-
Hello, this board in now turned off and no new posting.
Please REGISTER at Anabolic Steroid Forums, and become a member of our NEW community!
-
Check Out IronMag Labs® KSM-66 Max - Recovery and Anabolic Growth Complex
An Inconvenient Truth
- Thread starter Arnold
- Start date
Al Gore is a sore losing douchebag. Do you honestly think that if he won the elections back 2000 that he would be doing all this environmental shit? Hell no. He obviously needs a new way into the spotlight and found it with the hippie crowd by making some half-assed documentary and pawning it off as a threat to society. I think the world has greater things to fear like radical assholes trying to get their dirty little hands on nuclear and biochemical weaponry. Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it.
Artic, Antartic ice growing and thicking.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1281
Greenland Ice cap thicker
http://www.iceagenow.com/Greenland_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm
http://www.iceagenow.com/Greenland_Ice_Cap_Growing_Thicker.htm
Wouldn't it be easier to just put that all nice and neat in one little post? Remember when mommy use to say "dinner's ready, put away your toy's little Timmy". I guess you never listened.
Last edited:
This is a thread................
And i was outside with a gun shooting things instead of playing with toys!
And i was outside with a gun shooting things instead of playing with toys!
You don't have to be an expert in the field to comment on climate sciences. I mean look at all the posts that dg806 has linked to the same tired 1/2 true, selectively chosen/obscured facts on the myth of global warming.
You don't give a shit about the consensus of the scientific community? Your just asking to be ridiculed when you denigrate credible authorities instead relying on your own narrow experience and 'common sense.'
It's relatively free country. You can comment on anything you wish. But don't be surprised when an informed individual hands you your ass in a debate b/c you're relying on your folksy impressions while your adversary is dealing in facts.
That's right. A good scientific argument. Why exactly haven't you made up your mind? What's the magic bit of information/standard that's going to push you either way?
Half truths? That hurt big guy.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
And what do you think that you (and other global warming Chicken Little's) are doing?
Your crowd gets righteously angry when I point out that any part of global warming is natural. They've all been fed the same "Human's are the cause of global warming" crap.
Both sides can post as much as they want and neither side will believe it. Both sides have as much credibility IMO as the other.
I'm just pulling your lariat my friend.
But I did give a post in another thread (I think)that, at the least, explains/refutes the phenomena you've referenced.
We've been through this before.And what do you think that you (and other global warming Chicken Little's) are doing?
Your crowd gets righteously angry when I point out that any part of global warming is natural. They've all been fed the same "Human's are the cause of global warming" crap.
Causation is not equal to aggravation.
My crowd at least defines the argument appropriately.
Global warming is a natural occurrence. Man's industrial activity is turning up the heat.
A grotesque enough summary, yet accurate.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
Since it's such a fact, how about linking to a page that outlines the proof? I've done so before (in another thread) in regards to natural warming.
http://www.ironmagazineforums.com/showthread.php?t=74282&page=5&highlight=global
That's the thread with the links you're looking for. As I have said before, the consensus that the greenhouse effect is being exacerbated by man's industrial is the basis for my conclusion that global warming is happening.
Based on all the relevant facts at hand, the experts in the field overwhelmingly conclude that global warming is happening.
As for countervaling opinions, well, there are still many flat-earth society members out there.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2004
- Messages
- 32,369
- Reaction score
- 2,936
- Points
- 0
- Age
- 53
- Location
- In a van, down by the river...
I've read about the "consensus", but where are the cold, hard, undeniable, facts? A consensus does not a fact make. Plus, there are still plenty of scientists that say the science just isn't there.
Yeah, but unlike natural global warming, that has no facts behind it.
Oh, and "strawman"!
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 19,276
- Reaction score
- 288
- Points
- 83
- Age
- 38
Ok, I do give a shit about the consensus. However, I don't give it credit as solid evidence. Just possibilities. Will you not admit that information can be misrepresented and scewed on either side of the arguement? Especially since it has become such a "deal" in recent politics?
I'll agree with that. But is it enough to make a difference when the cycle swings back the other way? We don't know do we? We are just making our best hypothetical guess.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_science.cfm
How Do We Know that Atmosphere Increases in Greenhouse Gases are Due to Human Activity?
- Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans, and thus their presence in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity.
- Naturally occurring gases such as CO2 and CH4 are generated by natural processes such as plant and animal respiration and decomposition. However, scientists can quantify the various sources (both natural and human) of such gases and measure their contribution to atmospheric concentrations. Current concentrations of the primary greenhouse gases (see above) cannot be accounted for without considering human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels. Furthermore, global warming may increase the release of greenhouse gases from natural resources.
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/faq_s/glance_faq_solutions.cfm
That's a link to solutions. Seemingly inconsequential steps taken individually are effective when viewed in total...i.e., if everybody did it.
Science is full of educated guesses. In fact, that's the foundation for creating scientific hypotheses in the first place. That, and empirical data.
Fact - The planet is already heating up. The historical record shows that global temperatures are not unusually warm today. Figure 1 shows the temperature of a large Atlantic Ocean region known as the Sargasso Sea during the past 3,000 years. This data, which is similar to many other studies of various world locations by means of experiment and of the historical record, shows a period of higher temperatures 1,000 years ago, and a period of lower temperatures 300 years ago.
Fact - The increase in temperature is being caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2. If this fallacy were true, then most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 would have occurred before most of the increase in temperature. Yet, as Figure 2 clearly shows, most of the temperature rise from the late 1800s to today (less than 1? C) had already occurred by 1940, before most of the increase in atmospheric CO2 had taken place. Since the cause cannot occur after the presumed effect, this means that the increase in CO2 could not have caused the temperature rise.
Fact - Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the single most important chemical constituent of the cycles of plant and animal life (see "A Greener Future" on page 25). All plant tissues are built from atmospheric CO2, and all plants and animals produce CO2 in the fundamental respiratory processes that permit them to exist. It has been definitively shown by many hundreds of experimental studies that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increases in the amounts and the diversity of plant and animal life.
I don't get this "both sides" argument. What both sides? What does a person who supports keeping our world livable have to warp his point of view other than securing our present way of life? It is the polluters that denigrate global warming...that criticize efforts to fight air and water pollution....that discount efforts to preserve our woodlands and on and on. They have bottom lines to worry about...to the detriment of everyone else.
I guess what I'm saying is, what does anyone have to gain by opposing global warming? Sometimes efforts on behalf of the public good are politically effective too.
Wow. Now that's a straw argument. I don't think anyone has claimed that CO2 is a pollutant. Interesting. I want to play this game too.
What are the most important greenhouse gases and their sources?
- Water vapor - Water vapor contributes the most to the greenhouse effect and occurs in the atmosphere as a result of the natural cycle of water
- Carbon dioxide (CO2) - Carbon dioxide also cycles naturally between the atmosphere and living organisms. Plants and algae remove CO2 from the atmosphere via photosynthesis, while all living things release CO2 via respiration (i.e., breathing). Carbon dioxide also cycles back and forth between water on the Earth's surface (freshwater and the oceans) and the atmosphere. In addition to these natural processes, humans release large quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, deforestation, and other industrial processes.
- Methane (CH4) - Methane is a natural byproduct of decomposition, but significant quantities are also produced via agriculture and animal husbandry as well as by fossil fuel production.
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) - Nitrous oxide is released naturally from terrestrial soils and oceans, but substantial quantities are also generated from the use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture and through some industrial processes.
- Other gases - A number of other natural and man-made gases also contribute to the greenhouse effect, including tropospheric ozone, and industrial gases such as halocarbons.
- Aerosols - Aerosols are airborne particles within the atmosphere. Some aerosols, such as sulfate aerosols and black carbon aerosols are also produced by fossil fuel combustion. Sulfate aerosols tend to reflect incoming solar radiation, cooling the Earth's surface. Black carbon aerosols absorb, rather than reflect, solar radiation, which shades the Earth's surface, but warms the atmosphere.
- Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans, and thus their presence in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity.
- Naturally occurring gases such as CO2 and CH4 are generated by natural processes such as plant and animal respiration and decomposition. However, scientists can quantify the various sources (both natural and human) of such gases and measure their contribution to atmospheric concentrations. Current concentrations of the primary greenhouse gases (see above) cannot be accounted for without considering human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels. Furthermore, global warming may increase the release of greenhouse gases from natural resources.
- Projections of future changes in climate are typically based on three sources of information:
- Knowledge of historical climate variability and change
- Scientific understanding of the climate system
- Computer models of the climate system that generate projections of future climate based upon a number of variables - Of these three, climate models have received considerable attention. A number of different models exist and each represents the climate in a different way, resulting in large differences among models in projections of future climate change.
- A number of current models do a reasonable job of simulating past climate variability (decades to centuries), but all such models perform poorly at modeling short-term climate variability (days-years) and regional climate variability.
- The projections of climate models are also highly dependent upon the assumptions used regarding future trends in greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric concentrations.
- The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections for 21st century average global temperature increase is 2.5-10.4oF, based upon multiple climate models and multiple assumptions regarding future greenhouse gas emissions.
- Regional warming may be greater or less than the global average. For example, temperature increases in the United States are projected to be approximately 30% higher than the global average. The Arctic is likely to experience the greatest warming.
- Associated with this warming will be an increase in global average sea level of 4-35 inches, depending on the magnitude of warming.
- Global precipitation patterns will also be altered by temperature increases. Generally, the hydrological cycle is expected to accelerate leading to increases in precipitation at the global level. However, these global increases may not necessarily balance the increased evaporation under warmer conditions, and some regions may experience a decrease in precipitation.
- Species in natural ecosystems will attempt to migrate with the changing climate, but will differ in their degree of success. Ecosystem productivity may decrease or increase, at least over the short-term.
- Increases in temperature and changes in precipitation will have significant impacts on water resources, either reducing or increasing water availability along with increasing the risk of floods or droughts.
- Coastal developments will experience additional sea-level rise that will interact with coastal storms to erode beaches, inundate land, and damage structures.
- U.S. agriculture and forestry will likely experience mixed results with moderate warming, with increases in productivity likely in northern states and possible declines in southern states. However, at higher magnitudes of warming, the risk of more uniform adverse effects across the nation increases.
- Human health may be affected by climate change through a number of mechanisms including extreme temperatures (i.e., heat waves), exacerbation of air pollution, severe weather, and increased spread of infectious diseases.
- Climate change may offer a number of benefits, depending primarily on the rate at which climate change occurs and the magnitude of temperature and precipitation changes in particular regions.
- Current assessments indicate that agriculture and forestry in the United States are likely to benefit from low to moderate climate change, although these benefits will not be evenly distributed geographically, and some regions will experience damages.
- With continued warming, however, benefits will likely peak and subsequently decline, and the effects of climate change for the nation as a whole in these sectors will turn negative.
- Other benefits such as increased water availability, reduced energy demands, and greater ecosystem productivity may also occur in specific regions over the short or long-term. However, such benefits will likely be balanced by opposite effects in other regions.
- Some degree of adaptation will undoubtedly be necessary to respond to the coming climate change that is unavoidable.
- Depending on the rate and magnitude of climate change, humans can invest in infrastructure and other societal systems to ameliorate its consequences.
- However, different regions and sectors will differ in their ability to adapt. Natural ecosystems have inherent, but limited capability to adapt to climate change, which is further impeded by other human impacts to the environment such as development and habitat fragmentation. Even human societies, particularly developing countries, have limited resources to respond to the challenge of climate change.
- Some climate related impacts are difficult to adapt to. For example, extreme weather events, such as storms and floods, are not easily ameliorated by adaptation measures.
- Thus, investing in the reduction of greenhouse gases will offset necessary investments in adaptation in addition to protecting against those adverse effects of climate change for which adaptation is particularly difficult.
- Current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are projected to increase global temperatures by an additional 1oF in coming decades. Thus some degree of continued climate change is inevitable, despite efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but emissions reductions will aid in reducing the magnitude of that change and stopping human-induced increases in global temperatures.
- In order to stop temperature increases, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere must be stabilized, meaning emissions of these gases must be reduced to such a level that they do not cause any additional increase in atmospheric concentrations.
- The magnitude of emissions reductions necessary to achieve such stabilization depends on a number of factors including the level at which greenhouse gases should be stabilized and future patterns of fossil fuel use and emissions.
- In its latest assessment report the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated the magnitude of emissions reductions necessary to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at a doubling of the preindustrial by the end of the century level for a broad range of scenarios for future greenhouse gas emissions. Given mid-range baseline projections for CO2 emissions, IPCC estimated that global CO2 emissions would have to be reduced by the end of the 21st century to 40-75% below baselines.
Isn't the arguement here that the greenhouse gases are causing global warming?
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2005
- Messages
- 19,276
- Reaction score
- 288
- Points
- 83
- Age
- 38
Come on, Decker. You know what I am saying. There are people that say global warming is effected by humans and some that say it is not.
and I'm not talking about earth pollution. I've said in the past that I realize that pollution is very real and it should be being worked on.
Just because you think there is viable reasoning that global warming isn't causes by humans doesn't mean you don't care about the enviroment and don't give a shit about pollution.
