what's the deal with global warming?

Diamond said:


I love these detailed technical arguments. It makes such a difference from the mediocrity we usually get in this forum.

Hey dude, its the truth. We are pumping carbon that otherwise would be trapped underground into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greehouse gas, so that warms up the atmosphere. Like a big comfy blanket. Are you claiming CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas?

As I said global warming is not necessarily a bad thing, so I don't know what your problem is.
 
Well, one bad thing is the effect many greenhouse gasses have on the ozone layer.

Warmth itself is not bad of course.

There is the point that warmth leads to glaciers (in mountains) melting, and the arctic and antarctic ices melting. We all know this would raise sea levels and river levels. We've all seen what floods and mud slides can do.
Looking at the mega floods of the past when the ice ages were ending-you can see what devastation can be caused.

What we would do with less land area? Can you imagine the over population problems? I tried to find what areas would most likely be under water if a certain percentage of the ice on the planet melted. I think Alberta was a favourable place in that case with the mountains and all. Other areas would be completely covered. Imagine the grand canyon with a lot of water in it?

If you look at the consequences of a disappearing ozone layer topped with way more water on the planet, then you begin to see what doomsayers are refering to.


I'm trying to find credible information on all this, but the internet really sucks when finding information on this topic.
 
Under normal circumstances the atmospheric concentrations and interactions of ultraviolet radiation, ozone, oxygen, and other chemicals is in balance. Ozone is being made and broken down all the time, so that the amount of ozone in the atmosphere stays more or less the same. Unfortunately, pollutants and chemicals can destroy the ozone, upsetting the balance in the atmosphere. When this happens, the ozone layer is depleted, and the amount of dangerous ultraviolet radiation reaching the earth may increase.


UV A UV C UV B

I think it is C that is deadly.

Recent satellite pictures have shown quite clearly that there is a hole appearing in the ozone over the Antarctic pole. In other areas of the world, the ozone layer has thinned out. Scientists have collected samples from these parts of the atmosphere and have found high levels of ozone-depleting chemicals in these areas.

Consequences of Ozone Depletion

The ozone layer is necessary for life as we know it. The ozone layer absorbs most of the dangerous ultraviolet radiation. If more of this radiation got through, it would cause an increase in skin cancer and in eye diseases such as cataracts. It has been estimated that a one percent depletion of the ozone layer would result in an extra 70,000 cases of skin cancer every year worldwide.

Increased ultraviolet radiation is not just harmful to human beings, it is harmful to all life on earth. Ultraviolet radiation damages crops, plants, and trees which form the basis of the food chains that support life on earth. The result of this damage would be a threat to the world's food supply. Plankton is the basis of the food chain in the sea. Plankton consists of tiny plants and animals and is eaten by larger marine creatures. If the plankton were killed as a result of increased levels of ultraviolet radiation, the fish would starve, the seas would die, and a major source of human food would be lost.


http://kccesl.tripod.com/greenhouse.html


Less food. less oxygen, more skin cancer, etc.
Polar bears in trouble NOW?



It shows the polar ice in the summer months now averages just nine feet in thickness compared to 16 feet 20 years ago. He predicts it will disappear altogether by 2080.

He says global warming is melting ice from above and warm water being carried north is causing it to melt from below.

Research by Canadian Wildlife Service polar bear specialist Dr Ian Stirling suggests melting snow is killing young bears before they leave their dens.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_552134.html?menu=


The risk of flooding in parts of Scotland is expected to double over the next 80 years

http://www.habitat.org.uk/climate.htm

A new study suggests that even as the ozone holes over the poles heal, ozone levels in mid-latitudes, where the majority of the world's population lives, are set to worsen later this century.
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992010


Yep, lots of bad news. I did a study on skin cancer rates going up to 40% more by 2060.
 
EvilYeti said:


Hey dude, its the truth. We are pumping carbon that otherwise would be trapped underground into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greehouse gas, so that warms up the atmosphere. Like a big comfy blanket. Are you claiming CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas?

As I said global warming is not necessarily a bad thing, so I don't know what your problem is.

In the big book of logical fallacies.. trying to make the case that CO2 causes global warming is "Genuine but Insignificant Cause"

The chief greenhouse gas is water vapor. What makes CO2 insignificant is its proportion to water vapor. The scare sites wont even list water vapor as a greenhouse gas because if they did all those big percentage figures they toss around would be reduced to tiny little percentages that nobody would fret about.

People understand this concept better in terms of money. Suppose you were getting 0.5% interrest on your savings account and they raised it to 0.6% .. why thats a 20% increase isnt it? I dont suppose you'de be running up and down the street yelling "I GOT 20% MORE!!!" would you? Well thats what the scare crowd does in regards to CO2 percentages.
 
scare sites? So the ozone layer stuff is bunk? What about the thinning ice?

It really doesn't matter what is causing global warming-ethane and chloroflourocarbons, or CO2 do damage the ozone layer as well.

What's worse? Global warming or the loss of the ozone layer.

We can't deny that humans put out the pollutants that are effecting earth on a global scale.

The greenhouse gasses don't only cause warming. There are even worse effects.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
scare sites? So the ozone layer stuff is bunk? What about the thinning ice?

It really doesn't matter what is causing global warming-ethane and chloroflourocarbons, or CO2 do damage the ozone layer as well.

What's worse? Global warming or the loss of the ozone layer.

We can't deny that humans put out the pollutants that are effecting earth on a global scale.

The greenhouse gasses don't only cause warming. There are even worse effects.

I suppose any moment now you will give the proof all scientists have been waiting for that human pollution caused the ozone hole. This could be yet another case of insignificant cause. Neither of us know. One of us thinks he knows tho.

Perhaps it may suprise you that its possible that our polution does destroy ozone but is not responsible for the ozone hole. Then again, perhaps you will just deny that this is possible because it doesnt fit with the wild scare calls.

Maybe its true maybe it isnt. Those who want to debate rationaly wont make assumptions. Those with an agenda will. You have. Thanks.
 
Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
There is the point that warmth leads to glaciers (in mountains) melting,
and the arctic and antarctic ices melting. We all know this would raise sea
levels and river levels.
Raise river levels? How?
Artic ice melting presents no problem save only the greenland ice sheet.
The only projection for the increase in sea level from all the ice melting
and the oceans warming is three feet or one meter. So I wouldn't worry.

If you look at the consequences of a disappearing ozone layer topped with
way more water on the planet, then you begin to see what doomsayers are
refering to.
I was under the impression that it was recovering.

I'm trying to find credible information on all this, but the
internet really sucks when finding information on this topic.
Agreed!
 
What possible agenda could I have. Some people sound like them paranoid folks at that mothering site that claims anyone saying vaccines don't cause SIDS has an agenda.

Hm, yah, I gain lots by saying vaccines don't cause SIDS. 'Scare sites' is another term I find confusing.

I find the only people with an agenda are those saying that anyone that says the opposite of what they say has an agenda. Those freakazoids at the mothering site sell 'alternatives' to vaccines. I don't sell anything. Hmm, who has the agenda?

There is proof out there, so disprove that proof. Tell me that the ice isn't thinning. Tell me what else causes the ozone holes.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
What possible agenda could I have. Some people sound like them paranoid folks at that mothering site that claims anyone saying vaccines don't cause SIDS has an agenda.

Hm, yah, I gain lots by saying vaccines don't cause SIDS. 'Scare sites' is another term I find confusing.

I find the only people with an agenda are those saying that anyone that says the opposite of what they say has an agenda. Those freakazoids at the mothering site sell 'alternatives' to vaccines. I don't sell anything. Hmm, who has the agenda?

There is proof out there, so disprove that proof. Tell me that the ice isn't thinning. Tell me what else causes the ozone holes.

You 'logic' falls flat when you realize I never said the opposite of what you claimed. I stayed right in the rational middle. The opposite of your claim is as wrong-thinking as your claim.

And because you 'claim' there is proof doesnt make the proof exist no matter how many times you claim it.

There is a definition of proof.
There is a scientific method.

People who jump up and down as you have with claims that arent backed up by either logic or the scientific method don't have anything at all to offer but opinions. You are as bad as the ones who deny the possibility of man induced global warming in that you have as much to go on as they do: Just an opinion.

And yes it does irk me a tad bit when people run around spouting their opinions as if its some proven fact. And yes it does appear as if you have an agenda when you do it because I'd like to believe you are smart enough to realize at least secretly that your claims arent proven.
 
It's not my opinion that the ice layers mentioned in the article are thinning. Tell my why that isn't proof-scientific or otherwise.

Also, still waiting for another reason (other than greehouse gasses) for the ozone layer thinning.

These aren't my opinions.
 
rockoon said:

In the big book of logical fallacies.. trying to make the case that CO2 causes global warming is "Genuine but Insignificant Cause"


Wrong. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'll use the planet Venus as a reference if you want to check it out. If the climate changes to the point that it causes massive human extinction, then its going to be pretty damn signifigant. We don't know at this point whether that will happen however.


The chief greenhouse gas is water vapor. What makes CO2 insignificant is its proportion to water vapor. The scare sites wont even list water vapor as a greenhouse gas because if they did all those big percentage figures they toss around would be reduced to tiny little percentages that nobody would fret about.


Firstly, if it wasn't for water vapor the earth would be about 60 degrees F colder then it is now. So we need that water vapor as a baseline. Global cooling is just as bad for us as global warming.

I guess you didn't know that water vapor has been increasing as well regardless, due to methane emissions from livestock. Methane turns into water vapor in the upper atmosphere.

I would assume you also didn't know that warmer air holds more water vapor, so that fractional increase caused by us humans is magnified. This is called "positive feedback" in science.

And to be fair, I should tell you that water vapor also cools the earth in the form of clouds which reflect sunlight.

I would say you are ignorant of science in general and earth science in particular.


People understand this concept better in terms of money. Suppose you were getting 0.5% interrest on your savings account and they raised it to 0.6% .. why thats a 20% increase isnt it? I dont suppose you'de be running up and down the street yelling "I GOT 20% MORE!!!" would you? Well thats what the scare crowd does in regards to CO2 percentages.

False analogy. You did get 20% more interest, if that excites you so be it. A better analogy would be .5% solution of a drug that saves your life vs. a .6% that is potentially deadly. That .1% is pretty signifigant, isn't it?

Before you go off on me again, I should admit I work in the Earth Sciences.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
It's not my opinion that the ice layers mentioned in the article are thinning. Tell my why that isn't proof-scientific or otherwise.

Also, still waiting for another reason (other than greehouse gasses) for the ozone layer thinning.

These aren't my opinions.

No it was your opinion that global warming and human polution was the reason for thinning ice layers. Changing your tune? Pick a claim please. Its hard to hit moving targets.

As for the ozone.. lets go back to the big book of logical fallacies:

argumentum ad ignorantiam: Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false.

While in detective novels removing all other apparent possibilities is constituted as proof, its not so in science.

Maybe you should look over the common logical fallacies before responding again:

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm
 
Wrong. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Umm.. maybe you didnt read what I said. I never said it wasn't. Please don't manufacture your arguements here. You can do that via private email with yourself.

EvilYeti said:


False analogy. You did get 20% more interest, if that excites you so be it. A better analogy would be .5% solution of a drug that saves your life vs. a .6% that is potentially deadly. That .1% is pretty signifigant, isn't it?

Before you go off on me again, I should admit I work in the Earth Sciences.

The analogy is certainly false but it does demonstrate whats being done with numbers on this issue. Your analogy also doesnt apply specifically since the significance is not known. They claim its significant and use the largest number they can to make it appear to be significant.

It's known as the trojan number:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/trojan_number.htm

Before you go off on my again, I should admit I'm logical.

Edited to add: Infact I never went off on you. I never replied to you until now. More manufacturing!
 
Ozone depletion is unrelated to global warming.

Ozone depletion is caused by CFCs. These little suckers are amazingly useful chemicals because they are practically inert and indestructible. This is also why they are a problem, because they are one of the very, very few molecules that can make it up to the ozone layer without getting broken up en route. When they get up there, the intense UV radiation makes them bond with ozone.

This has nothing to do with global warming. Zip. Show me someone who conflates the two, and I'll show you someone who shouldn't be talking about these issues in public.

Global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, like methane and CO2. We dump these things in to the atmosphere in large quantities as a byproduct of industrialisation. This warms up the earth - the only questions are about to what degree this is happening, and whether it matters.

At the moment it seems like higher temperatures might or might not be a real problem. Even a shift of a few degrees can wipe out a species if it has nowhere to migrate to, and these days we humans have cut off most of the migrationary corridors. Similarly small shifts seem likely to wipe out the Great Barrier Reef as we know it, although the jury is still out.

What is a bit more certain is that catastrophic weather events are becoming more common. More hurricanes mean more deaths and billions of dollars of damage.

It could turn out in the end that it's all going to be okay. But that's far from certain, and it's insanity to keep digging a hole for ourselves on the basis that we don't yet know for sure how deep it's going to get.

The atmospheric environment is so complex that we just aren't equipped to fiddle with it yet. So we should minimise our fiddling until we know what we are doing. Currently we are using our only planet as a guinea pig, and that's not too bright.

[Edited for spelling and clarity]
 
EvilYeti said:


Hey dude, its the truth. We are pumping carbon that otherwise would be trapped underground into the atmosphere. CO2 is a greehouse gas, so that warms up the atmosphere. Like a big comfy blanket. Are you claiming CO2 isnt a greenhouse gas?

As I said global warming is not necessarily a bad thing, so I don't know what your problem is.

Dude,

Carbon dioxide is being pumped into the atmosphere by lots of non-human processes that dwarf our human contribution.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but a very poor greenhouse gas. The only reason its mentioned at all is it happens to be rising (this is relative since its a small trace gas in the atmosphere) and we happen to produce a fraction of this enrichment ourselves (although what fraction that is, is anyone's guess).

In any case, ice core studies have shown that temperature rises first, then around 800 years later, carbon dioxide levels rise. This has been confirmed in mulitple studies from Greenland to the Antarctic. In no studies at all does carbon dioxide rise cause a rise in temperatures. Why? Because perhaps carbon dioxide heat trapping causes more water vapour which condenses into clouds which reflect more heat away from the surface - a negative feedback.

Carbon dioxide is the very lifeblood of the planet. Its ludicrous to make out its some terrible pollutant.
 
Rockoon

I'm still waiting for this study which links tree ring growth with temperature. Please supply the reference.
 
EvilYeti wrote:

“Global warming is happening and its our fault. Its been going on since the dawn of the industrial age, over a 100 years. As soon as we started burning fossil fuels. This should be no surprise as we are releasing carbon into the atmosphere that otherwise would be buried underground, forever.”



Many years ago a certain scientist gave the world a new updated version of the Periodical Chart of the Elements. Unlike the Mendeleef Chart that is still being used, this new chart was complete. In this chart were many new elements that had never been known before. There were two new elements that were of particular interest. This scientist warned the world to never physically unearth them because of the danger they pose to the earth. And if they were unearthed and used, the pressures of the world would not be able to contain them.

About twenty years later a group of scientists physically located them against the original scientist’s wishes. They were renamed from “Urium and Uridium to the names the world now knows them by. They are in constant use today and are well known as the most dangerous elements known to mankind. They are the very cause of Global Warming.

Before the original scientist died in 1963, he foretold what would happen to the earth in the coming years if science did not cease using them. He said that by the mid-seventies, there would be a change in the earth’s weather patterns as the earth heats up, many flash floods, severe melting at the polar caps, (recently a chunk of ice fell into the ocean, which was the size of Rhode Island), an increase of cancer cases, the lowering of the earth’s oxygen levels and the reduction of plant life and another warning of something that is too horrible to even mention.


“Whether this is good or bad thing is unknown. The earth is, on a whole, too cool for our current way of life. We are coming up on another ice age, so it might be better to have hot-warm planet than a warm-frozen planet.”



In the sixties, the term “Global Warming” was seeping in the word usage of scientist’s. In the seventies, scientist’s began to speculate whether or not the earth was actually heating up beyond its normal range and if Global Warming really existed. Today, the big question by many scientist’s is: Global Warming does exist and how bad is the damage at this point.
The earth is not “too cool for our current way of life”. The earth is in the proper position from the sun to sustain life. Remember, humans are not the only things on earth that must live. The earth’s current operating conditions between hot and cold is perfect to sustain ALL forms of life, not just human. But the normal operating heat-cold ranges are now being altered by science. Unknowingly by most scientists and known by a handful. By the time conditions become unliveable and life threatening, those handful of scientists that do know the cause of Global Warming will be long gone after first lining their pockets with greed money. The so-called “coming ice age” cannot naturally happen for millions of years and will coincide with the earth changing its position in the solar system. The earth is perpetually doing this but on such a small scale that is it not harmful or even noticed.


“We are going to run out of fossil based fuels pretty soon, so the whole thing may stop anyway.”




We have used too many “fossil based fuels” already and they can never again be replaced. These “fuels” are within the earth for a reason and to use too much of them for fuel is dangerous for the earth. Besides, they are primitive forms of fuel and the world leaders know this.

The fuel of the future is here now and it is in abundance. And...almost free to use. And this is why this fuel is NOT currently being used. There is not much money to be made from a fuel that is simple to produce and easy to obtain. This new fuel can be used in anything that we would normally use gasoline and some things that gas will not work in. It is much safer than gasoline and it can be manufactured for a fraction of the price of gasoline. There is no “fuel shortage” and the certain leader who have lined their pocket from our trips to the service stations know this. In the seventies there was much talk of this new fuel and a person could see many shows on PBS and other networks showing the great promise of this new fuel. Such shows have been yanked from the air-waves, less the public become aware of such a cheap and inexpensive safe fuel.

The most dangerous elements currently known to science are now used throughout the world and on a daily basis. They are the cause of what we call “Global Warming”. If we do not cease use of these elements soon, the damage will be irreversible. The talk of “new fuels” will not be necessary or needed if that happens. I have yet to see one scientific statement that leads to the real cause of Global Warming. The various forms of pollutants that they suspect cause only minimal damage at best. It's like comparing pea-shooters to atomic bombs and today, science is more concerned with pea-shooters as the culprit behind Global Warming.
 
Wow, two conspiracy theories and a load of pseudoscience.
I'll say this, Gerald - you're a value for money woo-woo!

:clap: :clap:
 
Dragon (roll eyes) wrote:

"Wow, two conspiracy theories and a load of pseudoscience.
I'll say this, Gerald - you're a value for money woo-woo!"


Does your mother know you are on the computer again?

If I wrote something that you don't agree with, that's fine with me. So be a man about it and grow up. If you just have to post something, try to write something that proves your stance on the issue. Inform the people here of what you know and do it in a grownup helpful manner. Don't post the mindless drivel that you elected to post.

But you and I both know that what you did post reflects all that you really know, doesn't it. And now everyone as this forum knows that you are not very knowledgeable on the serious issues of Global Warming, so must instead write something childish in an attempt to cover up for your limited knowledge.

You can try to hide behind a phoney made up name, but once you post something, you are then made known for who you really are. You can no longer hide.

If you just have to comment on someone's post, act like an adult and leave out the childish drivel that you obviously think is impressive. It's not. Answer my post in an adult manner and impress everyone here with what you really know about Global Warming, not with what you don't know.

"What you whisper in private, is yelled from the rooftops".
 
Gerald said:
Dragon (roll eyes) wrote:

"Wow, two conspiracy theories and a load of pseudoscience.
I'll say this, Gerald - you're a value for money woo-woo!"


Does your mother know you are on the computer again?

If I wrote something that you don't agree with, that's fine with me. So be a man about it and grow up. If you just have to post something, try to write something that proves your stance on the issue. Inform the people here of what you know and do it in a grownup helpful manner. Don't post the mindless drivel that you elected to post.

But you and I both know that what you did post reflects all that you really know, doesn't it. And now everyone as this forum knows that you are not very knowledgeable on the serious issues of Global Warming, so must instead write something childish in an attempt to cover up for your limited knowledge.

You can try to hide behind a phoney made up name, but once you post something, you are then made known for who you really are. You can no longer hide.

If you just have to comment on someone's post, act like an adult and leave out the childish drivel that you obviously think is impressive. It's not. Answer my post in an adult manner and impress everyone here with what you really know about Global Warming, not with what you don't know.

"What you whisper in private, is yelled from the rooftops".

:rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom