Global Warming real or not? - Page 3
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Global Warming real or not?

  1. #21
    Does it matter? If there are smart things we can do to better protect our own planet, why would we not do them, no matter the name we give an issue? There is no downside to caring for our homestead. Leave it to people to argue over words and potentially screw themselves in the process.

  2.   
  3. #22
    Apparently you folks aren't keeping up with the times. It's called "Climate change" now... :-)

  4. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjam2jab View Post
    Apparently you folks aren't keeping up with the times. It's called "Climate change" now... :-)
    How's all that hope and change working for ya?

  5. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    State of Confusion
    Posts
    7,733
    Quote Originally Posted by jg1967 View Post
    What do you think?
    Don't know! I'll get back to you when I'm done fixing my air conditioning unit.
    GOD, GUNS and GUITARS

  6. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Arnoldsville, Ga
    Posts
    463
    New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News
    This is some information from satelite information from 200 to present that says there is no global warming other than natural cycles. Sounds reasonable to me.

  7. So.....what is the ideal temperature of the earth?
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  8. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,004
    Quote Originally Posted by G50AE View Post
    They cry in the dark, so you can't see their tears
    They hide in the light, so you can't see their fears
    Forgive and forget, all the while
    Love and pain become one and the same
    In the eyes of a wounded child

    Because Hell
    Hell Is For Children
    And you know that their little lives can become such a mess
    Hell
    Hell Is For Children
    And you shouldn't have to pay for your love with your bones and your flesh

    It's all so confusing, this brutal abusing
    They blacken your eyes, and then apologize
    You're daddy's good girl, and don't tell mommy a thing
    Be a good little boy, and you'll get a new toy
    Tell grandma you fell off the swing

    Because Hell
    Hell Is For Children
    And you know that their little lives can become such a mess
    Hell
    Hell Is For Children
    And you shouldn't have to pay for your love with your bones and your flesh

    No, Hell Is For Children
    Hell
    Hell is for Hell
    Hell is for Hell
    Hell Is For Children
    Hell
    Hell is for Hell
    Hell is for Hell
    Hell Is For Children
    Hell
    Hell is for Hell
    Hell is for Hell
    Hell Is For Children
    Hell Is For Children
    Hell Is For Children
    Gee G! Pat Benatar?

  9. Quote Originally Posted by the dark View Post
    Does it matter? If there are smart things we can do to better protect our own planet, why would we not do them, no matter the name we give an issue? There is no downside to caring for our homestead. Leave it to people to argue over words and potentially screw themselves in the process.
    Dark, we all care about the environment and many of us recycle religiously. Your concerns are valid. Have you considered how the rest of the world is raping this earth and really do not care about the environment. China has 5 times more people then the USA. India has 3 times more people. Do you really think they have the same regulations,
    As we do here?

    How can we be a beacon to the world when we have a pig in the white house that wants to make us a third world country. Your 1 carbon footprint equates to about 200 to the rest of the world, that could care less.

    Trianasaus Rex tried to preserve the planet look where it got him.


    Sorry Ed, your boy in the D party that you identify yourself to, is simply Pig Squeez
    e. No, I am not a R.
    "When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that justifies it."Frederic Bastia

  10. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by walt629 View Post
    Gee G! Pat Benatar?
    I am glad that someone else here likes good music.

  11. First, please note that in science, the word "theory" is not as indefinite as it is in common usage. In science, "theory" means something that is testable, able to be proven false, and has calculated or measured evidence in its favor. Yes, theories can be proven false, and they sometimes are. By and large, though, if something is called a "theory", it has already gone through rigorous scientific testing. For example, quantum theory is a "theory".
    "Law" is when something is concretely *PROVEN*. In general, only simple things are "laws". Complex systems are *VERY* hard to outright "prove". Something that is proven means that a mathematical method has been determined to determine the truth or falseness of the theory, and the math shows that it is true.
    A "hypothesis" is what science calls what common usage would consider a theory. A hypothesis is an educated guess. "String Theory" is actually more of a hypothesis than a theory, because we are not presently able to test it to any reasonable extent, and no direct evidence has been found.

