User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 64

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TrueHeart View Post
    "There can be no understanding between the hands and the brain unless the heart acts as mediator." (Metropolis, 1927)
    OT: Did you hear they found a print in South America that includes lost footage which hasn't been seen in decades? If you haven't, now you have. END.

  2. #32
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ExTJ
    Posts
    1,377

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Please prove to me that all the debunking of An Inconvenient Truth is wrong (Which comes from a new source every day it seems), and every piece of info in both UGW and TGGWS is wrong (I'm not talking about 1% disputed facts, which I've already read about)--especially the hysterically typical revelations about the work of the "2500 top scientists."
    (I absolutely hate posts that say something is a strawman argument, or something similar, but oh well) Arguing against the most extreme viewpoints is easy, but arguing the less extreme ones is not so much. The changes don't have to appear that severe to still cause a lot of damage (See the tambora eruption and little ice age for some examples).

    Yes, the climate is changing. No, it's not our fault. So what. The world will be fine. I just wish the hysteria would end.
    People vs. other effects changing the climate isn't an "either/or" situation. As people point out, this stuff is very, very complicated.

    Pollution is a completely different issue and yes, pollution is awful. Just look up in Los Angeles.
    Many of the causes of pollution also involve producing greenhouse gases, and merge together as issues of people effecting the rest of the planet.

  3. #33
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zergling View Post
    People vs. other effects changing the climate isn't an "either/or" situation. As people point out, this stuff is very, very complicated.
    I'll try to be clearer than I was before by saying: The burden of proof should be on the warming scare crowd. The science today doesn't say people cause global warming. Therefore, it most definitely should not be considered fact--even if it is accepted as fact by the masses. You know the masses, don't you?

    Many of the causes of pollution also involve producing greenhouse gases, and merge together as issues of people effecting the rest of the planet.
    Yeah, well, that's another discussion for another day as far as I'm concerned.

  4. #34
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ygolo View Post
    Unstoppable global warming is another book from Singer who is has the same funding sources, as is The Great Global Warming Swindle. You are being indoctrinated.
    That could mean one of two things:

    1. global warming skepticism is a huge conspiracy funded by the corporations who have a vested interest in disproving the theory and the greedy scientists who are skeptical of global warming are just doing it for the money and therefore have zero credibility...

    2. OR, the funding of global warming debunking could be coming from greedy capitalists with ulterior motives but the scientists who actually perform the research have more credibility than scientists with the opposite bias because there is way more research money to be had if you assume the global warming hype is true than if you want to disprove it.
    I don't wanna!

  5. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    100

    Default

    One can complain about hype all day long....frankly, it's too late. National policy is being formed right now around very real climate change science.

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gokartride View Post
    One can complain about hype all day long....but national policy is being formed right now around very real climate change science.
    Which science is this? I'll be glad to agree or debate until my hands fall off.

  7. #37
    Queen hunter Virtual ghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    8,673

    Default

    I have left this thread just to see where this debate will end and it looks like it is time for me to join the show. Plus now I can go into the details.


    I see that skeptics are using their standard arguments so I will try to clear things up to all readers.

    The argument of people who are against the idea that global warming is man made say that concentration of carbon dioxide always goes up after the warming not in the time when warming starts. Actually I would be surprised if it is not that way.


    The earth has a cycle which is changing the earthís average distance from the sun. The cycle itself is about
    80 000 years long. So when cycle comes to its part when earth starts to get more energy and warms.

    Ice starts to melt and albedo of the planet starts to changes because of that.
    That means that more ice will melt. But that same ice contains carbon dioxide which was trapped in that ice, that is because water always contains dissolved carbon dioxide. But only when warming becomes strong enough to melt large pieces of ice we can detect that global concentration of carbon dioxide is going up. And because of that you have a delay of carbon dioxide after the temperature.

