Global warming is happening, whether conservatives like it or not

[CurrentAffairs]

It took 9/11 for the world to realize the dangers and urgency of terrorism and extremist ideology. I do not want the deaths of millions for us to finally see of the urgency of global warming.

And it only took about 3 years before the left started demanding we halt our war on that same terrorism. The globe is warming alright, from a lot of hot air.

 

[jfuh]

And it only took about 3 years before the left started demanding we halt our war on that same terrorism. The globe is warming alright, from a lot of hot air.

What does that have anything to do with the discussion topic at hand?

 

[saggyjones]

The Ozone hole has nothing to do with greenhouse gases or melting ice sheets.

Actually, yes it does. I'd like to see some proof to back your view up. I already provided proof, unless you're throwing out the validity of my source. Everything on the Earth is linked; one small climate shift in the Amazon can affect a current in the ocean.

 

[jfuh]

Actually, yes it does. I'd like to see some proof to back your view up. I already provided proof, unless you're throwing out the validity of my source. Everything on the Earth is linked; one small climate shift in the Amazon can affect a current in the ocean.

CFC's though are insulatory and are greenhouse gas are only but a small and completely insignificant greenhouse gas when contrasted with the other large players - water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Additionally these 3 gases do not contribute to ozone hole depletion by any means.
Your OS made 0 note of CFC's but mentioned the combustion of fossil fuels - which again do not contribute to ozone depletion.
And yes your source is wrong to even mention ozone depletion in the same lines as enhanced greenhouse effects.

Thinning of the ozone layer and global warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect are sometimes thought to be one and the same problem. They are actually two entirely different environmental problems! - source

Though CO2 has been questioned into bringing about for the recovery of ozone it does not however contribute to depletion of ozone.
The ozone hole has absolutely nothing to do with the tipping points of global warming; the two are completely separate issues that are linked only by human interferences.


In fact, neither is El Nino a tipping point of global warming. As for the others however indeed they hold mostly true.

So yes I'm throwing the validity of your source into question

 

[saggyjones]

CFC's though are insulatory and are greenhouse gas are only but a small and completely insignificant greenhouse gas when contrasted with the other large players - water vapor, carbon dioxide and methane. Additionally these 3 gases do not contribute to ozone hole depletion by any means.
Your OS made 0 note of CFC's but mentioned the combustion of fossil fuels - which again do not contribute to ozone depletion.
And yes your source is wrong to even mention ozone depletion in the same lines as enhanced greenhouse effects.

The ozone hole has absolutely nothing to do with the tipping points of global warming; the two are completely separate issues that are linked only by human interferences.

In fact, neither is El Nino a tipping point of global warming. As for the others however indeed they hold mostly true.

So yes I'm throwing the validity of your source into question

I looked back on my original post and I never said anything about the ozone problem being contributed to, so I contradicted myself in that last post. Sorry, I was wrong and you're right, ozone depletion isn't directly affected by greenhouse gases. It is affected by human interference, and I think that's the point the article is trying to get across, and if there's too much ozone depletion, it could be devastating for the environment.

About El Nino, it's not directly related to greenhouse gases, but related to climate change. Here's a quote:

The warming there is due to El Nino caused changes in jet stream patterns, rather than any increase in temperatures due to greenhouse gases, he says. ''A lot of warming in North America and Eurasia is due to changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation . It's not global warming directly.''

ENVIRONMENT: Global Warming And El Nino

As my original article states, greenhouse gases aren't the only thing causing global warming. I didn't sum up that article very well. It's really interesting though, and it's not just about climate change, it talks about dolphins and cockroaches also (in interesting ways lol). I strongly suggest you read it, it's not that long.

 

[jamesrage]

This was originally a reply to another thread, but since it's on the 6th page and nobody's going to read it, I'll make a new thread. Here's the post:

I can't believe the ignorance of some people. Here's a link that proves that a climate change is occurring.

Here is some more proof of climate change.

Tree Rings: A Study of Climate Change

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are many complex scenarios and some others are listed in the article mentioned above. The big problem is that the whole world is linked. A change in Greenland's climate could spell disaster for the Amazon, for example. The only thing keeping this from happening, at this point, is us. If we find alternative energy sources, we can stop burning fossil fuels, and therefore save the planet. Believe me or not, this is a proven fact, not an opinion.

Bullshit,we can't stop climate change it is natural phenomena.Do you think man was driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels before those other ice ages?Climate change is a natural event,a few degrees here and there can drastically change and or alter the climate.Most of these people blaming climate change on people are nutjobs and nothing more than nutjobs.The climate does not constantly stay the same,anyone with a brain knows that.One year may be colder while the next year may be warmer or a few decades may be warmer while next the few are colder.How do think periods of droughts happen in certain parts of the world?

 

[nkgupta80]

Here is some more proof of climate change.

Tree Rings: A Study of Climate Change

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





Bullshit,we can't stop climate change it is natural phenomena.Do you think man was driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels before those other ice ages?Climate change is a natural event,a few degrees here and there can drastically change and or alter the climate.Most of these people blaming climate change on people are nutjobs and nothing more than nutjobs.The climate does not constantly stay the same,anyone with a brain knows that.One year may be colder while the next year may be warmer or a few decades may be warmer while next the few are colder.How do think periods of droughts happen in certain parts of the world?

you are right, except that all these changes we are observing are happening at an alarming rate. Ice ages happen over thousands of years. droughts are much more ephemeral. However melting of icecaps is defiantely something that should be seen as a warning.

 

[jamesrage]

you are right, except that all these changes we are observing are happening at an alarming rate. Ice ages happen over thousands of years. droughts are much more ephemeral. However melting of icecaps is defiantely something that should be seen as a warning.

A few degrees in change of temperature so any gradual change is going to seem extreme.Most environmental wackjobs agree that a few degrees one way or the other can serious alter the environment.So a gradual change in the weather is going to seem extreme considering the fact the difference that a few degrees will make.


U.S. Global Change Research Information Office
In fact, a change in either direction of but one degree C in the mean temperature of the whole planet is a lot, and as much as modern man has ever seen. Far more is involved than slightly warmer days or nights. Most scientists agree that the most important of the climatic changes that will accompany the global warming of an enhanced greenhouse effect will be alterations in the timing and distribution of precipitation
Reply With Quote

 

[jfuh]

A few degrees in change of temperature so any gradual change is going to seem extreme.Most environmental wackjobs agree that a few degrees one way or the other can serious alter the environment.So a gradual change in the weather is going to seem extreme considering the fact the difference that a few degrees will make.


U.S. Global Change Research Information Office
In fact, a change in either direction of but one degree C in the mean temperature of the whole planet is a lot, and as much as modern man has ever seen. Far more is involved than slightly warmer days or nights. Most scientists agree that the most important of the climatic changes that will accompany the global warming of an enhanced greenhouse effect will be alterations in the timing and distribution of precipitation
Reply With Quote

A few degrees in global mean temperatures is a lot because the impact would be felt greatest at the poles where we do not want warming.

 

[jamesrage]

A few degrees in global mean temperatures is a lot because the impact would be felt greatest at the poles where we do not want warming.

I would think a few degrees anywhere would have impact on the environment.Considering the fact scientist believe we had had other ice ages and that samples of tree rings show a change in precipitation through out the years I am willing to bet that climate change is a natural occurrence no matter how severe or gradual the change is.Right now the only people who seem to be blaming this change on human activity are environmental whack jobs.

 

[jfuh]

I would think a few degrees anywhere would have impact on the environment.Considering the fact scientist believe we had had other ice ages and that samples of tree rings show a change in precipitation through out the years I am willing to bet that climate change is a natural occurrence no matter how severe or gradual the change is.Right now the only people who seem to be blaming this change on human activity are environmental whack jobs.

If it is a natural occurance, why is there unprecedented warming acceleration world wide?
Why is it that after 650'000 years we are now experience a level of CO2 in the atmosphere (responsible for the current warming trend) that is again, unprecedented until, matter of factly the industrial revolution.
Do you honestly think that humans are incapable of impacting the environment and making a variance?

 

[jamesrage]

If it is a natural occurance, why is there unprecedented warming acceleration world wide?

Nature is unpredictable.A few degrees here and there can alter the climate.DO you think people were around during he other ice ages driving SUVs and running factories?Again you should consider where the information is coming.

Why is it that after 650'000 years we are now experience a level of CO2 in the atmosphere (responsible for the current warming trend) that is again,
unprecedented until, matter of factly the industrial revolution.
?

30 years ago these same environmental nut jobs thought there was going to be global cooling due to human activity and now they think there is global warming due to human activity.

Do you honestly think that humans are incapable of impacting the environment and making a variance

If you tear down a mountain range in one place and build it somewhere else,I think it is possible to alter the climate.

 

[nkgupta80]

Nature is unpredictable.A few degrees here and there can alter the climate.DO you think people were around during he other ice ages driving SUVs and running factories?Again you should consider where the information is coming.




30 years ago these same environmental nut jobs thought there was going to be global cooling due to human activity and now they think there is global warming due to human activity.




If you tear down a mountain range in one place and build it somewhere else,I think it is possible to alter the climate.

Technically humans are not harming nature. We could be just part the great balancing act that goes on in nature all the time. When theres too much of one species overwhelming an ecosystem, the ecosystem is disrupted. Due to imbalance, the species eventually dies out or migrates. It could be the same thing here. Humans are becoming overwhelming for the environment, we'll die off, nature goes on.

You are right in that we weren't there for the previous ice ages. There is no garuntee that we'll be living for the next ice age either....

 

[jfuh]

Nature is unpredictable.A few degrees here and there can alter the climate.DO you think people were around during he other ice ages driving SUVs and running factories?Again you should consider where the information is coming.

Unpredictable yes, but not to the extent that we've no idea of the trends. Sure we can't predict weather, but I'll bet you a good fortune that it will be getting warm by around April of next year in the northern hemisphere.
The ice ages were merely a variance of 50ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we are now more than 500 ppm above that - unprecedented in 650,000 years.
You need to keep up kiddo, greenhouse gases cause general warming - not bringing on global ice ages.

30 years ago these same environmental nut jobs thought there was going to be global cooling due to human activity and now they think there is global warming due to human activity.

You and NP both claim it to be the same ppl today as yesterday. Which means you know who they are? Just who are they? Oh and BTW Newsweek has retracted it's article on an ice age from the 70's.

If you tear down a mountain range in one place and build it somewhere else,I think it is possible to alter the climate.

You don't say, so what do you think will happen to the climate when you melt a glacier field here and there?
What do you think would happen to weather patterns in the US if there were no clean air act in the 70's? You think there'd be no impact?
Look on any typical day in a city like LA and tell me there is no alteration to the environment by human beings. You can't even see the mountain tops even within a distance 10 miles or so. Get real.

 

[saggyjones]

Global warming could be happening if we weren't here, caused by natural factors, I'm not throwing that out the window. But humans are definitely speeding up the process to a dangerous rate because cars, etc. dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

The consensus is that several factors are important: atmospheric composition (the concentrations of water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, sulfur dioxide, and various other gases and particulates in the atmosphere)

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you provide evidence that we aren't dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

By the way, I'm giving only one example of human contribution because I'm sure you've heard the other argued causes before.

 

[jfuh]

Global warming could be happening if we weren't here, caused by natural factors, I'm not throwing that out the window. But humans are definitely speeding up the process to a dangerous rate because cars, etc. dump carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Can you provide evidence that we aren't dumping huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere?

By the way, I'm giving only one example of human contribution because I'm sure you've heard the other argued causes before.

Notice the argument from the apologetics? They are saying that the scientists who say there it is an anthropogenic cause are the same ones that called an ice age in the 70's - while at the same time claiming that there is warming (this after flip flopping from their original premise that there is no warming and nor is CO2 ever the cause for warming).

The scientific community's concensus is in, it's happening, and we are the cause.
And no, shifting to new technologies away from carbon hungry industry is not going to break the economy.

It's funny though how the major issue that these apologetics think of when it comes to the environment is the loss of jobs, but then when it comes to any other matter they don't give a rats *** about the economy or loss of jobs:roll:

 

[Flea]

Shifting technologies will not only help slow down any human impact on Global Warming, but it will also help with other factors, such as Health Issues. It is just a smart thing to do.

I am always amazed at those that glaze over the Natural causes of such things as Global Warming and Global Cooling. The Mini-Ice Age in the 1400's was just a naturally occuring event. Many scientists say that we are in the beginning stages of a 50 year draught as a result of climatic alterations. Chaos Theory indeed! And we just want to blame fossil fuel emissions and humans.

 

[jfuh]

Shifting technologies will not only help slow down any human impact on Global Warming, but it will also help with other factors, such as Health Issues. It is just a smart thing to do.

Yes it is

I am always amazed at those that glaze over the Natural causes of such things as Global Warming and Global Cooling.

That's because the natural causes have been ruled out. No natural causes in the past 650,000 years has ever seen the amount of increase in greenhouse gases that we see today. In the past, the variance of 50ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere was the difference between current conditions and a mile of ice over NY. Yet today there are 250ppm more of CO2 than at any point in the past 650,000 years. We are also seeing a warming trend that has not stopped as well as record highs. Longer summers, shorter winters, greater melting of continental glaciers.

The Mini-Ice Age in the 1400's was just a naturally occuring event.

Yes naturally occuring, connection?

Many scientists say that we are in the beginning stages of a 50 year draught as a result of climatic alterations. Chaos Theory indeed! And we just want to blame fossil fuel emissions and humans.

A drought further enhanced by global warming. Site of the study?

 

[Flea]

Yes naturally occuring, connection?

That the natural causes can not be ruled out because natural environment is to complicated to look at within a 100 year period and make a definitive conclusion. Are people enhancing Global Warming, perhaps, in fact probably, but they are not the cause or the greatest variable.

I heard the study from another, no idea where the study was conducted.

A drought further enhanced by global warming

But ultimately connected to the varying dynamics of the Earth's cycle and not caused by human factors.

 

[jamesrage]

Unpredictable yes, but not to the extent that we've no idea of the trends. Sure we can't predict weather, but I'll bet you a good fortune that it will be getting warm by around April of next year in the northern hemisphere.
The ice ages were merely a variance of 50ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere we are now more than 500 ppm above that - unprecedented in 650,000 years.
You need to keep up kiddo, greenhouse gases cause general warming - not bringing on global ice ages.

Carbon dioxide can be comes from all kinds of sources like volcanic outgassing, respiration processes of living aerobic organisms and other things.Carbon dioxide is use by plants for photosynthesis.I would think that for there to be a couple of different ice ages the polar ice caps might have had to melted a few times.The only thing you are showing is what some nut jobs spewed.

Oh and BTW Newsweek has retracted it's article on an ice age from the 70's

.

And they will probably retract any stories of global warming too in ten or twenty years.

You don't say, so what do you think will happen to the climate when you melt a glacier field here and there?

What do you think would happen if we built up several dozen cities the size of Newyork and LA but with no people all around the country?

What do you think would happen to weather patterns in the US if there were no clean air act in the 70's? You think there'd be no impact?

The air might be a little more polluted but thats it,maybe some acid rain.

Look on any typical day in a city like LA and tell me there is no alteration to the environment by human beings.

I imagine all that concrete and cement would attract a lot of heat and divert a lot of air currents that would normally pass through that area.

 

[jfuh]

That the natural causes can not be ruled out because natural environment is to complicated to look at within a 100 year period and make a definitive conclusion. Are people enhancing Global Warming, perhaps, in fact probably, but they are not the cause or the greatest variable.

I'm not going to argue at any moment that natural events do not play a role in how the earth warms or cools. However the point that I'm trying to get out here is that the current trend is nothing natural because as we look at the historical record obtained from antarctic ice cores there has never been any instance in more than 650,000 years (hence the continents are already more or less where they are today) has there ever been a spike (in CO2 and temperature) as prevalent as today. When did it all start, just right around the industrial revolution. Purely coincidence? doubtful.

I heard the study from another, no idea where the study was conducted.

But ultimately connected to the varying dynamics of the Earth's cycle and not caused by human factors.

I'm not trying to discredit you here so don't take it the wrong way. I'm simply trying to see the article to see the science behind it.

 

[jfuh]

Carbon dioxide can be comes from all kinds of sources like volcanic outgassing, respiration processes of living aerobic organisms and other things.Carbon dioxide is use by plants for photosynthesis.I would think that for there to be a couple of different ice ages the polar ice caps might have had to melted a few times.The only thing you are showing is what some nut jobs spewed.

Un huh

And they will probably retract any stories of global warming too in ten or twenty years.

Un huh

What do you think would happen if we built up several dozen cities the size of Newyork and LA but with no people all around the country?

First off, that's no answer to my question, secondly, I don't think there would be cities as such built if there were no ppl

The air might be a little more polluted but thats it,maybe some acid rain.

The death of millions of acres of forestry, the complete destruction of the agriculture industry, in fact the entire north american ,and perhaps elsewhere, ecosystem would be destroyed.
Here do a little experiment for yourself. go out to your lawn and in a fixed area water the grass with vinegar for a week and see what happens. Care to take a guess? Want to try salt?

I imagine all that concrete and cement would attract a lot of heat and divert a lot of air currents that would normally pass through that area.

Attract? You mean emit. The ground absorbs high energy solar energy ie uv during the earlier part of the day then emits ir during the afternoon - which gets reflected back by greenhouse gases.
What happens is that because the pacific off the coast of LA is cold and the land even hotter because of the sprawl and smog literally blanketing creating a feed back loop, the climate is further stabilized. Hence even less circulation to "vent" out.
But thanks for recognizing human beings with the ability to impact climate.

 

[Flea]

Originally posted by jfuh
I'm not trying to discredit you here so don't take it the wrong way. I'm simply trying to see the article to see the science behind it.

I didn't take it that way. I am just bummed that I don't have that information handy.

Originally posted by jfuh
When did it all start, just right around the industrial revolution. Purely coincidence? doubtful.

I agree with that. It is extremely doubtful that it is a coincidence. It seems as if we agree on the overall premise of Global Warming, in that neither of us are extremists. I will see about that study, I have asked my friend and he is gonna try to look up where he got it, but I think it was lecture notes from his prof. We shall see. :2razz:

 

[saggyjones]

Notice the argument from the apologetics? They are saying that the scientists who say there it is an anthropogenic cause are the same ones that called an ice age in the 70's - while at the same time claiming that there is warming (this after flip flopping from their original premise that there is no warming and nor is CO2 ever the cause for warming).

It's all a little confusing with the flipping and the flopping.

The scientific community's concensus is in, it's happening, and we are the cause.
And no, shifting to new technologies away from carbon hungry industry is not going to break the economy.

I don't think I ever said it would break the economy, so I'll assume you're just posting in agreement. I totally agree.

It's funny though how the major issue that these apologetics think of when it comes to the environment is the loss of jobs, but then when it comes to any other matter they don't give a rats *** about the economy or loss of jobs:roll:

That's because they don't care about the environment.

 

[jfuh]

It's all a little confusing with the flipping and the flopping.

Not confusing at all I think. Simply means they have no rational or judgment of their own other than to follow the ever changing sound bites and talking points of their apologetic leaders. Defend the oil industry at all costs.

I don't think I ever said it would break the economy, so I'll assume you're just posting in agreement. I totally agree.

Sorry wasn't meant to argue against you it was only supplementing to what you said.

That's because they don't care about the environment.

They don't care about anything other than having their boys in power and attacking anyone with a varied opinion other than their own.
"You're either with us or against us."