i just think the way some people simplify it to just mean global mean temperature change...i mean by that rationale there was global warming today all around the globe when the sun came up, regardless of your time zone...except for polar places with no sunlight

6/20/2006 11:20:51 AM

I hate to burst your bubble, but the rotation of the earth doesn't affect the mean global temperature. Turns out we're almost a sphere.

And the seasons, of course, do affect the mean global temperature, due to the distance between the Earth and the sun, but this isn't what we're talking about. Global warming is a long term, as in years and years, increase in the mean temperature of the planet.

Just as problematic, even moreso in some instances, whether it's related to global warming or not, are the changes in localized mean temperatures in certain places on the Earth.

6/20/2006 11:25:36 AM

Ok, the polar bear statistic won me over, hands down.

Somenumber% of polar bears have died from drowning because they can't find icebergs or else when they climb onto one it breaks because it's semi-melted. The polar bear animation was REALLY cute too.

6/20/2006 11:29:48 AM

well NO scientists deny that global mean temperatures have risen over the last century or so

but LOTS of scientists refuse to assume that humans are the cause and refuse to jump to the conclusion that these changes could not possibly be small fluctuations that would happen naturally regardless of human activity

thats the thing...Al Gore saying "global warming IS real" is just like someone else saying "global warming is NOT real"...theres not enough evidence to determine the cause because the Earth is 2,500,000,000 years old and we don't understand the system's processes and cycles enough

6/20/2006 11:30:31 AM

Quote :

"well NO scientists deny that global mean temperatures have risen over the last century or so"

Okay, so can't we help nature out by reducing carbon dioxide emissions whether it's our fault or not?

Christ, if we all die it won't matter whose fault it was.

6/20/2006 11:41:12 AM

Quote :

"well NO scientists deny that global mean temperatures have risen over the last century or so but LOTS of scientists refuse to assume that humans are the cause and refuse to jump to the conclusion that these changes could not possibly be small fluctuations that would happen naturally regardless of human activity thats the thing...Al Gore saying "global warming IS real" is just like someone else saying "global warming is NOT real"...theres not enough evidence to determine the cause because the Earth is 2,500,000,000 years old and we don't understand the system's processes and cycles enough"

This post hurts my brain.

6/20/2006 11:43:18 AM

we can't possibly understand everything

therefore, we should give up on science all together

6/20/2006 11:49:45 AM

Heisenberg was an asshole.

6/20/2006 11:51:30 AM

Heisenberg was an asshole lazy.

6/20/2006 11:56:33 AM

Quote :

"Okay, so can't we help nature out by reducing carbon dioxide emissions whether it's our fault or not?"

why do you think reducing carbon dioxide emissions will "help out nature"

6/20/2006 12:05:35 PM

Regardless of whether greenhouse gasses are the predominant cause of global warming, I think it's safe to say (correct me if I'm wrong) that they are, at the very least, a contributing factor. Why, then, don't we do our best to eliminate this factor, even if it is not the primary force in global warming?

6/20/2006 12:08:42 PM

they are a contributing factor

but are we going to just stop driving cars and shut down factories because it MIGHT help things out?

but then there is a huge issue about advanced countries like the US and developing countries...the US cut down plenty of trees and shot lots of CO2 into the atmosphere as we grew as a society...and now we think hmmm, maybe we shouldnt do stuff like that...so we tell other countries that they shouldnt do that either...but they are still developing and they need to cut down forests in order to grow their societies

so in one perspective, why should we stop with everything we do, if developing countries are going to continue their CO2 emissions?

6/20/2006 12:09:58 PM

Quote :

"but are we going to just stop driving cars and shut down factories because it MIGHT help things out?"

There's a difference between not driving cars and driving fuel efficient cars.

Quote :

"so in one perspective, why should we stop with everything we do, if developing countries are going to continue their CO2 emissions?"

If my neighbor started shitting on his lawn, I would still use the toilet.

6/20/2006 12:19:07 PM

TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS

6/20/2006 12:51:24 PM

A simple thing we could do is switch from gasoline to burning ethanol... why dont we?... because oil companys wouldn't like that....

On a side note... :




[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 1:10 PM. Reason : picture]

6/20/2006 12:58:43 PM

^That has nothing to do with releasing millions of years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere over the span of 50 years.

PS.- Why do people need to be convinced about anthropomorphic climate change in order for us to agree that we need to significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels?

6/20/2006 1:18:35 PM

omg we're all going to die! you must go see this movie so you can learn how to save the human race!!!!1

6/20/2006 1:22:39 PM

Quote :

"TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS"

Exactly.

Quote :

"PS.- Why do people need to be convinced about anthropomorphic climate change in order for us to agree that we need to significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels?"

Because doing nothing, we're victims of evil Mother Nature, who's out to destroy us! Nobody wants to take any responsibility for reducing emissions, and especially not the US, who didn't even send anyone to Kyoto last time. It's a global concern and yet the most powerful country refuses to do anything about it despite that we're the #1 producer of carbon dioxide by far.

Quote :

"we can't possibly understand everything therefore, we should give up on science all together"

There are universal truths, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do anything. You might notice things like gravity apply on Earth. I could never get down with true skeptics because that's like sitting and wondering if the floor is going to fall out from under you if you walk on it. There's a 50/50 chance it will, if you really think that way.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 1:44 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 1:33:22 PM

fuck the planet.

6/20/2006 1:41:39 PM

^^^^What has nothing to do with the sequestered carbon we burn in fossil fuels? my graph?... or my statement about burning ethanol... because the statement about replacing fossil fuels with ethanol does have something to do with it... The graph was just to illustrate warming trends... im looking for a corresponding graph on carbon % in the atmosphere...





[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 1:59 PM. Reason : typo]

6/20/2006 1:51:10 PM

oh wait... heres an interesting graph...



oh wait... lets see the other one i posted earlier again...



hmm... anything similar..? So carbon doesnt caue global temperatures to rise?

6/20/2006 1:57:55 PM

Yeah, just a gentle flux of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere... Right...

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 2:20 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 2:20:03 PM

there is also a special that has been on hbo called "To Hot Not To Handle"
watch it if you have not yet

6/20/2006 2:21:42 PM

what are the global temperatures from 1000-1860? its convenient you didnt look at all the data

6/20/2006 2:34:10 PM

This Graph is for TreeTwista ....



Oh whats this... Empirical Evidence dating back long enough to show that CO2 levels and Global Temp are linked... No wait maybe just a huge coincidence....oh... whats that? nowhere in that 450,000 year span does carbon dioxide naturaly go over 370 ppm by volume.... Except for... Tada!!!



Wow... Last year and this year... hmmm

6/20/2006 2:37:10 PM

There. Now stop bitching.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 2:39:12 PM

so tell me again how those graphs prove that humans are causing global warming? cause i look at that graph and see trends and fluctuations...

6/20/2006 2:39:39 PM

for someone who talks so much, treetwista knows so little.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 2:41 PM. Reason : i forgot the e]

6/20/2006 2:39:47 PM

Quote :

"somone"

6/20/2006 2:40:17 PM

dinosaur farts cause global warming.

6/20/2006 2:41:05 PM

someone please use empirical evidence to prove that the recent rise in temperatures is any different than the rises in co2 and temperatures that we've had every ~50,000-100,000 years over the last 500,000 years

6/20/2006 2:42:06 PM

My other one only went up to 1950.

The point is, the raise in temperature isn't in sync with the fluctuations of change in temperatures that the Earth has had over its normal cycle. So, why would it NORMALLY do this?! When it starts spiking is the beginning of industrialized life, complete with higher CO2 emissions, which are also climbing. Other greenhouse gases have similar trends, but we don't emit them in the same quantities.

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

Read number 7.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 2:47 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 2:42:14 PM

Quote :

"The vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence. The evidence is overwhelming and undeniable.""

Its this type of quote that pains me in an argument. Yes, most scientists agree that global warming is real. Duh, look at the trend. The world is getting warmer. Good job on that brilliant scientific observation. The question is whether it is our fault.

If you pass over the ignorance of this quote, most scientists worth their weight do NOT believe it is a result of our activities. They believe that humans have SOME sort of impact on the global temperature, but they have no idea how much it is. We may be a large factor, we may be a small factor.

How about we look at the MAIN FACTOR BEHIND TEMPERATURE ON EARTH? Aka, the Sun:




http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_sunclimate.html

See? I can post nice cool little graphs that prove my point too. The fact is, anyone who says that human influence is, without a doubt, the result of humans is a dumbass. Anyone who says that human influence is nothing to worry about is a dumbass. Too many unknowns and too much conflicting data.


PS: Amkeener, you REALLY need to stop being so ignorant. Yes, you can prove a couple of points. Like temperature being linked somewhat to CO2 output, as in this graph:



However, you ignore the trend of global warming and cooling. Notice how we are at the "warming" stage. Plz 2 look at the entire picture and not ignore things that conflict with your tiny little bubble of a world you live inside in your head. At first I thought you were trying to help him out with that graph.

Look up a theory called "Global Cooling". You'll see a lot of scientists also believe in this.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 3:28 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 3:20:48 PM

Graphs are for nerds.

6/20/2006 3:20:56 PM

^^

Quote :

"Too many unknowns and too much conflicting data."

exactly...and regardless of what people think of my politics or points of view or whatever, I have always said global warming may or may not be primarily caused by human CO2 emissions...just like CapnObvious said, there are too many unknowns...how we can look at a small fraction of limited recent data about the Earth and assume to know so much about the multi-billion year old system is as arrogant as anything

and the people that think the only scientists that dont "believe in global warming" are scientists paid off by oil companies...you dont think the environmental groups have their own agendas too?

6/20/2006 3:34:00 PM

Read my comments... i was countering an argument he had earlier... and then showing that nowhere in the past 400,000 years have we had a peak in CO2 levels higher than today... Am i supposed to present everything in term paper format and then draw every conclusion for you?... i mean i thought that by looking at some simple graphs you could do it yourself... but obviously not... So my conclusion...? I may be ignorant but if so... your a fucking moron...

6/20/2006 3:45:31 PM

Quote :

"your a fucking moron..."

self pwnts are beautiful

6/20/2006 3:47:35 PM

^^ what youre not getting is that scientists dont even know if that rise in CO2 even fucking matters.

6/20/2006 3:48:42 PM

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 3:53 PM. Reason : . double post cause my internet timed out]

6/20/2006 3:52:35 PM

Gore's got more environmentalists in his pocket than Cheney has oil companies in his

6/20/2006 3:52:56 PM

^^^I just wonder if looking at past data... (the graph i posted earlier with the 400,000 time frame) shows a link between CO2 and heat?

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 3:54 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 3:52:56 PM

it also shows a rise in temperature and a fall and then a rise and then a fall and then a rise and then a fall...thats known as a 'trend' or 'pattern'

how come the current temperatures couldnt be part of one of those 'trends' or 'patterns'?

why must they necessarily be part of an 'oil company conspiracy'

6/20/2006 3:54:02 PM

That may be... but if you believe that the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere has an impact on the Global temperature of the world... and you realize how much CO2 we dump into the atmosphere each adn every year... and you project using scientific models where we'll be at in 10 or twenty years its not very difficult to extrapolate that global temperature are going to RISE because of us... i mean what more do you want me to say... we've allready agreed that CO2 causes the earth to warm up... and we dump billions of tons of it into the atmostphere yearly.... ?

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 3:57 PM. Reason : typo]

6/20/2006 3:57:33 PM

why did global temperatures rise for hundreds of thousands of years before human civilizations had any significant CO2 emissions? why is it so unfeasible for you think consider that it could be part of a longer timed cycle? why is it hard for you to understand that we really dont know enough about the interworkings of our planet's history to come up with any definite conclusion?

6/20/2006 4:00:33 PM

you obviously dont worry about reading previous posts...

6/20/2006 4:05:04 PM

Quote :

"why is it so unfeasible for you think consider that it could be part of a longer timed cycle?"

Yeah, they did rise. There's no disputing that. But the amount to which the ppms have risen recently is exponential compared to where former maximums in the history of the Earth used to be. So it's no longer a simple sinusoidal curve, and therefore out of whack with the normal cycle of things.

But does that cause global warming? Well, that's what we're all fighting about in this thread.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 4:07 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 4:06:35 PM

^^you obviously cant address the questions that i just posted

i thought all the classes i took in MEA when i got one of my undergrand degrees in Natural Resources - Marine and Coastal Concentration meant more than some al gore propaganda respewed by some impressionable liberal

^i'm not saying it does or doesnt cause it...im saying i dont know, and no scientist without a political agenda could honestly tell you they knew for certain

6/20/2006 4:07:48 PM

What are you still not understanding? The current trend looks nothing like anything that has existed before.

Quote :

"no scientist without a political agenda"

Everyone has a political agenda, of course. See, this is exactly why nobody will listen to anything anymore. If it causes cognitive dissonance for you, it's automatically written off as some sort of propaganda.



SEE THAT RED LINE?!?!?!! IT'S GOING UP AT AN ACCELERATING RATE COMPARED TO THE STABLE BLUE LINE. Surely your major taught you to read a graph.

[Edited on June 20, 2006 at 4:13 PM. Reason : .]

6/20/2006 4:08:31 PM

you see the trees but not the forest

6/20/2006 4:09:12 PM

fine... supose the relationship between ppm CO2 in the atmosphere and global temp is linear... which it isnt exactly... but its not far from it... and then you look at the past ammount of CO2 that has been in the atmosphere... and yes it does fluctuate... and then you look at the current ammount... and THEN you look at the ammount we add every year...



is it hard to assume that we contribute to the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

6/20/2006 4:11:04 PM