    So when concentration of carbon dioxide starts to grow for larger amount which means that ice is on the major retreat from the continents towards the pole.
    That creates huge areas that are not covered with ice and new ecosystems are created at this places what stops the warming because that ecosystems contain very large amount of carbon in them. The main part of that ecosystem is that carbon which came out of the carbon dioxide. So the raise of concentration stops and you get short warmer period.


    But few thousand years after, the big cycle starts to go toward the cold climate again and ice starts to spreads itís self again. In that situation all those ecosystems that were in northern regions are destroyed by dropping temperatures and ice which is spreading to position that it once had.

    As the amount of organisms drops all that carbon again comes out into the atmosphere but since carbon dioxide is weak greenhouse gas and concentrations are low 150ppm(cold period) Ė 300ppm(max in warm periods)
    ppm = part per million

    That greenhouse effect is too weak to resist the changes that are result of the big cycle. So you get situation where you have very large mass of carbon dioxide that has nowhere to go. So its spreads itís self all over the place and one of those places is water. But since new ice age is coming with the full force, water easily gets to places where it freezes and that dissolved carbon dioxide stays trapped in ice and ice is preventing sun rays to reach that carbon dioxide and prevents the greenhouse effect of it.


    With enough time very large amount of carbon dioxide will be trapped in ice by this mechanism and once it is trapped it canít get out on any way. So with very large amount of time huge part of the carbon dioxide that it is in the atmosphere will be trapped in ice.



    Everything that I have said here can be clearly seen on the graph in post number 7 in this thread. First, warming starts because of the cycle. After that carbon dioxide starts to leak from the ice by massive amount and you get very strong and very fast warming. Then you have short peak where northern ecosystems exist and cycle get to the warmest period and starts to going back but carbon dioxide is out there to compensate the cooling but freezing is trapping it. So at first temperature is dropping quite fast because there is more gas out there so it is easier to trap it by a larger amount. But when concentration drops enough it is harder to trap it because concentration is smaller. Plus the evaporation of water which is the key in this process is much smaller because the planet is in new ice age. And because of that you get this line in the graph which is turning from almost vertical position to almost horizontal position after the peaks. Becuse of other things, like majore volcanic eruptions and smaller cycles the graph is so messy and with so many small peaks.
    Here is the graph once again.



    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post

    The skeptics are using argument that carbon dioxide always comes after the warming all the time because it look so convincing. Plus, the average person does not have a chance to figure all of this on their own.

  8. #38
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Antisocial one View Post
    The skeptics are using argument that carbon dioxide always comes after the warming all the time because it look so convincing. Plus, the average person does not have a chance to figure all of this on their own.
    There's an 800 year delay in increase of CO2 following temperature increase because it takes that long for the oceans to warm and release it. And if you're saying CO2 isn't a major factor in the greenhouse effect, you're right. It's 95% due to water vapor, even Al Gore admits that (see video). It's something like .05% of the atmosphere.

  9. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Flak View Post
    Which science is this?
    The science that the scientists discuss together when they convene in Washington for top level meetings...and then they brief the administration and Congress. These climatologists cover the whole spectrum as far as the details go...but apparently they all agree on the basics.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gokartride View Post
    The science that the scientists discuss together when they convene in Washington for top level meetings...and then they brief the administration and Congress. These climatologists cover the whole spectrum as far as the details go...but apparently they all agree on the basics.
    Is that why the people they're supposedly briefing say there isn't a consensus?

    List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Similar Threads

  1. The Great Global Warming Swindle
    By reason in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-08-2015, 12:04 PM
  2. Hypothetical and vague solution to global warming/energy crisis
    By Evan in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 09-16-2008, 09:32 PM
  3. Socialism posts (moved from Global Warming.)
    By Anonymous in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-21-2008, 08:28 PM
  4. Global Warming, Man made or Naturally caused (And other earth questions)
    By Didums in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 08-14-2008, 11:29 PM
  5. Global warming
    By Nocapszy in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 04-09-2008, 11:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO