is global warming a problem ?

[luistwentyone]

comments ?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276722,00.html

[pk-sd]

Did anyone notice a hand up this guys arse while he was speaking.

Btw, welcome to the new "Mega Thread".:eek:

[swissfish]

All I say is that when i was a little kid i went mith my family to see a glacier and thought it was a terrific sight. If i want to show the same glacier to my daughter i have to walk 1mile deeper into the valley to see the face of it.


can we get more than 100 pages on this thread?????

[luistwentyone]

.........can we get more than 100 pages on this thread?????


.......Btw, welcome to the new "Mega Thread".:eek:

lmao ! :D

[SECTER1]

Well in the 70s it was Global Cooling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

If they were right then would the Global Warming really just be the world getting back to a more normal temp?

[SolRo]

Using faux news as a source for global warming? Might as well go ask ExxonMobil :rolleyes:

And the guy clearly is talking out of his arse...he's not even close to an expert in the field of climate research.

Unfortunatly I'm going to see his stupid quote for the next year or so in every half-assed "global warmin ain't real!" thread.

[Big Brother]

fox news is just about as accurate as any other station out there... not very

but im going to count myself out of this thread before the bullets fly.

[luistwentyone]

:p cmon guys, its fair and balanced reporting :p

[pk-sd]

:p cmon guys, its fair and balanced reporting :p

Yes, faux news (I like that !!) tells both sides of the story.

The Presidents side

and

The Vice Presidents side.

:D

[swissfish]

Yes, faux news (I like that !!) tells both sides of the story.

The Presidents side

and

The Vice Presidents side.

:D


Freaking funny :D

[kjsreef]

As a Scripps Oceanography graduate, I place my faith in the researchers there and they clearly feel that mankind is causing this recent global warming and that the earth has not seen this kind of CO2 rise as part of any normal process. Check out SIO's website if you want more information.

http://sio.ucsd.edu/

[Diver Dan]

I think that the temperature comes in cycles. Hot-cold-Hot. It is kinda like sets coming in when you surf big-small-big.

[coral diver]

AHHH Global Cooling and Global Warming What I'm afraid of is when Mother Earth start healing it self like the movie DAY AFTER TOMORROW

[deckmanx]

What about the money behind the research? Would that have anything to do with hype? I haven't done enough reading to figure it out myself...

[SolRo]

I think that the temperature comes in cycles. Hot-cold-Hot. It is kinda like sets coming in when you surf big-small-big.

You've seen waves that slowly rise and dont ever stop?

It's definatly man made...the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere is a good deal higher than any natural spike in atleast 400,000 years, and it's still rising rapidly.

[pk-sd]

What about the money behind the research? Would that have anything to do with hype? I haven't done enough reading to figure it out myself...

It comes down to whom you believe. Researchers and scientists across the world, or handful of politicians (with their hands in the pockets of profit hungry corporations)? At some point you have to get past your political bias and use common sense and realize that one can’t keep trashing their house at exponential rate and expect to clean it up by itself.

[Diver Dan]

I do believe that it is getting hotter and that we are trashing our world, BUT i know in 7th grade i studied the beginning (OH NO!!!!) that the earth had a very thick atmosphere and the temperature was the same as mercury (the planet). Then what happened? The ice age! Now what the heck is that? Now it is on a hot streak again. dont you think that it will repeat that pattern? But i also think that the world (people) should change. I am open to your ideas though!

[lucubrator]

Just seating myself in the front row for what promises to be a great thread.

[Diver Dan]

Yeah from now on im just going to read.

[SolRo]

I do believe that it is getting hotter and that we are trashing our world, BUT i know in 7th grade i studied the beginning (OH NO!!!!) that the earth had a very thick atmosphere and the temperature was the same as mercury (the planet). Then what happened? The ice age! Now what the heck is that? Now it is on a hot streak again. dont you think that it will repeat that pattern? But i also think that the world (people) should change. I am open to your ideas though!

Well, good luck surviving on a planet as hot as mercury...where lead would be molten at the surface.

Don't confuse planitary cooling over BILLIONS of years with climate change.

[pk-sd]

Just seating myself in the front row for what promises to be a great thread.


Haha...I think everyone is a little gun-shy from other debates.

I am sure there is some hype (scare) in this global warming issue. George Bush used similar tactic to get support for the war and to get re-elected. Unless you are yelling/screaming/scaring people, they do not listen. But the bottom line is that it would not hurt to change some of our ways. I know it has helped me save some $$.

I do my part:

1. Changed all my bulbs to CF bulbs in the house.
2. Started vanpooling to work. I do not remember last time I got gas for my car.
3. Replaced my water heater to tankless heater.
4. Landscape lights are all solar.
5. All my bills are paperless.
6. I fill two big blue recycle trash cans every two weeks.
And I am not done yet.

[SECTER1]

Alright! It only took 21 post on Global Warming for the Bush name to come up.....

[pk-sd]

Alright! It only took 21 post on Global Warming for the Bush name to come up.....


Sorry it took so long. Had to add fuel(fool) to the thread. Now we are cooking with fire ???

[swissfish]

Alright! It only took 21 post on Global Warming for the Bush name to come up.....

I think that's because he is not seen as an expert on this matter:D :D

PK Recycling is defenetly a key to fight polution, but IMO it has to be easier to do. For example one of the most hazardous wastes there is in every houshold are Batteries. But to recycle them i have to make an appointment with waste management to drop them off:mad: (Batteries aren't alowed in your Recycling Bin) Why can't just every store that sells batteries have a bin at the exit where you can't just toss them and they return them for you. (that's how it is done in other countries and it work there)

[unix858]

mmmmmhhhh donuts....:p

oh just installed solar panels on almost all the roofing at my house and it was an expensive decision. Guess its not even close to powering some of my tanks haha maybe the sponge filter for my frys. Well back to the subject of global warming, im no expert but we are screwing up teh world and we should all buy a toyota prius...

[loose-electron]

Ok, so if we dont address the warming issue, then we got to install a chiller on the system.

That said, how many HP chiller do we need for planet earth?
And you thought the chiller for your tank was expensive!!!!
:D

[SolRo]

If a 1 hp chiller will chill 1000 gallons, then the pacific ocean will need a 1,101,000,000 horsepower chiller.

[lucubrator]

...we should all buy a toyota prius...

... no. Just wait until all those batteries die.

[fishfinger]

Using faux news as a source for global warming? Might as well go ask ExxonMobil :rolleyes:

And the guy clearly is talking out of his arse...he's not even close to an expert in the field of climate research.

Unfortunatly I'm going to see his stupid quote for the next year or so in every half-assed "global warmin ain't real!" thread.


The sky is falling the sky is falling...Help Auntie Em.We are all burning up down here ......help!!!!! You are toast in a couple of years people.............Al Gore to the rescue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. " Here my loyal peasants. plants a few trees and all will be OK in a year or two. By now. I am off on my private jet to one of my mansions so I can drive my SUV around all weekend " "So do as I say and not as I do my loyal peasant peons".

[fishfinger]

Freaking funny :D
And Al Gore the eminent scientists side. Now where did he get that PHD in climatology?

[SolRo]

And Al Gore the eminent scientists side. Now where did he get that PHD in climatology?

Where's yours?

[fishfinger]

Where's yours?
Difference between me and GORE? I don't claim to be an expert. He does with nothing to back it up but his loud mouth and hypnotic life style. He plants a few trees and thinks he is doing his part. It's phony Bull****!!!
Oh yea. Almost forgot......wher is yours Solro?

[SolRo]

Where does he claim to be an expert?

And where to I claim to be a climatology scientist?


You realy dont have anything to argue with, besides trite ad-****nim attacks

edit; also, you seem to dismiss global warming without citing the smallest bit of evidence...meaning you must be a world renowned climate scientist whos work is so widely known that it's not even worth your time mentioning it....or you've got nothing of value or substance to add to this thread, as usual.

[pk-sd]

Difference between me and GORE? I don't claim to be an expert. He does with nothing to back it up but his loud mouth and hypnotic life style. He plants a few trees and thinks he is doing his part. It's phony Bull****!!!
Oh yea. Almost forgot......wher is yours Solro?

He might have planted only few trees himself (not bad for a fat guy) but he has inspired many people to do the same. Which is more important IMO.

[fishfinger]

Where does he claim to be an expert?

And where to I claim to be a climatology scientist?


You realy dont have anything to argue with, besides trite ad-****nim attacks

edit; also, you seem to dismiss global warming without citing the smallest bit of evidence...meaning you must be a world renowned climate scientist whos work is so widely known that it's not even worth your time mentioning it....or you've got nothing of value or substance to add to this thread, as usual.



Where does he claim to be an expert?

And where to I claim to be a climatology scientist?

My points exactly. He is no expert. And neither are you. Thank you for making the points even more clear.


You say I " seem " to be..........I will sight you some experts that totaly DIS- agree with the current lemings running the show.

[SolRo]

My points exactly. He is no expert. And neither are you. Thank you for making the points even more clear.
You said he claimed to be an expert, don't try to BS your way out of that.




You say I " seem " to be..........I will sight you some experts that totaly DIS- agree with the current lemings running the show.

Go ahead. This should be amusing, if nothing else.

[Bubba-n-AK]

As if <rolls eyes>

Bring it on

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/ArcticTexan/todaytemp.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v48/ArcticTexan/ColdSign.jpg

:D

[SolRo]

I hope you're just joking Bubba.

[Bubba-n-AK]

I hope you're just joking Bubba.

Not joking. I have friends that work the oil rigs up on the Alaskan north slope and they often dig up tropical ferns and stuff that are thousands of years old. Way up above the arctic circle. Who should we blame for that? Climate change, be it warming or cooling as been around longer than man. Our sun is not the most reliable source of temperature control.

Buck up and get over it. I'm waiting on palm trees here in Alaska

[SolRo]

It has been proven that warming after the industrial revolution is above and beyond what natural shifts can cause.

We cannot dump CO2 into the atmosphere by the millions of tons and then explain away the warming as natural variance.


Can't **** in your house and then say that some houses just smell on their own sometimes.

[Bubba-n-AK]

It has been proven that warming after the industrial revolution is above and beyond what natural shifts can cause.

We cannot dump CO2 into the atmosphere by the millions of tons and then explain away the warming as natural variance.


Can't **** in your house and then say that some houses just smell on their own sometimes.

What they can't prove is the cause. It has also been proven that it has happened many times over the course of this planets life.

It is speculation that we are the cause. Nothing more. Just because someone says it does doesn't get me on that band wagon. If you are going to look at trending, you need to look at all the data. Not just what fits your opinion.

And I'll be damned if I'm gonna drive a hybrid :D

[SolRo]

What they can't prove is the cause. It has also been proven that it has happened many times over the course of this planets life.

It is speculation that we are the cause. Nothing more. Just because someone says it does doesn't get me on that band wagon. If you are going to look at trending, you need to look at all the data. Not just what fits your opinion.

And I'll be damned if I'm gonna drive a hybrid :D

Actualy, they have looked at all the data...and it's almost universaly accepted that global warming is not only happeneing, but we are causing it.

It's not "just someone", it's 99.9% of the scientific community.

[Bubba-n-AK]

Actualy, they have looked at all the data...and it's almost universaly accepted that global warming is not only happeneing, but we are causing it.

It's not "just someone", it's 99.9% of the scientific community.

99.9%? is this factual? Please give me a reference so I can begin to panic

"scientific community"... Hearing that a lot from both sides. What I've noticed from both sides is a substantial amount of cherry picking.

[SolRo]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e9/Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png

Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, it's not debatable, it just is. More in the atmosphere = higher temperatures.

So we have raised the carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere by over 25% over the highest previous content in 400,000 years, in a little over 100 years.

And it's still rising, rapidly. It realy doesn't take any great imaginitive leap to figure out that we are causing the earths temperature to rise...you just need to look at the data.

[Nigritude]

Thanks for the graph, I was just about to post one.

[Bubba-n-AK]

If you look at just that information I guess it seems pretty grim. But you have to look at a bigger picture. I'll reference my sourse as well.

"To determine the effects produced from greenhouse gases, scientists look for changes such as warmer weather, warmer ocean temperatures, and a cooler stratosphere. The ability to predict these effects presents many difficulties because the Earth's temperature fluctuates for a variety of reasons. Instruments and techniques used to measure changes have not always been consistent. Although it is difficult to determine how much of the warming effect is man-made, it is fairly certain that humans have contributed to the growth of atmospheric CO2. The increase in CFCs is entirely man-made. The cause of the increase in methane is less well understood.

There is evidence that average surface air temperature has increased worldwide by nearly 1 degree F (0.5 C) since 1850. Given the increase of about 25 percent in atmospheric CO2 between the early 1800s and the present, it might be concluded that the greenhouse effect is producing a global warming.

However, there has been little increase in the last 50 years, which raises questions about whether we really have experienced the effect of increasing CO2. The pattern of changing global temperatures suggests that there may be other factors influencing climate. There is also the possibility that the sensitivity to greenhouse gases is less than what most climate models indicate. Scientists feel an increase of 1degree F ( 0.5 degrees C) in 140 years is not necessarily outside the range of natural climate variability.

http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/green.htm

If you read the whole article you will see they even use your quoted statistics.

In my opinion, the people on the global warming band wagon have an agenda. And I'm sure there is a buck to be made if they can get enough lemmings to follow.

[Nigritude]

I agree that there are other environmental factors that may cause the natural warming of the planet BUT the rate of change post industrial revolution is a cause of concern. The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the pre-industrial value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a transient, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself.

In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity.

One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation.

Bottom line: We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk

[pk-sd]

I agree that there are other environmental factors that may cause the natural warming of the planet BUT the rate of change post industrial revolution is a cause of concern. The overall rise is from just below 280 ppm (the pre-industrial value) to the present values above 360 ppm, an increase of a factor of 1.3. The logarithm of 1.3 is 0.11, that of 2 is 0.30. Thus, we are a little more than one third of the way to a doubling of carbon dioxide, on a log scale. If doubling of carbon dioxide produces a temperature rise of between 1.5 and 5 degrees Celsius (as found in numerical experiments using climate models), we should see a warming of between 0.5 and 1.7 degrees Celsius. We do see the lower number of this range, but this does not prove that the rise upon doubling of carbon dioxide is in fact 1.5 degrees. The reason is that we are in a transient, that is, the change is too fast to allow equilibrium to establish itself.

In fact, the answer is not known with a high degree of certainty, not only because of the lack-of-equlibrium problem (which involves uptake of heat by the ocean), but also because of additional complexities arising from air pollution, trace gases other than carbon dioxide, possible changes in the brightness of the Sun, and effects from volcanic activity.

One way to obtain a quick estimate answer is by doing some simple calculations, based on the work of Svante Arrhenius, assuming a 2 degree Celsius rise in temperature per doubling of carbon dioxide (Arrhenius proposed a somewhat greater effect, neglecting compensating factors). The result is that CO2 forcing can explain the temperature rise. That said, there may also be a role for the Sun in modifying the temperature rise driven by greenhouse gases. The minor drops in temperature right after 1900 and after 1960 coincide with reduced solar activity. To be sure, while this simple calculation may be enough to explain the observations, it is not a mathematical proof that the warming that has occurred since the days of James Watt is entirely due to human activity. It merely represents the simplest possible explanation.

Bottom line: We know that CO2 causes warming. We do not know the likely rate within a factor of three. Ignorance is not a good basis for dealing with risk

Thanks Neha. As an Engineer I had to read it twice. No wonder Bush(and company) is confused because of all the math.:eek: I think they are very comfortable with "its a cycle" theory. Everything else is mumbo-jumbo.

How can we hate bush; he makes us laugh::)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa3J-L29iT8&mode=related&search=

[SolRo]

Loony NASA administrator speaks again!


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20070531-1323-nasa-climatechange.html

“I guess I would ask which human beings, where and when, are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now, is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take,” Griffin said.

....

Hansen, director of the agency's Goddard Institute of Space Studies, said the consequences of global warming are dire and Griffin should know better.

“The devastation with sea level rise of several meters, with hundreds of millions of refugees, would dwarf that of New Orleans,” Hansen wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press, referring to Hurricane Katrina. “Is it arrogant to say that such would be a problem?”