Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ...
5
6
7
  1. #121
    Quote Originally Posted by BurningKatanaa View Post
    2: If you don't wanna waste money by dumping it into preventing global warming, throw that same money, into the same research and production... in order to make it cheaper for you to drive to work, and in order to make it cheaper to maintain your vehicles. Oh, and the whole "less dangerous industry" thing... and the whole "We won't need to wear rebreathers in cities in a few (hopefully more than 100 years... but I'm hopeful)" thing.... Oh and the whole removing a massive handicap on global industry thing...

    What I'm saying with #2 is that there are a holyshitton of totally not-global-warming-related issues that trying to fix global warming will ALSO fix, that will DRASTICALLY IMPROVE global quality of life.

    3: Stop quoting people who aren't climatologists about the goddamned climate. I don't care what organisations they affiliate themselves with, or about their Ph.D in Economics.
    I don't know if quoting myself is against the forum rules, but I feel as if it needs to be seen again.

  2. #122
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by gruyaka View Post
    Yes, the earth is warming up, but we are not the cause.
    Then what is?

    ... Well?

    And don't go "natural cycles". We know what the natural cycles are trying to do right now, and it's not what is happening.
    It's not the sun either. It's been lowering it's intensity for the last 3 decades.
    No cosmic radiation either. Constantly monitored, and no significant changes.

    So?

    That's what I thought. The opponents of AGW never have an explanation to offer, they just don't want to believe that it is AGW.
    That still makes AGW the best available explanation, if nothing else.

    We are emitting CO2.
    CO2 heats the earth.
    Heating the earth releases more greenhouse gasses.
    More greenhouse gasses heats the earth further.

    It is not a natural warming. It is a warming that is happening 8 times faster than the natural warmings after the ice ages.


    Source: NASA

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by StaeleAilar View Post
    Woo there are people who understand it! I think i'm in love! >.>

    But seriously, Global Warming = caused by humans is a completely bogus scare tactic used by governments in most of the western world. "Oh CO2 is so bad it kills stuff" but you know when we pump pure CO2 into farm glasshouses filled with trees and assorted plants, they thrive and produce even better fruits and vegetables. But we'll keep this on the down low as it goes against what we're saying
    Plants and Animals do not react the same way to CO2, CO2 kills animals, and a lot of microbial life. The planet will survive, the species (humans) will not. (barring rebreathers and closed "dome" environments, which are impractical)

  4. #124
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Projali View Post
    Your chemistry is off. Ice is solid H2O, not carbon based. Increasing water temperatures does not release greenhouse gas.
    As always shown by another, your wrong. Water does indeed release CO2 based on temperature. Also, how would scientist be able to gather CO2 concentration from the past by studying ice, if it contained nothing?

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 05:34 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by LazyJones View Post
    Then what is?

    It's not the sun either. It's been lowering it's intensity for the last 3 decades.
    No cosmic radiation either. Constantly monitored, and no significant changes.
    Actually we are experiencing a peak on solar radiation, so it might very well be that.

  5. #125
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Labze View Post
    Actually we are experiencing a peak on solar radiation, so it might very well be that.
    Actually, the rather weak "peak" we are currently experiencing happens every 11 years and hasn't increased in intensity, and thus cannot explain why the warming has been happening for the last 100 years.



    Last edited by mmoc7805351bd4; 2012-05-19 at 05:39 PM.

  6. #126
    Quote Originally Posted by Labze View Post
    I'm trying to paint a picture, i never said its concrete. The ironi is though, most of the global warming graphs and predictions is 'random figures', most data shown is not in relation with needed data to paint a picture from it, like the Al Gore 'An Inconvinient Truth'. All data shown in that film is useless.
    Al Gore is not a scientist nor is anything he made scientific evidence. Actual scientific graphs and figures are not "random", they are supported by comprehensive peer reviewed work. The fact that you think attacking Al Gore disproves anything just shows how detached you are from real science.


    And if you would have done your research you would see that CO2 levels also has risen in the past, where man wasn't capable of having the same influence as now.
    And if you actually tried to understand the issue, instead of mindlessly parroting propagandic lies fed to you by skeptics, you'll know it used to happen much more slowly. In the last 100 years we have increased the CO2 level by the same magnitude that would have taken nature 5000 years. And remember CO2 levels are at a 15-20 million year high.


    No, but you if you know much about science you would know that theories aren't disregarded or helt higher than others until proof is gathered to place it in such position. No such proof has been gathered, which in any event would make the CO2 theory as irrelevant as all others.
    I just explained the "proof" to you. Simply brainlessly claiming that there is no proof doesn't change the fact that we do, in fact, have overwhelming evidence. Global warming isn't going to go away all by itself if you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I don't see the evidnece right in front of me la la la".


    You can't eliminate certain factors to get the result you want, you make a model and try until it fits.
    Funny, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.


    Have i ever mentioned that CO2 isn't at historically high levels? No, then stop putting words in my mouth.
    Did I ever accuse you of saying that? No, so stop trying to deflect questions you can't answer by pretending you're being straw maned when you're not. I'll ask you again: what evidence do you have that it is not the historically high CO2 levels that is causing this warming?


    Each can by fault of the other, but that is a simplification of a much larger multifactor eco-system.
    No they can't. Again, what possible explaination is there that increased temperature caused the increase in CO2? Either you have a plausible working theory that can explain the facts, or stop pretending that your unjustified, groundless and unscientific opinion has the same wieght as the opinion of actual scientists.


    You really think that the entire worlds scientist were involved in the survey?
    Are you aware of this thing called Statistics?

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-19 at 05:39 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Labze View Post
    Actually we are experiencing a peak on solar radiation, so it might very well be that.
    Except we aren't.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-05-19 at 05:42 PM.

  7. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by LazyJones View Post
    Uhm... Yes it does. If the water contains CO2 in some form.

    If you heat a soda, it will release more of its CO2. The same applies to seawater. You can experiment with a club soda in your own home.
    You're correct in that gas solubility decreases as temperature increases. The ocean does contain a large amount of dissolved carbon in various forms. I'll concede that I was being nitpicky about his words and that this context doesn't involve pure water.

  8. #128
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Al Gore is not a scientist nor is anything he made scientific evidence. Actual scientific graphs and figures are not "random", they are supported by comprehensive peer reviewed work. The fact that you think attacking Al Gore disproves anything just shows how detached you are from real science.
    The reason i mention Al Gore as i do, is he is the front figure of this Global Warming debate, or was atleast. Also, his film is the one that many probrably saw to be turned into belivers and i chose to mention his work as it is as unscientific as it can be. Whatever he is a scientist or not doesn't mean that he can't explain other peoples work, but when he deliberately choses to show graphs that is inconclusive then you'd wonder why? If the proof were solid enough why wouldn't he show that instead?

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    And if you actually tried to understand the issue, instead of mindlessly parroting propagandic lies fed to you by skeptics, you'll know it used to happen much more slowly. In the last 100 years we have increased the CO2 level by the same magnitude that would have taken nature 5000 years. And remember CO2 levels are at a 15-20 million year high.
    First of all being skeptic is what makes one smarter, if you just agree with every sentiment you'd never be any wiser.

    The thing is, i never ruled out humans as a contributer to the increased levels of CO2, i just said that the whole deal about a man made global warming is part BS. We alone can't have caused that increase, our CO2 emissions are just not big enough to increase the concentration by however percent it is in such a short period. Are we a part of it? Surely. But our part may be negligible or irrelevant in the bigger picture. This has not been concluded. This is why before we scream bloody murder on ourselfes we can't dismiss the many other factors that is at play.


    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I just explained the "proof" to you. Simply brainlessly claiming that there is no proof doesn't change the fact that we do, in fact, have overwhelming evidence. Global warming isn't going to go away all by itself if you just stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la I don't see the evidnece right in front of me la la la".
    The difference between being ignorant or gullible isn't really that big. Two sides of the same coin. Whatever proof you have told me, is nothing that clearly proves a direct relation between us and the global warming, it at most shows that we have a part in it.


    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Funny, that seems to be exactly what you are doing.
    From where do i dismiss other factors, i for one seem to consider the alternatives instead of blindly following what those who earn big on this say.


    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Did I ever accuse you of saying that? No, so stop trying to deflect questions you can't answer by pretending you're being straw maned when you're not. I'll ask you again: what evidence do you have that it is not the historically high CO2 levels that is causing this warming?
    If you read my previous posts you'd see me say that i'm not against the part of CO2 increasing our temperature, i'm against the part where it is our fault alone. The increase of CO2 could be cause of many things, and yes the increase of CO2 does partly increase our temperature.


    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    No they can't. Again, what possible explaination is there that increased temperature caused the increase in CO2? Either you have a plausible working theory that can explain the facts, or stop pretending that your unjustified, groundless and unscientific opinion has the same wieght as the opinion of actual scientists.
    Hopefully you agree on that an increase in temperature can increase the CO2 emission, as well as an increase in CO2 can increase the temperature, if not you just learned something. What causes an increased temperature? Well there could be plentiful of things, of course nothing is certain.

    It's not my unjustified, goundless and unscientific opinion only, its a gathering of information that seems least as likely as the CO2 Theory. Obviously these results arent as obvious since they don't have a big can of government funding to help them.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Are you aware of this thing called Statistics?
    Yea.. 8 out 10 dentist recommends colgate pro-active! Never believe statistics coming from someone whos trying to take your money. Or atleast take it with a grain of salt.



    As mentioned i partly agree that CO2 increases our temperature, but i do not believe that the CO2 emissions that a man made is the biggest contributor towards our global warming. If this were the case why would there be several other meassurable activities that closely follows the earths temperature as well? Why is there a lag between the increased temperature and increased levels of CO2, where the temperature rises before CO2 levels?

    Global Warming was a hot topic at my university a few years back, and i talked with professors which had (and still do) worked on different thesis about the global warming. When so many things fit together, you just cant single one out and say thats the thing.

  9. #129
    The Lightbringer Deadvolcanoes's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,597
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    How ironic.

    phys.org/news/2012-05-pollution-teams-thunderclouds-atmosphere.html
    Last edited by Deadvolcanoes; 2012-05-19 at 06:38 PM.
    It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

  10. #130
    Great read, Laize. Even if the majority of climatologists agree about anthropogenic climate change , the suspicions hold out that there is a lot of information we don't have regarding an issue that is extremely variable.

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by eriseis View Post
    He he, you win the thread.
    Indeed he does.

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    Nah, if you want high irony, look for people who refuse to accept scientific data from government sites when it shows that anthropogenic climate change is real, yet pounces on the chance to push the same sites when an article there shows something they agree with, or think they agree with.

    Now THAT is ironic.
    I see no one who does that except on fox news which I refuse to watch. I've never denied global warming's existence. The only question I'd ever had was whether humans were really the cause of it.

    ---------- Post added 2012-05-20 at 03:23 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    Commendable to be certain!

    The continued refusal of the US to sign international agreements on reducing carbon and other harmful emissions? -Less so.
    What does the US get out of these agreements? Nothing? Theres a compelling reason to sign.

  13. #133
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post

    What does the US get out of these agreements? Nothing? Theres a compelling reason to sign.
    Even less since most other economically strong countries have signed. Let them shackle themselves and their industry trying to prevent a catastrophy that's not 99% proven. Meanwhile the US of A can soar unrestrained. They are after all an island and nothing that happens on the globe will have influence on this mightiest nation on Earth.

  14. #134
    High Overlord
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Hamilton, ON (Canada)
    Posts
    177
    Believe Global Warming or not, I've played enough Fallout that I'll be the one eating all of you should the world go to hell.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •