be gone killing all animal life.

Hm.. then how come when I listen, read, or watch scientists talking about the Suns ultimate fate, which is undeniably happening, that they never refer to the Earth of being unpopulated? They always say that all life on Earth will extinct right then, when the sun starts to become a red giant. Once it expands the heat on Earth will climb as well, and eventually extinct all water and life.
Not before that. And we know how we get O2... We only need to plant up forests to produce it. If we'd ever run low, we make O2. We're already smart enough nowadays, let alone what we will be able to do in 200+ million years. If we are still around by then.

[McTurbo]

Find me the scientists from these organizations who disagree. And then tell me how qualified you are to accept and analyze the evidence presented and rejected by the vast majority of scientists. In fact, you've made quite a few claims in one paragraph. None of which are actually backed up by facts or sources.

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 11:14 AM ----------



LOL, what???

---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 11:15 AM ----------



So the theory that germs make us sick or that our bodies are composed of trillions of individual cells are just guesses?

my source is the debate about the entire thing. if it was a universal truth then their would be no denying it. but since one side wants to point at one set of data and say this is the proof.. then other side says hold on.. this is the truth.. it basically tell you that both sides are cherry picking data and refusing to acknowledge the others if this wasn't so .. we wouldn't be having this debate. the only truth is temperatures change. the debate is whats changing it.. i don't need a science degree to have at least a basic understanding of whats going on. hell we cant even tell you if eggs are good or bad for you.. wait 10 years and they will change their minds again ...

[Garnier Fructis]

my source is the debate about the entire thing. if it was a universal truth then their would be no denying it. but since one side wants to point at one set of data and say this is the proof.. then other side says hold on.. this is the truth.. it basically tell you that both sides are cherry picking data and refusing to acknowledge the others if this wasn't so .. we wouldn't be having this debate. the only truth is temperatures change. the debate is whats changing it.. i don't need a science degree to have at least a basic understanding of whats going on. hell we cant even tell you if eggs are good or bad for you.. wait 10 years and they will change their minds again ...

People deny that the Earth is round. Must not be a universal truth. People deny evolution. Must not be a universal truth. Some extraordinary people deny all science that conflicts with their beliefs. Must not be a universal truth.

[Wildtree]

hell we cant even tell you if eggs are good or bad for you.. wait 10 years and they will change their minds again ...

There's certainly some truth to it.

[Masark]

Nice numbers. Where's your source?

Causes and timing of future biosphere extinction

Over the next few hundred million years, the sun's increasing luminosity will begin to disrupt the carbonate-silicate cycle and result in the level of atmospheric CO2 dropping. Within 800 million years, CO2 levels will be too low to support any form of photosynthesis and multicellular life will go extinct. At 1.3 billion years, single-celled eucaryotes can no longer survive. At 1.6 billion years, single-celled procaryotes, the last form of life extant on earth, will go extinct, again due to falling CO2 levels.

Naturally, all this is barring some form of intelligent life intervening to maintain habitable conditions on the planet. If us or some other sufficiently technologically advanced lifeform is around at the time and wants to do something about this process, all bets are off.

[wilbbailey]

This might be the second year in a row with record low snowfalls here in western PA. I raise my drink in hoping this is a trend it would saving me having to move when i retire.