Global warming

[Totenkindly]

I'd hate to live at Weasel Humping Ground Zero.

But what an experience -- you'll swear the ground moved under you.

 

[Valiant]

I don't know if many of you live near the polar circle (I live about 20 american miles below I think).. And here it is REALLY noticeable...

Usually we have around 3-4 feet of snow starting late november and until late april when it starts melting rapidly...

This year we didn't HAVE snow until late january, and it has RAINED, when it should usually be about -25 degrees celsius outside. Really cold. It's been warm. And we don't have half the amount of snow as we usually do now, and spring has already started here...

Global warming is a fact when that shit starts to happen in effin SWEDEN.

 

[Lateralus]

The big problem I have with the prevailing theory is that carbon dioxide isn't even that strong of a greenhouse gas. Methane and water vapor are much, much stronger.

 

[Splittet]

I live in Norway, so I live rather close to the polar circle as well. I do second YourLocalJesus in that winters here do feel warmer and I generally remember winters in my childhood as colder. That might very well be an illusion though, and I think YourLocalJesus is somewhat exaggerating it. It would be interesting to see though, how much warmer winters on average have become. We are probably talking something like 2 degrees Celsius warmer, on average. That global warming is not happening is very counter-intuitive. Basically we know there is more of something that causes warmth, and then it would be rather illogical if that did not cause more warmth.

The big problem I have with the prevailing theory is that carbon dioxide isn't even that strong of a greenhouse gas. Methane and water vapor are much, much stronger.

The greenhouse effect is about 30 degrees Celsius. Even though water vapour is more important to that effect as a whole, doesn't mean carbon dioxide is irrelevant. Due to human activities, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen with something like 50 %. Let's say that before this happened, carbon dioxide caused 5 % of the greenhouse effect, which is 1,5 degrees Celsius. Then you would expect temperatures to rise with about 0,75 degrees Celsius with a 50 % rise in the carbon dioxide levels. Methane might have a larger effect in equal amounts, but we release many, many times more carbon dioxide.

 

[redacted]

just because the ice caps are melting doesn't mean we know why.

if you look at a graph of avg. temp vs. time over the last 200k years, you'll see that we're well within normal range.

do you guys think avg. temp is constant over time or something?

it seems like there are ridiculously many factors that determine avg. temp on earth. we can't just look at one of those factors and determine that it causes anything...

basically, we don't know shit. as the earth becomes unbearable, the pressure of economics will drive us to change it....blah blah.

also, this is a random thought: heat is energy, right? so increase in heat over earth means more energy. what if we could develop some technology to take some of the excess temp and convert it into energy we can use? that would solve the energy crisis AND global warming.

nothing will happen, though, until demand increases...a lot.

 

[Splittet]

basically, we don't know shit.

Just because Americans doesn't know a shit, doesn't mean scientists or other people around the globe doesn't know a shit.

I also want to say some processes are too complex for us to understand fully, like the human mind, but still we can understand them fairly well, and at least the big picture, if not all of the details.

 

[redacted]

Just because Americans doesn't know a shit, doesn't mean scientists or other people around the globe doesn't know a shit.

that was totally uncalled for. yeah, the avg. american doesn't know shit. but a) i'm not average and b) avg. people everywhere don't know much either.

it's fucking complicated, man. it's like predicting the weather. too many factors. just because scientists (WOW!) are working on it doesn't mean anything to me. how SJ of you...

think for yourself.

 

[Splittet]

that was totally uncalled for. yeah, the avg. american doesn't know shit. but a) i'm not average and b) avg. people everywhere don't know much either.

it's fucking complicated, man. it's like predicting the weather. too many factors. just because scientists (WOW!) are working on it doesn't mean anything to me. how SJ of you...

think for yourself.

Haha, so many Americans are hopeless in this issue and misinterpret data, but who can blame you, surrounded by all that scepticism. You said it, the issue is complex. What makes you believe you understand it better than scientists that actually are specialists on this? (Note that this is natural science, and not social science, so the experts know a lot more than ordinary people compared to the social sciences. To understand special relativity and criticize it you have to know a fair deal of physics, you don't have to know any psychology to say something about human nature.) At least try to understand what those specialists are saying, I always try to understand as many perspectives as I can. You say I sound SJ, I say you sound SJ, because you are basically saying this is too complex to understand, it is only chaos, we can never know the truth. I on the other hand think it's definitely possible to understand the big picture, even though not all the details are understood. The bottom line here is that humans are changing the carbon dioxide variable, the carbon dioxide levels are raising. It is a greenhouse gas, so if you only look at that variable, you would expect it to lead to warmer climate. That variable might influence other variables though, of course, but still it seems counter-intuitive and very unlikely that the change in other variables counter-acts all of its effect, or even leads to a colder climate as a whole. Actually, I think most science done on the subject indicates that it will influence other variables (as a whole anyway) to change in a way that leads to a even warmer climate, a snowball effect.

 

[redacted]

Haha, so many Americans are hopeless in this issue and misinterpret data, but who can blame you, surrounded by all that scepticism.

dude stop it.

You said it, the issue is complex. What makes you believe you understand it better than scientists that actually are specialists on this? At least try to understand what those specialists are saying, I always try to understand as many perspectives as I can. You say I sound SJ, I say you sound SJ, because you are basically saying this is too complex to understand, it is only chaos, we can never know the truth. I on the other hand think it's definitely possible to understand the big picture, even though not all the details are understood. The bottom line here is that humans are changing the carbon dioxide variable, the carbon dioxide levels are raising. It is a greenhouse gas, so if you only look at that variable, you would expect it to lead to warmer climate. That variable might influence other variables though, of course, but still it seems counter-intuitive and very unlikely that the change in other variables counter-acts all of its effect, or even leads to a colder climate as a whole. Actually, I think most science done on the subject indicates that it will influence other variables (as a whole anyway) to change in a way that leads to a warmer climate, a snowball effect.

all i'm saying is you can't get to causation by correlation. i obviously get your reasoning about CO2, and it obviously is affecting something. but again, it's like the weather. yes, it's probably deterministic, but it's gonna take insane amounts of research to figure it all out in terms of causations. plus, we're on an upward trend in temperature anyways if you look at a graph.

in my opinion, it's most likely having some kind of affect. but we can't isolate the variables and figure out how much (or at least not in the near future). therefore, we basically "don't know shit".

next time, don't attack me. ask me what i mean.

 

[Splittet]

all i'm saying is you can't get to causation by correlation. i obviously get your reasoning about CO2, and it obviously is affecting something. but again, it's like the weather. yes, it's probably deterministic, but it's gonna take insane amounts of research to figure it all out in terms of causations. plus, we're on an upward trend in temperature anyways if you look at a graph.

in my opinion, it's most likely having some kind of affect. but we can't isolate the variables and figure out how much (or at least not in the near future). therefore, we basically "don't know shit".

But the thing is that we then we know something. We know temperatures are rising because of human-made global warming. It is true we cannot be absolutely certain how much, because we haven't figured out all of the details of the system, but we can still make predictions on the data we have, say something about the likelihood of such and such happening, and that’s what we have to act upon. Again, just because our knowledge is not perfect, doesn't mean we should ignore it, we must act upon what is probable. And true the weather system is very complicated, but still aren't there weather forecasts on television that are pretty accurate? This shows that we at least know a bit about the weather.

next time, don't attack me. ask me what i mean.

How did I attack you? If I attacked you, you attacked me by saying I should think for myself and by saying I did something very SJ like. I wouldn't really call that much of an attack though. But sure, after you explained somewhat better your position, it seems like I was a little bit mislead by "basically, we don't know shit", because I thought that meant you meant we cannot really say anything about the likelihood of different scenarios, but above you stated that global warming probably is true. Do you really think I was out of line?

 

[sassafrassquatch]

Using SJ as a slur. Nice.

 

[redacted]

Using SJ as a slur. Nice.

lol, sorry bout that.

 

[redacted]

How did I attack you? If I attacked you, you attacked me by saying I should think for myself and by saying I did something very SJ like. I wouldn't really call that much of an attack though. But sure, after you explained somewhat better your position, it seems like I was a little bit mislead by "basically, we don't know shit", because I thought that meant you meant we cannot really say anything about the likelihood of different scenarios, but above you stated that global warming probably is true. Do you really think I was out of line?

here's what i considered an attack:

Just because Americans doesn't know a shit, doesn't mean scientists or other people around the globe doesn't know a shit.

Haha, so many Americans are hopeless in this issue and misinterpret data, but who can blame you, surrounded by all that scepticism.

yes, i think that's definitely out of line. you shouldn't be applying stereotypes to individuals.

but, i'll admit, i attacked you back, and that was out of line as well. i'm sorry, i shouldn't have responded that way.

But the thing is that we then we know something. We know temperatures are rising because of human-made global warming. It is true we cannot be absolutely certain how much, because we haven't figured out all of the details of the system, but we can still make predictions on the data we have, say something about the likelihood of such and such happening, and that’s what we have to act upon. Again, just because our knowledge is not perfect, doesn't mean we should ignore it, we must act upon what is probable. And true the weather system is very complicated, but still aren't there weather forecasts on television that are pretty accurate? This shows that we at least know a bit about the weather.

i guess my point is that it's totally possible it has an insignificant effect. i certainly don't think it's as big a deal as it's made out to be. the avg. temp and the rate of increase are well within normal range based on the graph i've seen.

of course, it may not stay that way. it may be completely fucked and out of control. i'm just saying we don't really know.

"we don't know shit" was an exaggeration. but i really don't think we know much.

plus, if it gets bad enough, they'll be more pressure on everyone to do something. also, the earth has been through MUCH MUCH MUCH worse.

(nocapszy, where are you?)

 

[Nocapszy]

It's not too much a leap to guess that people could be effecting the entire planet in some way based just off of everyday activities adding up.

Is it so hard to believe that it's just natural meteorological events? I mean if we can blame ourselves, why can't we blame the earth? Damn gravity kept the carbon atoms in the atmosphere. Should have let them go.

Why do we have to be responsible for everything?

Humans are convinced that they're going to be the demise of the entire planet.

 

[Splittet]

but, i'll admit, i attacked you back, and that was out of line as well. i'm sorry, i shouldn't have responded that way.

Really, it wasn't meant as an attack on you, but as a slight attack on typical American views on this subject. (The you reference I made was meant in the plural sense, and did not apply to you personally.) Of course all Americans do not have these views, and I see positive change, but still there is a lot of paranoid and unfounded scepticism. I see some of it in you, but only a hint. I think you are too sceptical of how much we know and can understand.

 

[redacted]

Really, it wasn't meant as an attack on you, but as a slight attack on typical American views on this subject.

ah, well. it was misleading to include that in a response to me.

glad we cleared it up.

 

[Nocapszy]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the Co2 goes about trapping the light in. Seems to me that if it keeps it in, it would keep it out.

But I don't know. I've asked this question on a few other forums, asked literally dozens, maybe even over a hundred people, HOW THE FUCK IT DOES IT, and I get nothing but evasion.

If no one gives me a proven answer to that I'm gonna ask Ivy to close the thread. It's already getting retarded.

 

[redacted]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the Co2 goes about trapping the light in. Seems to me that if it keeps it in, it would keep it out.

we're not adding CO2 from outside the atmosphere. we're changing O2 into it inside of our atmosphere.

 

[Nocapszy]

we're not adding CO2 from outside the atmosphere. we're changing O2 into it inside of our atmosphere.

...

I know dude.

I'll restate my question so there's no confusion.

By what chemical property does Co2 gas become a prism by which light can go in, but not out?

Explain that to me.

 

[sassafrassquatch]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how the Co2 goes about trapping the light in. Seems to me that if it keeps it in, it would keep it out.

But I don't know. I've asked this question on a few other forums, asked literally dozens, maybe even over a hundred people, HOW THE FUCK IT DOES IT, and I get nothing but evasion.

If no one gives me a proven answer to that I'm gonna ask Ivy to close the thread. It's already getting retarded.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia