Can Man Stop Global Warming? (1 Viewer)

[ptsdkid]

Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts:

1. Astronomical Causes, (cycles of solar variability).

2. Atmospheric Causes: (heat retention)…(solar reflectivity).

3. Tectonic Causes, Landmass distribution, (shifting continents)…(patterns of ocean currents). Undersea ridge activity , (sea floor spreading).


Other reasons for major climate changes:

1. Explosions on the sun (‘sun spots’)

2. Volcanic eruptions on a massive scale

3. Changes in earth orbit

4. Changes in earth’s orientation toward the sun

5. Explosions caused by large meteors hitting the earth.


You will notice that none of the aforementioned causes for climate change or for global warming are a result of man’s greedy need to omit CO2 via his industrial smokestacks or from his automobile. Human contributions to the total greenhouse problem is between 0.2%-0.3% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years--long before humans invented smokestacks.

Earth’s temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000-140,000 years ago. From beginning to end this cycle lasted about 20,000 years, and the earth returned to a full-fledged ice age immediately afterward. Approximately 99.72% of the “greenhouse effect” is due to natural causes.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate.

 

[Kandahar]

Man is indeed responsible for most global warming. However, man cannot stop global warming...at least, not now.

 

[ptsdkid]

Man is indeed responsible for most global warming. However, man cannot stop global warming...at least, not now.

***Did you even read the facts I had supplied stating that man is only responsible for around 0.2 or 0.3 of the CO2 emissions that lead to our grenhouse gas problem? How can you twist that figure into saying we humans are responsible for most of global warming? I must have missed something from Algore's movie. That's right...I didn't watch that piece of science fiction.

 

[Kandahar]

***Did you even read the facts I had supplied stating that man is only responsible for around 0.2 or 0.3 of the CO2 emissions that lead to our grenhouse gas problem?

Since you didn't supply your source or methodology, I have no way of knowing that you didn't just make the numbers up out of thin air. I'd like to see your source so that I can examine the data more carefully.

How can you twist that figure into saying we humans are responsible for most of global warming?

Because either you're cherrypicking the information from whatever study you cited, or your information is just plain wrong, or you made it up.

 

[Jerry]

Sure, well just walk up to the sun and like, turn the thermostat down.

 

[ptsdkid]

Since you didn't supply your source or methodology, I have no way of knowing that you didn't just make the numbers up out of thin air. I'd like to see your source so that I can examine the data more carefully.


***Open this link and scroll down to the section titled "A matter of opinion" to get the facts. The matter of opinion is referring to those sceptics that still refuse to accept the fact that natural causes represent approx 98% of our reasons for global warming.

Global Warming:A Chilling Perspective

 

[OnionCollection]

You will notice that none of the aforementioned causes for climate change or for global warming are a result of man’s greedy need to omit CO2 via his industrial smokestacks or from his automobile. Human contributions to the total greenhouse problem is between 0.2%-0.3% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect.

The 0.2%-0.3% figure give here as well as the later figure of 99.72% of the greenhouse effect being due to natural causes is incorrect. It is partially incorrect because of other incorrect data the site you linked to is using from this page:

Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers

They give a table titled "The Important Greenhouse Gases" with columns "Pre-industrial baseline","Natural additions","Man-made additions","Total (ppb) Concentration" and "Percent of Total"

They cite this data to the Department of Energy, which is misleading because only some of that data comes from there. The columns "Natural additions" and "Man-made additions" is not in the DOE data, but has been added by the site. The man-made additions figure for co2 is wrong and seems to have been plucked out of thin air (no sources given). The man-made addition to co2 is virtually 100% of the 100ppm rise over the last 200 years, or 25% of the co2 in the atmosphere today.

As the incorrect "man made addition" figure underpins the basis of all the rest of the calculations, including the final one about natural contribution to greenhouse effect, all these figures are also wrong.

CO2 in our atmosphere has been increasing steadily for the last 18,000 years--long before humans invented smokestacks.

