-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Global Warming......
Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Modelworks
Lifer
Yes they were, but not as rapidly.
Co2 is bad.Water vapor just adds to the effect. Saying that its all because of water vapor is crazy. How do you think all that water vapor got there ? Naturally ? Its the heating caused by Co2.
No again. If it were that simple, we could just plant more trees.
Just as many have jumped on board.
Of course heat from the sun is one of the main culprits. That doesn't mean we need to help it along by damaging the atmosphere.
That was natural and slowly reverted to normal over a brief period.
We are talking about something that is changing and will stay that way for a long period of time.
Greenland would disagree.
Yeah polar bears are loving it. Having to venture south for food, sometimes into populated areas. The ones that drown are really having fun. Population is down over 20%.
Short term versus long term. Why is that so hard to understand ?
We are talking about things that may last hundreds of years, not just 10 or 20.
Your chinese aren't you ?
Care to post your sources ?
Sounds like stuff you just 'heard'.
If God is real AND you are athiest, you go to hell
If God is real AND you are a believer, you're OK
If God is not real AND you are atheist you're fine
If God is not real AND you are a believer, you're fine
Right?
The problem with "changing our ways" for global warming is that people suffer, so no you're not only out a little time and effort.
Modelworks
Lifer
I don't think we need to go crazy and shut down all the factories and cars, etc.
I do think we need to do the simple things that can be done and are low cost.
Better energy efficiency in homes.
Walking or using public transportation .
Slowing down forest destruction.
Limiting factories what they can send out into the air and water.
Lots of these things are low cost and would benefit us even if it wasn't about global warming.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
Well, then you are just skewing the facts for your own agenda.
For example,
In 2007, polar ice cap vanished at record clip
"Arctic ice at the North Pole melted at a record rate in the summer of 2007, the latest sign that climate change has accelerated in recent years, climate scientists said on Wednesday."
Polar bears 'thriving as the Arctic warms up'
"Polar bear experts said that numbers had increased not because of climate change but due to the efforts of conservationists.
The battle to ban the hunting of Harp seal pups has meant the seal population has soared - boosting the bears' food supply.
At the same time, fewer seal hunters are around to hunt bears.
"I don't think there is any question polar bears are in danger from global warming," said Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. "People who deny that have a clear interest in hunting bears."
Bear numbers on the west coast of Hudson's Bay had shrunk by 22 per cent over the past decade, he said.
"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson's Bay," he added."
lokiju
Lifer
I can agree with all your statements but my issue is then mandates are put in place that asked for obtainable things to be done in unrealistic time frames which then drive the cost through the roof.
I have no issue with everyone as a whole polluting less but there needs to be some sort of common sense applied when coming up with the plan on how to get there.
soonerproud
Golden Member
Here is the pot calling the kettle black. I can say the exact same thing about what you just posted. The fact is that polar bear populations are thriving and are not in danger of decline, despite what some of you try to claim. I am currently working on providing links for all the facts I posted from trusted sources. You just happened to prove my point that polar bears are not in danger of extinction due to global warming.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
Again, you read only the parts that you want. And what you posted has been refuted by trusted sources.
soonerproud
Golden Member
The fact is they were rising first. You can try to cloud it by adding "not as fast" to the end, but the temperatures came first. Higher temps lead to increased economic activity which leads to more CO2 emissions. It is basic cause and effect at work here.
CO2 is bad how? Without it, life on this planet would cease to exist. Plants depend on it to survive so CO2 cannot be considered bad on the scale as a pollutant such as sulfur (which causes acid rain) or particulates.
Water vapor is the number one green house gas. The more saturated the air is with water, the higher the temperatures. CO2's effect is minor in comparison at the levels we have it in our atmosphere. Mars atmosphere is made up of mostly CO2, yet it is much cooler than the earth. Why? It lacks water vapor in the atmosphere.
Sunlight is what causes the evaporation of water into the atmosphere, not CO2. The Earth does not need CO2 to cause water to evaporate.
Where did I say plants consumed all CO2? You global warmist contradict yourselves here because you believe you can offset your carbon usage by planting trees. Owl Gore is a big proponent of this junk science.
Wrong again. The US Senate report on climate change says just the opposite.
The sun is the main culprit. Ice caps on Mars are melting too.
Wrong again. The little ice age abruptly ended in the 1850's. There was nothing gradual to how it started or ended. It started as abruptly as it ended and lasted 500 years. 500 years is a pretty damn long time.
Clever response. The second half of 2007 saw the ice starting to make a return.
The Canadian Government says just the opposite. Polar bear populations are up, not down by about 20%. The link that Captain Caveman used to try to dispute me said exactly that.
This is hilarious. The little ice age lasted 500 years.
So you are saying only Chinese are anti-capitalist? I could have sworn the Chinese have embraced Capitalism.
Ditto
mrSHEiK124
Lifer
One of the useful things I noticed while watching the movie, the US is the only one that will get hurt by new CAFE regulations, namely, American automakers. Their counterparts overseas have no issue meeting the standards. I know they've got different needs/requirements from cars, like higher gas prices and smaller cities/roads, but still.
And I know some hybrids may actually create MORE emissions due to the processes required in manufacturing them. I won't buy one of those just to "feel green." If, however, I was loaded with cash, I'd be first in line for a Tesla Roadster 😀
No, the soccer moms driving Tahoes to cart around groceries. 😛
thirtythree
Diamond Member
I think the world is getting warmer for sure, but I don't know how much of that is due to humans. In my mind, it doesn't really make a difference since there are reasons to conserve either way (e.g., limited natural resources, pollution).
Squisher
Lifer
Like I've posted before, we all need to come to grips with the notion that when we divert money away from those things that compose our global economy to an attempt to stop global warming we cause a decrease the standard of living of the world. As the standard of living decreases there is a direct correlated to the increase in deaths.
So, the question to be asked is how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to the cause of delaying global warming?
So, the question to be asked is how many lives are you willing to sacrifice to the cause of delaying global warming?
Chronoshock
Diamond Member
Comparing Pascal's wager to the global warming situation is not the same. The key factor is the estimated probability of the event (god existing, there exists global warming and humans have a significant effect) and the anticipated cost.
As you noted, the anticipated cost is arguably higher for attempting to "stop" global warming (although one might say spending x% of one's life worshipping a non-existent being is still a high cost).
While I retain my skepticism for either side of the global warming argument, one must approach the problem with the appropriate rigor and not just listen to what people tell you.
To address the probabilities of the events themselves, we need to look at the evidence.
What evidence is there of a god? Miracles? Stories in religious texts? I'm sure a religious scholar would argue this point, but I feel the evidence is pretty weak.
What evidence is there of global warming? Well I think it's fair to say that temperatures are rising, making no judgment about whether its an unusual amount. If anyone has evidence that temperatures are not on an upward trend, feel free to comment.
Correlation does not equal causation. Yes, that is obviously true. But, observations do help indicate the underlying properties of the system. Example: you roll what appears to be a normal 6-sided die 100 times. It comes up as a 6 on 40% of your rolls. You would suspect the die is rigged. While the event is obviously possible with a fair die, the probability is small.
Again, making no judgments about the actual state of climate data, IF the current temperature trend indicates the low probability of a natural upswing, something should be done. It is insufficient to say "correlation does not equal causation" and bury your head into the sand.
Learn the data from unbiased sources (accredited scientific journal), and make the judgment for yourself.
Ignoring or reacting each has a high possible cost and it deserves serious attention, not quotes from mainstream media.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
it doesn't matter.
there are too many people. and we don't yet have the technology for a solution even if it were true. the lies that are told about this and that reduction being the solution are bunk. china opens a new coal power station every week. india also has a massive amount of poor rising. and plenty more poor around the rest of the world doing the same. anything the west does even if we cut our throats is immediately canceled out and then some.
thats the inconvenient truth.
buying your carbon credits when you go on holiday overseas on your airliner means nothing.
its why michael chrichton is right about one thing, the odd hysterical blindness of the envionmentalist movement.
"MICHAEL CRICHTON (closing statement)
There was a time when I worked in a clinic and, uh, one day a young woman came in, she was in her early twenties for a routine checkup and, I said what?s going on with you and she said I?ve just become blind.
And, I said, oh my gosh, really, when did it happen, she said, well just, uh, coming into the clinic, walking up the steps of the clinic I became blind.
And I said, oh, and I?m ? by now I?m looking through the chart and I said, well, has this happened before, she said yes, it?s happened before. I?ve become blind in the past, and, what she had of course was hysterical blindness.
And the characteristic of that, is that, the severity of the symptom is not matched by the emotional response that?s, that?s being presented. Most people would be screaming about that but she was very calm, oh yes, I?m blind again.
And I?m reminded of that whenever I hear, that we?re facing, whether we wanna call it a crisis or not, a significant global event, of, of, of importance where we?re gonna have species lost and so on and so forth, that we can really address this by changing our light bulbs.
Or that we can really make an impact by unplugging our appliances when we?re not using them. It?s very much out of whack. And so if? if it were only gonna do symbolic actions, I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right ? might really mean something.
One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn?t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition?[APPLAUSE]
?let?s have the NRDC, the, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their, all of their members, cannot fly on private jets, they must get their houses off the grid, they must live in the way that they?re telling everyone else to live.
And if they won?t do that, why should we. And why should we take them seriously." http://scottthong.wordpress.co...rming-is-not-a-crisis/
Modelworks
Lifer
I didn't realize that the economy increased when the temperature increased ?
I guess the economy is great in hot climates.
You can't understand why a gradual change isn't as bad as a rapid change ?
Co2 is bad because it traps heat.
Like anything it is only good in moderation.
Plants depend on Co2 , but when you produce more than they can consume, your causing problems.
Co2 increases heat. Heat increases water vapor.
Mars is cooler because of its distance from the sun, and its low psi atmosphere, not because it lacks water vapor.
I suppose you think venus is hot because it must have tons of water vapor ?
Venus is actually hotter than mercury which is closer to the sun, why ?
Because of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, not water vapor.
hrm, maybe when you said "
Your the one implying that if we plant more trees that it will use up the majority of the Co2 we produce.
LOL.
I 'll have to remember that one.
The US Senate is not a reliable source for anything that doesn't get them or keep them elected.
Try the site http://www.epa.gov instead.
Again, just because the sun is giving us the heat, we don't need to make it worse.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/s...and.melting/index.html
Reports it still shrinking in october of 2007.
You can't say Canada like the bear population is located in one area.
Polar bears are very region specific. In areas where the ice is melting they are dying, its a fact. Of course in areas where the melting is slower they aren't declining as fast. But the overall population is 20% lower.
http://pbsg.npolar.no/default.htm
Your 150 years over, it was 350 years, and hardly an ice age.
China remains a communist government.
I've posted my sources now where are yours ?
CAFE standards only apply to cars sold in the US
so the bolded makes me 😕
if what you mean is that toyota will have an easier time meeting it than ford, well, that isn't necessarily true. ford has a very competitive car line overseas in terms of mileage.
also, toyota is just barely getting into full sized trucks. if they have any trouble at all keeping up quality control and performance with detroit in that market, they're going to lose that market. so it could cost them a lot.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
