[jdjtcagle]

Curious, is it man made or just another natural process?

[BloodEagle]

Hey, you should add two options that say something along the lines of... "Global Warming is a stupid term." and "Global Warming isn't happening." 

[Polpolion]

I have a confession to make. I am the cause of global warming. You see, it's all part of my plan to take over the world. I can't disclose the details on the forum, but in addition to global warming, the plan involves lots of Eugen Huber clones. So that's why, among other reasons, I voted "Man" the poll, although by the time I take over the world I won't technically be a human...

[BloodEagle]

I have a confession to make. I am the cause of global warming. You see, it's all part of my plan to take over the world. I can't disclose the details on the forum, but in addition to global warming, the plan involves lots of Eugen Huber clones. So that's why, among other reasons, I voted "Man" the poll, although by the time I take over the world I won't technically be a human...

Really? Send me a PM, I'd love to get in on this. 

[Flipside]

The cycle itself is natural, and we may, or may not, be having an effect.

Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....

[BloodEagle]

Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....

That's only if you live in a low area. The world's oceans won't rise to the heights that a lot of GW activists claim, due to water displacement.

[captain-custard]

unfortunately its both man-made and natural , man being a part of nature then we could say that mans actions are natural so a part of nature

[Jeff Vader]

Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....

That's only if you live in a low area. The world's oceans won't rise to the heights that a lot of GW activists claim, due to water displacement.

Has any of the egg heads actually thought about the fact that icebergs, being ice and being mostly underwater, take up a bigger volume than water? If the ice melts and turns into water, the sea level will actually drop a little.

[Flipside]

It's not simply a question of displacement though, and icebergs are not melted anyway, don't let the phrase 'Global Warming' trick you, the image painted of Earth becoming Mars is pretty unlikely, people seem to have been locked into the current problem of stopping the warming and not really knowing why.

The problem is not with the sea level rising as the bergs melt, it's the fact that the increased amount of cloud cover and reduced sunlight will eventually make the temperatures plummet back down again.

It's one of the favourite quotes of anti Global-Warming advocates that 20 years ago the scientists were saying we were on the edge of an Ice Age. A lot of people don't realise that, geologically speaking, we still are. No scientist ever gave a date, in fact, the closest approximation was 'within 20,000 years', it was the Media that blew it up into 'Any minute now....'. Evidence strongly suggests that each end of an interglacial period actually began with temperatures rising before dropping into a glacial stage.

Personally, I believe that is what we are looking at, but as for how soon that will happen, I couldn't say, I've no idea how fast these things happen, and neither does anyone else, but, once again, evidence suggests that once it starts, the switch-over is pretty fast.

[CP5670]

I was going to choose "don't care" until I saw the option above it.

[DeepSpace9er]

The part of global warming thats a hoax is the paranoia about man's causing it. The part that I am most disturbed about is calling carbon a pollutant. EVERYTHING living has carbon in it. Without carbon there would be no green environment. So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere. As for the increase in carbon levels related to increased temperature, the carbon increase lags behind the increase temperatures, and the temperatures and directly in line with solar cycles.

So anyway, global warming maybe happening, I wont contest that if it is or isnt but will not accept the premise that we are causing it. And since it is happening, who is to say thats a bad thing? Flawed computer models with incomplete data? But if there is one constant about our climate, it is change. What would be more worthy of time and money is not how to potentially stop warming and screw with the environment, but instead learn how our civilization should adapt to whatever conditions the world throws at us.

[Kazan]

The cycle itself is natural, and we may, or may not, be having an effect.

carbon load in the atmosphere has gone from approx 200 million tons to 300 million tons since the industrial revolution, that kind of change cannot be explained by natural processes

[Polpolion]

The cycle itself is natural, and we may, or may not, be having an effect.

And it's just coincidence that CO2 levels dramatically increase during the industrial revolution? I think not.


Oh. It looks like Kazan already posted that. I'll post it anyway.

[Flipside]

@DS9er

It's because most of that Carbon exists as one half of CO2, the famous 'Greenhouse Gas', so reducing the amount of carbon you release reduces the amount of CO2 that makes it into the atmosphere.

@Kazan

Agreed, we are pumping a lot of ****e into the atmosphere, there can be little argument to that, however, apart from the obvious health risks, no 2 scientists seem to be absolutely certain of the impact. It cannot be good for life in general, high levels of irritants in the Atmosphere are one of the main causes of lung-cancer, but, in my opinion, the important part is doing something with the situation at hand, otherwise we become like 90% of industry, more concerned with pointing fingers than fixing the actual problem.

Edit: To clarify, even if we did determine that it WAS accelerated by us, we all know what would happen next... 'Blame America! No! Blame China! No! Blame Russia! Where did that big wall of ice come from?'

[Ghostavo]

Of course, this is all moot when 50 million tonnes of ice leaves you wondering where you parked the house....

That's only if you live in a low area. The world's oceans won't rise to the heights that a lot of GW activists claim, due to water displacement.

Has any of the egg heads actually thought about the fact that icebergs, being ice and being mostly underwater, take up a bigger volume than water? If the ice melts and turns into water, the sea level will actually drop a little.

You forgot the fact that by having a bigger volume than water with the same weight, it will partially float. So no, the sea level will not drop, it will rise.