    Fact: Over the past few hundred years, the measured average temperatures worldwide have been rising.
    Issue with fact: Until the past 50 years, these temperatures tended to only be measured in large cities.
    Caveat: Over the past 50 years, the measurement methods have been consistent and widespread, including more than just cities, and average temperatures have been rising over the past 50 years. Yes, this is just "with the accuracy of our measurements", but it is consistent.
    Conclusion: The average temperatures around the planet, as measured world-wide, averaged over the course of the entire year, are slowly increasing. It is a very small increase, but it is an increase nonetheless. This is well documented as a world-wide phenomenon for at least the past 50 years, with strong circumstantial evidence for a few hundred years before that.

    Fact: Over the past few tens-of-thousands of years, CO2 levels fluctuated in a steady up-and-down pattern until the industrial revolution. This is known from ice core samples that can be dated to within a few centuries accuracy. Since the start of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels have been steadily increasing.
    Obvious source: The combination of burning fossil fuels that we know release CO2 into the air along with mass deforestation in rain forests around the world.
    Conclusion:

    Claim: As many climate change deniers point out, the rise in CO2 levels is not a large change, percentage-wise.
    Fact: The swings that have been measured historically range from a little less than 200 parts per million during ice ages to about 300 parts per million in warm cycles. The current measured value is just shy of 400 parts per million. A roughly 50% increase over the historical "warm cycles" amount. I consider 50% a large rise.
    Implications: A rise in CO2, if that was the sole effect, wouldn't be the end of the world. Yes, the 'greenhouse effect' caused by CO2 would increase, causing the Earth to hold more solar energy in than it otherwise would, slightly increasing the average global temperature (see Fact/Conclusion #1.)

    Claim: The changes in global climate are causing wild swings in weather. (Such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes.)
    Fact: Uncertain. Many hypotheses by climatologists put forth that an increase in global temperature puts more energy into the global weather system, and that these swings are very probable outcomes. Many computer models match these hypothesis. At the present, though, we have no real way of directly testing this hypothesis, and the systems are too complex to model properly with current computers.
    Conclusion: It is likely, based on what information we have and modeling we have done, that these swings could be a result of climate change; but not yet enough to be considered even a proper scientific theory.
    Effect: Some models predict that there will be shifts in the "growing zones" in continents to become further from the equator. This could cause MASSIVE economic damage, and in some parts of the world, governmental collapse. (For example what happened to Ethiopia and Somalia from the droughts in the '80s on.)

    Fact: If global average temperature continues to rise, the sea levels will rise.
    Claim: If they rise enough, low-lying areas of the world on coastlines will become permanently flooded.
    Conclusion: The exact amount of sea level rise is of course unknown. There are many different models. Nearly ALL have SOME level of sea level rise. In some, the rise is small enough to not cause serious problems. In some, the rise would be truly catastrophic to large portions of the world's population. We won't know until it happens, or we get more detailed computer models.



    Summary: TL;DR. Yes, I believe that the climate of the Earth is changing in a manner that is not consistent with natural processes per historical record. I believe that the actions of humankind are directly responsible for this. I believe that, even if we are *NOT* responsible, it is better to assume that we are, and act accordingly, than to assume we are not, and do nothing. If we act as if we are, and it turns out we are not; then we have had a minor inconvenience. If we act like we are not, and it turns out we are; then we have just caused massive harm to our planet's ecosystem - and therefore to our own economy.

    Note: To those who say "it's arrogant of us to think that we can change the climate of the planet, the planet will heal itself," I say "true - the planet WILL heal itself. However that "healing" may include making life as we know it impossible, causing mass extinctions, including of the human race. The planet doesn't need us - we need the planet."

    Also, I find it interesting that a majority of those who make the "it's arrogant of us to think we can change the climate of the planet" statement also believe that the entire universe was created for the sole purpose of humanity to exist. Wouldn't that be an even more arrogant statement? (Even if it WAS created just for us, wouldn't that mean we have a DUTY to treat it well?)

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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