why don't you show me some proof then?

And proof of what on land? Massive deforestation? Grasslands and forests replaced with countless acres of asphalt and concrete...yeah I think I have proof of that.

7/4/2012 12:24:45 AM

What about the oceans?

Have you seen any human impacts on the ocean?

7/4/2012 12:38:38 AM

besides it being a big garbage can?

i guess not.

7/4/2012 12:45:55 AM

What about coral reef, oxygen levels in the water, fish depletion, oil spills, and oil disasters, and, as willy mentioned, pollution.

If we see trash, we can pick it up on land.
If we see chemical pollution in the ocean we can clean it up.
If we see fish depletion, we can ban fishing and restock.

That covers on Land and Sea, so the only thing left leaves Air.

Have human impacted Air as much as they've impacted the Land and Sea?
What major impacts have humans had on Air?

[Edited on July 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/4/2012 12:45:16 PM

farts.

7/4/2012 4:31:48 PM

[Edited on July 4, 2012 at 5:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/4/2012 5:31:18 PM

I would say the pollution of our lakes, rivers, streams and oceans is far worse than the air.

7/6/2012 1:26:13 PM

7/6/2012 1:31:54 PM

You do realize that in the last 20 years air quality in the US (especially in large cities) has improved dramatically...yes?

7/6/2012 3:28:12 PM

^true. and much (most?) of that is due to tighter regulations on vehicular and industrial emissions.

i agree that more should be done to limit the pollution getting into water bodies.

7/6/2012 6:41:13 PM

The Gaia hypothesis, also known as Gaia theory or Gaia principle, proposes that all organisms and their inorganic surroundings on Earth are closely integrated to form a single and self-regulating complex system, maintaining the conditions for life on the planet.

The scientific investigation of the Gaia hypothesis focuses on observing how the biosphere and the evolution of life forms contribute to the stability of global temperature, ocean salinity, oxygen in the atmosphere and other factors of habitability in a preferred homeostasis. The Gaia hypothesis was formulated by the chemist James Lovelock and co-developed by the microbiologist Lynn Margulis in the 1970s. Initially received with hostility by the scientific community, it is now studied in the disciplines of geophysiology and Earth system science, and some of its principles have been adopted in fields like biogeochemistry and systems ecology. This ecological hypothesis has also inspired analogies and various interpretations in social sciences, politics, and religion under a vague philosophy and movement.


The Gaia theory posits that the Earth is a self-regulating complex system involving the biosphere, the atmosphere, the hydrospheres and the pedosphere, tightly coupled as an evolving system. The theory sustains that this system as a whole, called Gaia, seeks a physical and chemical environment optimal for contemporary life.

Gaia evolves through a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota, leading to broad stabilization of the conditions of habitability in a full homeostasis. Many processes in the Earth's surface essential for the conditions of life depend on the interaction of living forms, especially microorganisms, with inorganic elements.These processes establish a global control system that regulates Earth's surface temperature, atmosphere composition and ocean salinity, powered by the global thermodynamic disequilibrium state of the Earth system.

The existence of a planetary homeostasis influenced by living forms had been observed previously in the field of biogeochemistry, and it is being investigated also in other fields like Earth system science. The originality of the Gaia theory relies on the assessment that such homeostatic balance is actively pursued with the goal of keeping the optimal conditions for life, even when terrestrial or external events menace them.

7/6/2012 9:56:38 PM

you could have just explained why you thought that was relevant, and then just linked to the wiki page, man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

7/7/2012 12:37:39 PM

ITT, bullet acts like he clicks my links.

7/7/2012 12:53:55 PM

at least stop being disingenuous and acknowledge that you're just copying and pasting.

V of course i can tell you didn't write it. but most intelligent people use "quotation marks" to let others know when they're copying someone else's work, or at least say "this is from ______".

[Edited on July 7, 2012 at 1:03 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2012 12:55:53 PM

ITT, bullet acts like he can't tell I didn't write that text.

[Edited on July 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM. Reason : he]

7/7/2012 12:57:05 PM

Sanders posted this on his facebook himself
http://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders

7/7/2012 3:12:52 PM

Vermont would only be so lucky.

Georgia has a great climate.

7/7/2012 3:16:00 PM

But not so great for Sugar Maples and ski tourism, both multi-million dollar contributors to Vermont's economy.

7/7/2012 5:04:37 PM

maybe Senator Sanders should run for office in China and work to prevent their current high emissions

7/7/2012 8:34:10 PM

Swirling Currents Fuel Huge Ocean Blooms

The North Atlantic is currently bursting with color as blooms of microscopic plants erupt on the surface of the chilly sea. But these expanses of plankton, which provide the basis for the area's food chain and help take in enormous quantities of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, wouldn't be possible without swirling currents on the surface to keep them afloat, new research finds.


link to picture
http://media.zenfs.com/en_US/News/LiveScience.com/plankton-eddies.JPG1341600916

link to article
http://news.yahoo.com/swirling-currents-fuel-huge-ocean-blooms-191448514.html




Awesome news!


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Global Warming Shrinking Plant Leaves

Warming temperatures are turning a native Australian shrub into a mini version of itself, revealing the effect climate change is already having on the globe.

Researchers from the University of Adelaide examined specimens of narrow-leaf hopbush (Dodonaea viscosa, subspecies angustissima), a woody shrub with papery red seed capsules that were used by early Australian colonists to brew beer. They found that between the 1880s and the present, leaves have narrowed by an average of 0.08 inches (2 millimeters).

http://news.yahoo.com/global-warming-shrinking-plant-leaves-125856047.html

7/8/2012 12:47:17 PM

please quit suggesting that the planet can take care of itself.

7/8/2012 1:02:02 PM

Depends on the speed at which the world can bail out the water leaking into boat that determines whether the boat sinks or stays afloat.

7/8/2012 1:12:54 PM

It isn't a matter of the planet "healing" itself, you stupid rubes, it's a matter of it reconfiguring itself in a way that we aren't prepared for. I don't think anybody's positing that AGW will lead to utter, worldwide, complete extinction of all life on Earth.

The concerns are a lot more like

* Massive, unprecedented blooms of certain plantlife will result in less sunlight and nutrients reaching other plantlife that sustain other aspects of the ecosystem (You know, the ecosystem who's current configuration all of our agriculture and fishing industry is built on the predictability of)

* Shifting ocean currents will push various interacting marine life migrations around, disrupting if not destroying certain populations.

* Shifting air currents will move arable lands to new areas (How will global food politics look when the great planes is a desert but Siberia is a new breadbasket?)

* Despite all the tiny plants and planckton enjoying these conditions, larger organisms are going extinct every day, largely because their food sources are rapidly changing (Just like the farm analogy above)

Seriously, it's a testament to just how fucking retarded you are, and how completely ignorant you are of the real threats of global warming, that you think an algae bloom somewhere means global warming is a good thing.

Yes folks, no fucking duh certain forms of life will do better in an AGW-affected world. I'm concerned about human lifeforms will fare. And if the zones of arable land shift hundreds if not thousands of miles, ocean and air currents rearrange completely, fish food sources alter distribution or even deplete, some rivers we depend on dry up, and some coastal cities have to start installing and maintaining more sandbars, that's bad news to us, no matter how small the leaves on a bush in Australia get.

Quote :

"Depends on the speed at which the world can bail out the water leaking into boat that determines whether the boat sinks or stays afloat."

What you don't get is this: Gaia isn't interested at all in saving human life or human civilization. All "Gaia" is is an expression of the emergent fortitude of life writ large. Unfortunately, macro-organisms and complex ones require rather long-term stability in order to evolve in pace with the changing environment. "Gaia" may very well balance out the world, but the end result could easily be a world where no creature is larger than a cockroach, and all but a few patches of land are desert.

There is no "ideal" gas balance in the atmosphere "Gaia" strives for, in fact that balance has shifted many times over the geological history. There have been long periods of time, millions of years, in which the air would be completely poisonous to any animal alive today, and yet life was still flourishing then. Things being alive does not equal us being alive.

This is what happens when people brought up in the West hear about Gaia Theory, they imprint their idea of a "God that loves us" onto it so they can happily assume "Gaia" is looking out for humans. Gaia couldn't give a shit less. Humans evolved and developed civilization under a very specific set of circumstances, and there is nothing that makes those circumstances ideal or optimal that you can just expect to arrive at just because "things work out." So yes, the bottom line is that life a whole will survive, great for life as a whole, I'm more concerned about us, humans.

[Edited on July 9, 2012 at 10:32 AM. Reason : .]

7/9/2012 10:08:56 AM

Nothing posted in that statement is factual.

7/9/2012 10:23:24 AM

TKE you've proven yourself over and over in this thread to have no grasp on the factual whatsoever so maybe you should just split.

edit: Here, just to humor you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Warmest_years

Please find me any global temperature record during which at least 9 of the top 10 warmest years weren't after 2000.



[Edited on July 9, 2012 at 10:28 AM. Reason : .]

7/9/2012 10:24:46 AM

^^your statement would be much more credible if you actually explained HOW they're not factual

7/9/2012 10:38:08 AM

Quote :

"I'm concerned about human lifeforms will fare."

Capitalism manages to reorganize the economy quick enough to keep up with stuff happening on human time scales of months and years. Keeping up with climatic time scales of decades should be a walk in the park.

The sectoral and regional shifts imposed by the recent economic and political catastrophes far exceeds any similar shift climate change could impose upon us. Sure, the recession has caused a lot of suffering, but nothing that is a threat to mankind.

To put it in perspective, I believe the entire fishing and farming sector of the U.S. economy (less than 1% of GDP) could be bulldozed and rebuilt for less than it has cost just keeping Fannie and Feddie out of bankruptcy.

7/9/2012 12:37:48 PM

Exactly. Even if I were to believe that CO2 induced climate warming was a problem it is far more realistic and financially possible to adapt and adjust than to try and "stop" the warming.

7/9/2012 1:57:20 PM

usually i dont like this TKE fellow, but hes absolutely right.

and then, in the future, when things cool down again for seemingly apparent reasons, liberals will blame conservatives and the free market for taking green technologies too far.

and then demand another impossibly expensive solution to heat things up again.

no concept of wealth whatsoever; shouldnt be too surprising they support the elimination of the very idea altogether.

7/9/2012 2:02:47 PM

The problem isn't the fact we can't adapt.

The problem lies with people attitudes toward the scientific data of global warming.

So you know about the ice age...

cool.


Do you know of a time when the world got so hot that it killed everything?

7/9/2012 2:10:06 PM

^^that's a lot of silly generelzations and assumptions. hacks tend to think that way.

7/9/2012 2:12:31 PM

^^do you know about this time when all these scientists made global warming predictions 20 years ago that didn't come true?

7/9/2012 4:25:52 PM

do you know about this time when 9 of the 10 waremest years on record have occured in the last 20 years? it's now.

V true, and a valid point. i'm just saying that its silly to say "it didn't happen" with no basis, when there are indicators that something is happening.

[Edited on July 9, 2012 at 5:02 PM. Reason : ]

7/9/2012 4:49:59 PM

9 of the 10 warmest years of the last 150 years of semi-accurate data

just saying, the term "on record" gets thrown around enough where some people probably think it means 9 of the 10 warmest years of the last 10,000

i'm just wondering how we are supposed to install and maintain sandbars

7/9/2012 4:52:51 PM

throw non-existent money at it like a good liberal.

7/9/2012 8:22:50 PM

Quote :

"To put it in perspective, I believe the entire fishing and farming sector of the U.S. economy (less than 1% of GDP) could be bulldozed and rebuilt for less than it has cost just keeping Fannie and Feddie out of bankruptcy. "

Most current estimates I have seen for taxpayer aid to fannie and freddie is about $190 billion

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-14/fannie-mae-freddie-mac-reo-costs-top-8-5-billion-auditor-says.html

and that is over about 4 years (average 48 billion a year)

The current drought in the midwest has the potential to live up to past freak droughts that cost almost 78 billion in one year (one growing season), obviously climate change has the potential to make these types of things worse and more frequent:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-06-27/drought-seen-rivaling-1980s-u-dot-s-dot-scorcher-that-cost-78-billion

and atleast half of the current crop is expected to do well. That means to bulldoze the entire crop would likely cost many times more. To have those results repeated over several years in a row would be disastrous to the economy. To even have it occur on a more frequent basis is going to greatly increase volatility of commodities which will propagate across the entire economy (similair to what we saw oil prices do in the mid 2000s). I just don't think its as simple as your "projections"

7/9/2012 11:23:39 PM

sound the motherfucking alarm.

14th hottest june ever.

maybe july will break into the single digits, lol.

7/10/2012 12:39:18 AM

[citation needed]

7/11/2012 8:45:16 AM

Quote :

"obviously climate change has the potential to make these types of things worse and more frequent:"

Why is that obvious? It is called climate change, not climate variability. The point would be that the rain falls somewhere else, not here anymore. Farmers in the now-bad-to-farm areas go bankrupt but society as a whole goes without nothing, as farms are built and are now profitable in the now-good-to-farm areas.

That said, where did you get your numbers? According to the Government "In round numbers, U.S. farmers produce about $100 billion worth of crops" Are you suggesting 78% of the entire crop was lost in a drought that only hit the midwest?

http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/ag101/cropmajor.html

[Edited on July 11, 2012 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/11/2012 9:07:14 AM

Global Warming Accelerating, Say Scientists

Fist time ever that a published report directly links Global Warming to man. Miami to be under water in 38 years!!



http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/global-warming-accelerating-scientists-16751100

7/11/2012 9:14:22 AM

And on the other side of the argument...



a little more detailed in this one:

Quote :

"Rings in fossilised pine trees have proven that the world was much warmer than previously thought - and the earth has been slowly COOLING for 2,000 years. Measurements stretching back to 138BC prove that the Earth is slowly cooling due to changes in the distance between the Earth and the sun. The finding may force scientists to rethink current theories of the impact of global warming. It is the first time that researchers have been able to accurately measure trends in global temperature over the last two millennia. Over that time, the world has been getting cooler - and previous estimates, used as the basis for current climate science, are wrong. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. ‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper, ‘however, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/09/this-is-what-global-cooling-really-looks-like/#more-67096

[Edited on July 11, 2012 at 10:55 AM. Reason : k]

7/11/2012 10:55:05 AM

Why does the linear trend in your chart stop at 1900? Isn't the fact that the world has been cooling but right around the time we became super industrialized it started heating alarm you in any way? Isn't the trend upward at the end of each of your charts the very thing that you're arguing against?

[Edited on July 11, 2012 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2012 12:32:28 PM

conflicting data is conflicting

7/11/2012 12:32:36 PM

man, fuck those industrialized romans.

7/11/2012 3:04:40 PM

"It was hot before" is a retard argument against AGW. You know, it was really really hot in the Archean eon as well.

7/11/2012 4:43:34 PM

"it was hot before" is however a good argument that the climate of the planet has fluctuated over time well before humans even existed, let alone setup factories

just like using a hot ass month of june and the next 10 days having high temps in the 80s are both dumb arguments to use to support or refute climate change

7/11/2012 4:55:43 PM

And which climate scientists have refuted the former claim or made the latter? They're both blindingly obvious in their respective validity/lack thereof and have absolutely nothing to do with the claim that AGW is heavily supported by evidence.

7/11/2012 5:38:07 PM

i don't know of any scientists that have cited recent weather as strong proof for or against AGW, but this thread tends to get bumped when the weather is hot

7/11/2012 5:39:32 PM

Quote :

"Why does the linear trend in your chart stop at 1900? Isn't the fact that the world has been cooling but right around the time we became super industrialized it started heating alarm you in any way? Isn't the trend upward at the end of each of your charts the very thing that you're arguing against?"

the linear trend is interrupted several times prior to 1900. why?

and why do you only care about it happening now? could it be you have an agenda?

7/12/2012 11:59:57 AM

Quote :

"the linear trend is interrupted several times prior to 1900. why?"

It isn't. That's not what a linear trend is. If he included all of the data it would just be pointed less downward to some degree. It's not even real data, it's an indicator that the average over time has decreased (except after 1900).

Quote :

"and why do you only care about it happening now? could it be you have an agenda? "

Yes, I do have an agenda. I am biased. To reality and real things happening in reality. It's a weakness of mine, I'm sure.

7/12/2012 12:03:40 PM