[karajorma]

Not to mention the fact that Greenland and Antarctica aren't floating in the sea.

[IceFire]

The part of global warming thats a hoax is the paranoia about man's causing it. The part that I am most disturbed about is calling carbon a pollutant. EVERYTHING living has carbon in it. Without carbon there would be no green environment. So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere. As for the increase in carbon levels related to increased temperature, the carbon increase lags behind the increase temperatures, and the temperatures and directly in line with solar cycles.

So anyway, global warming maybe happening, I wont contest that if it is or isnt but will not accept the premise that we are causing it. And since it is happening, who is to say thats a bad thing? Flawed computer models with incomplete data? But if there is one constant about our climate, it is change. What would be more worthy of time and money is not how to potentially stop warming and screw with the environment, but instead learn how our civilization should adapt to whatever conditions the world throws at us.

Sorry...I have to bite.  Yes everything is made of carbon and yes we breathe out CO2 but we aren't adding any carbon that isn't already in the atmosphere.  The problem is when you take carbon thats been locked away (underground) for thousands or millions of years and suddenly release it in a short period of time (300 years).  There's a difference between being carbon neutral and contributing in equal proportions to what is being taken out at the same time.  The issue is with disrupting the cycle.

CO2 levels and temperature are closely linked on most of the graphs out there.  Its not a perfect match because the are other greenhouse type gases that are also being dumped into the atmosphere.  If the folks at NASA are to be believed then the solar cycle changes are contributing to a change in the range of a few tenths of a percent or in other words the difference is so small as to not factor in at all.  That said the research on the solar cycle and its impact on climates on Earth and other planets is an ongoing and fascinating realm of research.  They may end up showing that the overall solar cycle over a hundred thousand years may contribute to changes in Earths overall climate but I haven't read anything that wasn't.

Our past conversations suggest to me that you probably won't read/accept any of what I've written or read or even come half way , but I will.  Not all of the "global warming" movement is suggesting changes for the better.  If you believe what some of the "green" movement believe then the solution IS allot worse for human society than the problem. Most of those folks are radicals and like the radicals on the other side of the argument the goal for everyone else should be to largely ignore those people.

So ignore the global warming conspiracy theorists and ignore the ultra-green movement because the truth will lie somewhere in between.  Maybe we're half the effect or a quarter of the effect or whatever...and you're right we need to spend time preparing for the inevitable changes in the climate one way or another.  The problem will be is if what we're doing increases the speed of the change.  All it takes is a nudge.  All we need to do is keep an open mind.

[Hellstryker]

The part of global warming thats a hoax is the paranoia about man's causing it. The part that I am most disturbed about is calling carbon a pollutant. EVERYTHING living has carbon in it. Without carbon there would be no green environment. So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere. As for the increase in carbon levels related to increased temperature, the carbon increase lags behind the increase temperatures, and the temperatures and directly in line with solar cycles.

So anyway, global warming maybe happening, I wont contest that if it is or isnt but will not accept the premise that we are causing it. And since it is happening, who is to say thats a bad thing? Flawed computer models with incomplete data? But if there is one constant about our climate, it is change. What would be more worthy of time and money is not how to potentially stop warming and screw with the environment, but instead learn how our civilization should adapt to whatever conditions the world throws at us.

Sorry...I have to bite.  Yes everything is made of carbon and yes we breathe out CO2 but we aren't adding any carbon that isn't already in the atmosphere.  The problem is when you take carbon thats been locked away (underground) for thousands or millions of years and suddenly release it in a short period of time (300 years).  There's a difference between being carbon neutral and contributing in equal proportions to what is being taken out at the same time.  The issue is with disrupting the cycle.

CO2 levels and temperature are closely linked on most of the graphs out there.  Its not a perfect match because the are other greenhouse type gases that are also being dumped into the atmosphere.  If the folks at NASA are to be believed then the solar cycle changes are contributing to a change in the range of a few tenths of a percent or in other words the difference is so small as to not factor in at all.  That said the research on the solar cycle and its impact on climates on Earth and other planets is an ongoing and fascinating realm of research.  They may end up showing that the overall solar cycle over a hundred thousand years may contribute to changes in Earths overall climate but I haven't read anything that wasn't.

Our past conversations suggest to me that you probably won't read/accept any of what I've written or read or even come half way , but I will.  Not all of the "global warming" movement is suggesting changes for the better.  If you believe what some of the "green" movement believe then the solution IS allot worse for human society than the problem. Most of those folks are radicals and like the radicals on the other side of the argument the goal for everyone else should be to largely ignore those people.

So ignore the global warming conspiracy theorists and ignore the ultra-green movement because the truth will lie somewhere in between.  Maybe we're half the effect or a quarter of the effect or whatever...and you're right we need to spend time preparing for the inevitable changes in the climate one way or another.  The problem will be is if what we're doing increases the speed of the change.  All it takes is a nudge.  All we need to do is keep an open mind.

QFT!

[Kosh]

So calling it a pollutant would be saying my breathing is ruining the atmosphere.

So you're comparing the amount of CO2 made by breathing to the amount of CO2 made by, say, a coal fired power plant?

[TrashMan]

Ya know what's interesting..."The truth is somewhere in between"..
Is it? Statisticly? Maybe, I don't know..probably.
Will it be this time? I guess we'll see, won't we....