That's very misleading of the site to claim this. Technically what they say is true, except for the "increasing steadily" part which makes it sound like co2 levels have been increasing at an equal rate over the entire 18,000 years. An attempt no doubt to make it look like co2 levels are just rising naturally.

This is not true though. CO2 levels increased from 180ppm to 280ppm between about 18,000 and 10,000 years ago, which is the typical rise seen during glacial terminations every 120,000 years. Since 10,000 years ago however, co2 levels have remained virtually flat at very close to 280ppm. Something the site doesn't mention. Only in the last 250 years have co2s rapidly shot up another 100ppm on an exponential curve to levels higher than in at least 700,000 years (http://www.geography.wisc.edu/faculty/williams/vostok.jpg). Current levels are 380ppm and it is rising at a rate of about 2ppm per year, which is actually equivalent to only half of the co2 we are emitting per year. The other half of co2 we are emitting is being absorbed by oceans and forests.

Earth’s temperature and CO2 levels today have reached levels similar to a previous interglacial cycle of 120,000-140,000 years ago.

Temperature did. But co2 levels are today 100ppm higher than any time in at least 750,000 years, and that is due to co2 released by human activities in the past 250 years.

 

[ptsdkid]

The 0.2%-0.3% figure give here as well as the later figure of 99.72% of the greenhouse effect being due to natural causes is incorrect. It is partially incorrect because of other incorrect data the site you linked to is using from this page:


***I reserve the right to consider my sources as being the most sound, up to date, and accurate there is out there. I also reserve the right to consider myself one of the top two or three reasonable and common sense people here at DP.

 

[OnionCollection]

***I reserve the right to consider my sources as being the most sound, up to date, and accurate there is out there. I also reserve the right to consider myself one of the top two or three reasonable and common sense people here at DP.

Your choice.

As for the thread question, I agree that man cannot stop global warming. Anymore than man can stop war, or world hunger or any other unsolvable problem like that. In theory we could stop these things and there are plenty of idealists who want us to try. But realistically we will not succeed, it's a waste of resources. The human species collectively does things we cannot control and we should accept that.

 

[Skip]

***I reserve the right to consider my sources as being the most sound, up to date, and accurate there is out there. I also reserve the right to consider myself one of the top two or three reasonable and common sense people here at DP.

:rofl If I had any room in my signature, I'd stick this in there in a heartbeat. Thanks for the laugh man.

Anyways, I do believe in Al Gore's movie, so I voted yes. We can get emissions down to 1970 levels. It'll take work, but it can be done. I believe that if we do that, we'll freeze global warming. We can't fix what we've already done, but we can stop now. That's my opinion, anyways.

From reasonable people with common sense, the fact that global warming is caused primarily by man is rarely debated, which probably removes you from that category.

 

[DeeJayH]

:rofl If I had any room in my signature, I'd stick this in there in a heartbeat. Thanks for the laugh man.

Anyways, I do believe in Al Gore's movie, so I voted yes. We can get emissions down to 1970 levels. It'll take work, but it can be done. I believe that if we do that, we'll freeze global warming. We can't fix what we've already done, but we can stop now. That's my opinion, anyways.

From reasonable people with common sense, the fact that global warming is caused primarily by man is rarely debated, which probably removes you from that category.

and yet many would call these believers the chicken littles
just like the global cooling losers 20 or 30 years ago
its a crock made up to distract the ignorant masses from the real problems
of real life
corruption
scandals
etc....
just like the whacko environmentalists and there 'horror stories' of deforestation
the sahara used to be a rainforest or atleast a plush landscape
man did not cause that either
things change
get used to it
rainforests will come and go
wetlands will come and go

isnt it funny that the same people who are trying to elicit change based on liberal (crackpot theoretical) ideas are the same ones trying to save what has come into existence and disappeared all through out history
99% of all species that have ever lived on the planet earth are Extinct
I believe that is called natural selection
and its a good thing

 

[Sauwan]

***I reserve the right to consider my sources as being the most sound, up to date, and accurate there is out there. I also reserve the right to consider myself one of the top two or three reasonable and common sense people here at DP.

What's a common sense person? Without intelligence reason and common sense mean nothing.

The fact of the matter with global warming (I used to agree with you) is that there is virtually undeniable evidence that we as humans are causing a spike in the CO2 levels despite your "sound, up to date, and accurate" sites.

I have reason to believe your estimate of "...between 0.2%-0.3% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect." is a little on the low side, but it still is easily dismissed.

This is of the approximately 186 billion tons emitted annually by both natural and human created sources. Using your figures there is still 558 million tons of excess CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere. Even such a small percentage throws the delicate balance off. You have to consider that in nature there are CO2 emitters and CO2 absorbers. As we begin dumping the 558 million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, the oceanic sinks (the largest source of absorption) cannot handle this sudden excess and it is then retained the atmosphere. What previously had been emitted was offset by what was absorbed.

This seemingly small amount, never the less, poses a problem. While I don't foresee the destruction of the planet, it undeniably will begin to have environmental effects.

Small changes by large numbers of people very easily can slow this upward flux of CO2.

Edit: Here's a chart that shows what such a little imbalance does to the atmosphere:

 

[Kandahar]

and yet many would call these believers the chicken littles
just like the global cooling losers 20 or 30 years ago
its a crock made up to distract the ignorant masses from the real problems
of real life
corruption
scandals
etc....

For what purpose? Do you really believe that most scientists are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to distract you from who-knows-what? :roll:

just like the whacko environmentalists and there 'horror stories' of deforestation
the sahara used to be a rainforest or atleast a plush landscape
man did not cause that either
things change
get used to it
rainforests will come and go
wetlands will come and go

This is true. But it doesn't change the fact that more of them are going than coming, at the present time, and that this is caused by humans and is undesirable.

isnt it funny that the same people who are trying to elicit change based on liberal (crackpot theoretical) ideas are the same ones trying to save what has come into existence and disappeared all through out history
99% of all species that have ever lived on the planet earth are Extinct
I believe that is called natural selection
and its a good thing

Natural selection over millions of years, yes. Runaway mass extinctions, no. Most biologists believe that the earth is now in a period of mass extinctions.

The world is changing so rapidly (because of humans) that by the time animals evolve to adapt to a new environment, it's already changed.

I agree that there is little that we can do to stop global warming at the present time, other than just to push forward with full force and hope that we outgrow our technological adolescence before we harm the earth too much. But to deny the reality of human-caused global warming is to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[DeeJayH]

For what purpose? Do you really believe that most scientists are part of a vast left-wing conspiracy to distract you from who-knows-what? :roll:


I agree that there is little that we can do to stop global warming at the present time, other than just to push forward with full force and hope that we outgrow our technological adolescence before we harm the earth too much. But to deny the reality of human-caused global warming is to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

First, I did not claim it was left wing conspiracy but a politically motivated one in general
B.) I guess that I would be one of the Ignorant 0nes, because despite all that has been posted in other Global Warming threads, I do not buy into it

 

[Sauwan]

First, I did not claim it was left wing conspiracy but a politically motivated one in general
B.) I guess that I would be one of the Ignorant 0nes, because despite all that has been posted in other Global Warming threads, I do not buy into it

1.) The only change that can happen must come politically. It's a world wide problem, not one that a company like Ford can fix on it's own. Considering a vast amount of emissions come from a "natural" source, livestock, it's not even just industrial countries which are contributing.

2.) Like I said, I used to be right there with you. I consider myself libertarian, and just didn't buy into it for reasons you're not. I refused to watch the movie, and basically repelled most information. However, I decided to give the other side a fair chance, and once I did, it became quite clear that I had been wrong. I just watched the Al Gore movie about 2 weeks ago, but have understood the problem for about 6 months now.

I understand your reluctance to view what you might think to be a "politically influenced" movie, but it is anything besides that. It is science that is driving policy, not the other way around.

I'm not going to sit here and preach to you telling you everything that you have to change. Just consider looking at it with an open mind. You might be surprised at what you learn.