Last I checked our country didn't sign the Kyoto Protocal. Luckily I'm not on the losing side.
Besides, most of the global warming occured between 1900-1945...a time when carbon dioxide levels were much much much lower than today. Something doesn't add up.
I'm sure the government-funded scientists who have recieved 25+ billion dollars in the last 15 years to research global warming are stretching the truth to keep that money coming. Greedy bastards.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Its interesting---that contention that Cosmic rays are the highest ever. But we are just starting the process of measuring Cosmic rays---which can only be measured by instruments
placed above our atmossphere---a process only fifty years old or so---so highest ever is hardly impressive.
Yet we can measure CO2 levels trapped in ice back over many millions of years---and todays levels are totally unprecidented.
One can use other data to measure mean annual temperture---and again today's levels are unprecidented---but one must also factor in global dimming--which has the unpleasant side effect of saying if we straigten up our act and quit generating CO2---we could make things worse for awhile.
But what is super disturbing is evidence that the earth re-enters ice ages very fast---sometime in time periods of less than a century---and that killing ocean currents like the gulf stream may be the culprit---with that killing process perhaps being caused by massive ice melts near the pole----and the cooled salt water would no longer sink---stalling these currents. Meaning heat from the lower latitudes would no longer be transported to the poles.
But its interesting===lots of people say it MIGHT be this that or the other thing--------but we will pay MASSIVE prices if these ney sayers are wrong---and our climate gets to a tipping point---a point past all return.
placed above our atmossphere---a process only fifty years old or so---so highest ever is hardly impressive.
Yet we can measure CO2 levels trapped in ice back over many millions of years---and todays levels are totally unprecidented.
One can use other data to measure mean annual temperture---and again today's levels are unprecidented---but one must also factor in global dimming--which has the unpleasant side effect of saying if we straigten up our act and quit generating CO2---we could make things worse for awhile.
But what is super disturbing is evidence that the earth re-enters ice ages very fast---sometime in time periods of less than a century---and that killing ocean currents like the gulf stream may be the culprit---with that killing process perhaps being caused by massive ice melts near the pole----and the cooled salt water would no longer sink---stalling these currents. Meaning heat from the lower latitudes would no longer be transported to the poles.
But its interesting===lots of people say it MIGHT be this that or the other thing--------but we will pay MASSIVE prices if these ney sayers are wrong---and our climate gets to a tipping point---a point past all return.
One good reason could be that, if it continues to its logical, foreseeable, it could mean the extinction of humanity. Don't know if you include yourself in that group, but you'd find the forums a lonely place without them.
The reason is the same as the answer to those fools whose excuse for not quitting smoking is that there are so many other things that could kill them. The fact that we can't control all causes of warming doesn't mean we shouldn't deal with those we can.
The fact that other things may kill you is not a reason to volunteer for death by the ones you can avoid.
1. Oh but you are on the losing side. Public awareness is gradually catching up with the scientific consensus (contrary to what you may beleive there's not much disagreement amongst scientists) and petty ideologues like you are increasingly in the minority. The US may not be formally committed, but there are local and state initiatives popping up and eventually the federal government will get on board as well.
2. Take a look at this graph. Over the last 150 000 years, CO2 concentrations have not exceeded 300ppm. Then off a sudden they go from 280 to 370ppm over the last 200 years. And you think that's a coincidence?
Let me repeat this:
[*]CO2 concentrations have not exceeded 300ppm in 150 000 years
[*]CO2 concentrations have increased from 280ppm to 370ppm in the last 200 years.
[*]Kyoto aims to stabalize CO2 concentrations at 550ppm
http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1199923
3. Yeah, the glamorous world of science! Fast cars, beatiful women, big houses! If you wanna be rich, famous and successful, there is no other way but to be a scientist!!! :roll:
You're really out of it.
Originally posted by: Martin
1. Oh but you are on the losing side. Public awareness is gradually catching up with the scientific consensus (contrary to what you may beleive there's not much disagreement amongst scientists) and petty ideologues like you are increasingly in the minority. The US may not be formally committed, but there are local and state initiatives popping up and eventually the federal government will get on board as well.
2. Take a look at this graph. Over the last 150 000 years, CO2 concentrations have not exceeded 300ppm. Then off a sudden they go from 280 to 370ppm over the last 200 years. And you think that's a coincidence?
Let me repeat this:
[*]CO2 concentrations have not exceeded 300ppm in 150 000 years
[*]CO2 concentrations have increased from 280ppm to 370ppm in the last 200 years.
[*]Kyoto aims to stabalize CO2 concentrations at 550ppm
http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1199923
3. Yeah, the glamorous world of science! Fast cars, beatiful women, big houses! If you wanna be rich, famous and successful, there is no other way but to be a scientist!!! :roll:
You're really out of it.
So they dug out reports of CO2 concentrations measured 150,000 years ago? Who's to say those computers are accurate in it's dating? Scientists themselves say we should be HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of computers. Why aren't we?
The fact of the matter is that all we know is that temps are rising, why temps are rising is just hypothesis. It could be any number of factors we don't know about. It could be merely coincidence that temps are rising at the same time we are emitting CO2 into the atmosphere (keyword COULD, I'm not saying CO2 is not the cause, we just don't know for sure).
If this is an opinion piece, so is CNN publishing studies that say global warming is caused by CO2?
Originally posted by: BlancoNino
Originally posted by: Martin
1. Oh but you are on the losing side. Public awareness is gradually catching up with the scientific consensus (contrary to what you may beleive there's not much disagreement amongst scientists) and petty ideologues like you are increasingly in the minority. The US may not be formally committed, but there are local and state initiatives popping up and eventually the federal government will get on board as well.
2. Take a look at this graph. Over the last 150 000 years, CO2 concentrations have not exceeded 300ppm. Then off a sudden they go from 280 to 370ppm over the last 200 years. And you think that's a coincidence?
Let me repeat this:
[*]CO2 concentrations have not exceeded 300ppm in 150 000 years
[*]CO2 concentrations have increased from 280ppm to 370ppm in the last 200 years.
[*]Kyoto aims to stabalize CO2 concentrations at 550ppm
http://www.economist.com/background/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1199923
3. Yeah, the glamorous world of science! Fast cars, beatiful women, big houses! If you wanna be rich, famous and successful, there is no other way but to be a scientist!!! :roll:
You're really out of it.
So they dug out reports of CO2 concentrations measured 150,000 years ago? Who's to say those computers are accurate in it's dating? Scientists themselves say we should be HIGHLY SKEPTICAL of computers. Why aren't we?
I should have searched more actually, it seems CO2 concentrations are the highest in the last 800000 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
But I see you've already suck to the level of questioning the very basis of science. Wonderful. Just like those creationists who try to question dating techniques to justify their bible-literalist view.
You see why ideologues like you are bad? No matter what your aims or political persuasion, you're all essentially the same - you completely give up rationality, thought and facts just so you can defend whatever preconceived notions you have. Pathetic :thumbsdown:
Not really, recent studies say CO2 levels are caused by global warming, not vice versa.
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/arctic.htm
On point 1, no I don't say it's not a greenhouse gas.
On point 2, I'll refer you to the link provided by Acanthus right above this reply.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Sorry,
Gotta regard the non-global warming types of using phony logic---which distills down to the following.
We do not know all factors that contribute to actual global temperatures or the consequences--in short our understanding is less than perfect---therefore we should do nothing---and dismiss the possibility that we should change ANY human behavior.
Sounds awful stupid to me--because we will never know everything.---but it sure does not mean we know nothing.---the global warming is based on some pretty sound science---the ney sayers are basing their arguements on some pretty speculative science.
Gotta regard the non-global warming types of using phony logic---which distills down to the following.
We do not know all factors that contribute to actual global temperatures or the consequences--in short our understanding is less than perfect---therefore we should do nothing---and dismiss the possibility that we should change ANY human behavior.
Sounds awful stupid to me--because we will never know everything.---but it sure does not mean we know nothing.---the global warming is based on some pretty sound science---the ney sayers are basing their arguements on some pretty speculative science.
I'm affraid you're not interpreting that correctly, which is evident from the first paragraph alone
What the article describes is a positive feedback system, where CO2 causes warming, which causes more CO2, which causes more warming etc. This is actually a very bad thing.
But it doesn't actually say anything as to why CO2 concentrations suddenly jumped outside their natural range 200 years ago. So, do you really think point 2 is a coincidence?
Pretty sound science?
We need a LOT more research by a LOT more parties to verify what is causing global warming.
99% of the people who advocate global warming think the earths orbit is a perfect circle.
Most of this crap seems to be causation = correlation science to me.
I dont deny that we need to reduce pollution. But Kyoto was completely unfair to the US, and was voted down 96-0 IIRC.
You read what you wanted to read.
They dont say what the cause was, they only say that global warming could fuel the release of gases that could in turn accelerate it further.
I vote we wipe out all lawyers and politicians.......not only will the global warming threat be cut in half (less hot air), but the resulting quiet will do wonders for people's tempers, and the world will likely run much more smoothly! :thumbsup:
In fact, the only downside I could see to this is the the P&N section here would likely atrophy and die, due to nothing to talk about!! :laugh:
In fact, the only downside I could see to this is the the P&N section here would likely atrophy and die, due to nothing to talk about!! :laugh:
More than enough research has already been done. The problem is, no amount of research will convince ideologues like you of anything.
Translation: "you don't agree with me, therefore you are not rational."
We should always question our dating techniques and computer simulations...they've been wrong more than a handful of times.
No, you're irrational because you're ignoring facts. Just becuase you use generic rejectionist lines (ie you don't have any actual critiques of current ice core sampling methods or ideas on improving them, you're just bitching and whining) doesn't make it any less obvious or stupid.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter