Is Global warming a man made Phenomenon?

[Inexsis]

There is a huge debate in the scientific community on whether it's a man made phenomenon or it's just the planet going through another phase before another ice age. what do you think?

 

[papasmerf]

Chicken Little said it best: "THE SKY IS FALLING"

Global warming is hoax. But is sure do scare people into spending money.
And that is what cons are meant to do.

 

[papasmerf]

There is a huge debate in the scientific community on whether it's a man made phenomenon or it's just the planet going through another phase before another ice age. what do you think?

The way you phrased the question would be like my asking you if you are still beating your wife, or have finally stopped.

 

[Doggie]

I beleive it is true. We are fucking our world slowly.

 

[Cycleguy007]

Don't get me going today... OK? :gasp:

I'm in a good mood...

And don't wanna fuck it up.... :roll:

Between this and the H1N1 thread...

Fuckit! I'm going for a ride! :tongue:

 

[Bubba]

Global warming is hoax. But is sure do scare people into spending money.

Al Gore, anyone :neutral:.

 

[papasmerf]

Al Gore, anyone :neutral:.

His family made their money in tobacco and the lies about it.
Now he just found a better lie to tell.

 

[Bear669]

Maybe...

Maybe...

There is a huge debate in the scientific community on whether it's a man made phenomenon or it's just the planet going through another phase before another ice age. what do you think?

Its pretty darn clear that it IS a fact, based on nothing more than the numerous examples of melting glaciers and snow cover from Kilimanjaro to Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctic.

What are NOT clear are the fundamental causes, the relative importance of the causes, duration or the costs to humanity of proposed solutions.

Read "The Weathermakers" for an excellent case against homo sapiens sapiens.

Check out 'Superfreakonomics' for some more current thoughts and solutions. Then see all the ANTI Freakonomic articles.:neutral:

 

[Cycleguy007]

Phenomenon? Its hardly a "phenomenon"....

"Global Warming" is a myth... or, at best a misnomer.

The one thing that you can ALWAYS count on is that the weather is always changing. That being said, climate change is a much better term to be placed on the situation.

Is man partially responsible? Perhaps, but no more so that a host of other parameters that influence our weather patterns including solar flares, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. etc. etc.

One thing that I always come back to whenever so called "scientists" point the finger of blame at man whenever discussing climate change... Who the hell do they blame the last ice age on?! :roll:

Mankind has been trying to control/ predict the weather since we started walking upright.... with "maybe" 50% accuracy for the next day or 2... Until such time that they can get THAT right, I'll be dammed if I'm gonna support ANYONE that claims they can predict what the weather will be 100 yrs from now! :gasp: :roll:

Don't kid yourself... the "global warming" movement (aka Greeners) is nothing more than marketing folks, designed specifically for the purpose of separating you from the $ in your wallet.

 

[papasmerf]

For those of you that believe man is responsible for this, you can reduce my carbon footprint by 75%.


If only 8 or 10 of you true believer would commit to just 1000 dollars per month for the rest of my life.

I will sell off mt home and vehicles here in Buffalo, get on my sail boat and live on the boat. Somewhere around the zero latitude.

Yes you and nine other true believers can make a difference.
Send me enough money not to have to live in this corrupt area of the world. Make a difference and find a way to insure I receive 10 grand a month for life and reduce GLOBAL WARMING by doing so.

 

[Cycleguy007]

LOL!

As ludicrous as the above may sound... that is essentially the premise on which the greeners "solution" to the problem (e.g. carbon credits) is based! :roll:

 

[papasmerf]

LOL!

As ludicrous as the above sounds... that is essentially the premise on which the greeners "solution" to the problem (e.g. carbon credits) is based! :roll:

I just need ten of them to believe

 

[tboy]

Phenomenon? Its hardly a "phenomenon"....

"Global Warming" is a myth... or, at best a misnomer.

The one thing that you can ALWAYS count on is that the weather is always changing. That being said, climate change is a much better term to be placed on the situation.

Is man partially responsible? Perhaps, but no more so that a host of other parameters that influence our weather patterns including solar flares, forest fires, volcanic eruptions, etc. etc. etc.

One thing that I always come back to whenever so called "scientists" point the finger of blame at man whenever discussing climate change... Who the hell do they blame the last ice age on?! :roll:

Mankind has been trying to control/ predict the weather since we started walking upright.... with "maybe" 50% accuracy for the next day or 2... Until such time that they can get THAT right, I'll be dammed if I'm gonna support ANYONE that claims they can predict what the weather will be 100 yrs from now! :gasp: :roll:

Don't kid yourself... the "global warming" movement (aka Greeners) is nothing more than marketing folks, designed specifically for the purpose of separating you from the $ in your wallet.

Holy crap, this coming from a guy with "cycle" in his id? lol.

To answer the question, it's a bit of both actually. We are certainly helping mother nature along and as stated, who knows what the "natural" climate situation should be?

During 9/11 when all the planes in the US were grounded, the air became much clearer for the first time in decades. Many scientists took this oppurtunity to study just how much sunlight SHOULD be reaching earth. I forget the stat but it was something like 40% MORE sunlight hit the earth than on a normal day. This indicates that the amount of smog and particulate matter in the air on a given day is preventing or slowing the warming effect of the sun.

But, to use one of cg's examples, forest fires, sure it is something that naturally occurs but because of man's intervention (by clearing out scrub and brush) forest fires are 10 fold more intense than naturally occuring fires. What would happen if man didn't take it upon himself to manage forests is that a fire would only burn so hot (mainly underbrush) and then go out. Not only not killing the trees but actually helping them. When man started clearing out this brush, the fires burned longer thereby killing many trees. There are some areas where the fires burned so long that the forest has become a desert by burning off the top layer of nutrients in the soil.

Another perfect example is the "heat island" effect of all the concrete in cities. You ever walked by a building downtown at midnight on a summer's eve? You can feel the heat radiating off the concrete.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to realize that trees and grass etc turn that heat into energy and grow, thereby cleaning the air. Where pavement, concrete, etc absorb the heat and they radiate it out when the environment should be on a cooling cycle. Sure, you could argue that the same amount of sunlight is hitting all this plantlife but again, they don't absorb and retain the heat like pavement does.

Again, you don't have to be einstein to know that a vehicle engine burning fuel creates a tremendous amount of heat (ever heard the phrase "heat is horsepower"??). There is NO way a billion cars burning fuel and creating all that heat isn't affecting the environment. Nevermind all the factories, plants, and power generating stations.

Here's a good experiment: get two identical pots of water. Leave them outside for 8 hrs and put a candle underneath one of them. The pot with the candle will be warmer at the end. It may not be much warmer, but it will still be warmer.

Here's a good CG related example:
CG rides his bike 1 km and burns, say 1000 calories.
Put an ant on the bike with him (an insect ant, not your mother's sister!!). Will CG burn more calories? An infinitesimal amount, but since he's carrying more weight, he will. Now put 1 billion ants on that same bike. Will he burn more calories? damn right he will because if the average ant weighs 1/10th of a gram, that's 100 million grams or what, 100,000 kilos? Now each little bit we do might not affect the planet (in this case CG) immediately, but if you think it is NOT affecting the planet, well, pass that joint you're smoking because I want to take a hit.....

Oh and CG? Regarding the weather. So by CG logic, you dont' know if you'll get hit by a bus in the next 5 yrs, does that mean you can eat McDonald's every day and smother your quadruple cheese pizza with lard? No you don't know and cannot know what will happen to you in the future. But you take care of yourself because you "think" by doing so, you'll live a longer and healthier life. Just like if we practise "greener" living now, the planet "should" live a longer and healthier life......

 

[tboy]

There is so much propaganda on both sides of this. From what I've seen, solar energy output has been increasing over the same period as global temps are increasing. I's say that has the most to do with it.

And who's to say what the correct climate should be. Earth has been around for a long time with ice ages and periods of extreme heat. Why must we think that NOW is the perfect weather? There was much more life around during the carboniforous period than there is now.

I have the same problem with saving the endangered species. How do we know that saving them isn't stopping the evolution of other new species? Don't the new species have rights too? Maybe they'd be better for the planet.

You have a point but what if we have endangered the species by our interference? Is that a natural progression of things? By the same token, what if the species we allow to become extinct, is the one species that evolves to the point where it consumes carbon dioxide?

There was a movie with Sean Connery called medicine man. He was a scientist living in a jungle in south america who was looking at natural cures for cancer. I think there were a group of natives that had NO instance of cancer. Well he found a plant and did an experiement and discovered it COULD cure cancer. But when he tried to recreate it, it failed. The premise of the movie was that loggers were moving into his area and he had to leave. He discovered it wasn't the plant that held the cure, but the ants that lived on the plant. They only lived on that plant and it was only found in that area. Unfortunately when he went back, the loggers had burned all the plants and all the ants with it....

 

[Iambad]

Thanks dudes, free education from you folks. What time does the class finish :tongue:

 

[Brad Pitt]

You boys clearly don't know what the hell ya talkin' 'bout.
1. The rate of average increase in global temperature over the past 100 yrs or so exceeds any other time since Allah spat the dummy.
2. With population increases, rising standards of living, and and image conscious material cultures, there's simply more attractive people on the planet over the past 100 years or so than any time since Aphrodite bailed on this mortal coil.
3. There are more woman on the planet than men.
4. Given #3, and accepting #2 as a conjecture worth drinking to, there are alot of HOT woman running around
5. Therefore, global warming is likely a consequence of alot of hot chicks giving off heat.
6. Thus, global warming is NOT man-made.

Class adjourned, iambad.

 

[Cycleguy007]

Thus, global warming is NOT man-made.

Class adjourned, iambad.

So what you're saying is its the fault of women???? :gasp:

 

[Dipper]

The UN Report includes the following core statements:

• Average global surface temperature rose by 0.74 centigrade between 1906 and 2005.
• Warming of the Arctic was twice the global average.
• Oceans have become warmer on average, to a depth of 3.000 metres
• In the course of the 20th century, the sea level has risen by 17 centimetres. This is caused by the expansion of warmer water (over 50 percent), by the melting of mountain glaciers (about 25 percent) and of ice shields (about 15 percent)
• Between 1978 and 2005, the sea ice of the Arctic retreated by an annual average of 8 percent, with a summer average of 22 percent.
• Since 1980, the upper layers of permafrost areas have warmed by 3 degrees centigrade.
• The carbon dioxide content of air increased by 35 percent between 1750 and 2005 (from 280 ppm to 379 ppm).
• 78 percent of this increase is due to the use of fossil fuels.
• The present carbon dioxide content is the highest in the last 650,000 years.
• The change of the global radiation balance is mainly caused by carbon dioxide.
• Prediction of global temperature increases for the last decade of the 21st century vary between +1.8 degrees centigrade and +4.0 degrees centigrade. The largest increase is expected in the Arctic.

 

[Cycleguy007]

Holy crap, this coming from a guy with "cycle" in his id? lol.

Perhaps I gave you the wrong impression...

I have absolutely no problem with promoting responsible living with respect to our environment. In fact, I actively use the blue box & green box programs and constantly promote the 3 "R's" (reduce, reuse, and recycle) and teach my children the same. I have all energy efficient appliances, and I upgraded the overall R-factor of my home when it was built, (energy efficient windows, doors, extra insulation etc...). I drive one of the more fuel efficient trucks on the market and ACTIVELY promote clean, responsible living, (e.g. cycling, hiking, walking, canoeing, kayaking etc.) I am at one with the environment and actively promote preservation of the Grand River Conservation area and spend a great deal of time (especially in the summer) enjoying activities in its watershed area near my home.

What I DO have a problem with is the utter hypocrisy that goes on within the upper echelons of the green movement.

Case in point:

MANY celebrity actors, singers, artists, comedians and politicians are jumping on the band wagon telling us regular folk how BAD we all are if we don't conform to the "green movement" and "reduce our carbon dioxide output". Ironically, most of these folks are preaching their diatribes whilst not doing a darn thing about it themselves! A few years ago during the Academy Awards, everyone was preaching about "being green" when just a few minutes earlier, they were all in air conditioned limo's lined up for blocks, all the while idling and spewing out their so called harmful emissions. Lets also not forget that these ultra wealthy celebrity types all maintain huge homes, and in MOST cases, several homes scattered around the globe (e.g. east coast, west coast, European location homes, oh and don't forget the island vacation home while we're at it!) They are the LAST people we should be taking advice from. The term "hypocrite" comes to mind don't you think?

And don't get me started on perhaps the biggest hypocrite of all... Al Gore! His propaganda film "An Inconvenient Truth" is full of inaccuracies and conjecture. He uses improper statistical methods, short-term temperature trends, and questionable computer models to make many claims which many weather experts have now proven to be false. In fact he and the producers of the documentary now face legal action as a result of inaccuracies in the film... so why isn't CNN, ABC, NBC, FOX news, The Washington Post, USA Today, The New York Times and every other mainstream media outlet talking about this? Why isn't the Academy of Motion Pictures and Sciences demanding that Al Gore return his Oscar? Why aren't the people at Nobel demanding he return his Peace Prize?

The short answer is Money...

The green movement is driven by government money! (Who would have thought!!!) Those are our tax dollars hard at work folks- money which could be spent on other things such as health care, infrastructure and debt reduction... The Green Movement has grown into a GLOBAL INDUSTRY now and one couldn't even begin to add up what it is worth in terms of financial commitment! They will do everything in their power to suppress word that us humans can do very little to influence climate change- they HAVE TO or their gravy train will end and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) would be out of work...

And another thing... It always kills me to hear of these "global summits", where all the greeners get together at some exotic location to talk about their industry. Whereas- that in-and-of-itself is no big deal, since many industries do this sort of thing... but what I find interesting is that huge delegations from across the globe JET their reps into some exotic location for 5-6 days, and talk about how bad we all are for use planes trains and automobiles! As tboy pointed out in another thread, jet fuel is one of the worst offenders when it comes to greenhouse gases! LOL
And please don't get me started on carbon credits....

**CG7 steps off soapbox for now...**

 

[tboy]

Ok, I get you (a bit more anyways) but your post did come off as a bit of a, "it's all bullshit" attitude.

Yes the "green" movement is often rife with hypocrisy. For eg: the prius. It has yet to be proven just how green it is. Sure it burns less gasoline (but not a whole lot less, in fact, MORE than an equivolent diesel vehicle) but the energy cost to build it, build the batteries, and what about the environmental impact of the batteries when they are used it? What happens then?

There was a study done a few years ago where they looked at R & D costs, manufacturing costs, lifespan, etc and they found that a HUMMER of all things was one of the most energy EFFICIENT vehicles around because the developmental costs were offset by millions of production models, it used existing technologies, was simple to manufacture etc etc.

Another good example of this is public transit. Everyone thinks it's so green right? Wrong. It is only green when it is used at capacity and that happens only a few times a day. A bus driving down the road empty or with 1 person on board is 10x more inefficient than a compact car with 1 person. Just think of the energy a subway train consumes and a lot of the time, it will only have 10 or 20 people on board.

I remember hearing on the radio about how each person in Canada puts out about 500 lbs of garbage a year. I said "not me". I put out 1 shopping bag of garbage every 2 weeks. I recycle 99% of all paper products and all cans tins and plastic containers. Now that I have a wood burning furnace, I even recycle my offcuts of my wood.