| Author | Message |
|---|
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 5th, 2007 at 05:13pm
pirate wifey:There is no definative evidence either way.
Well, I think people are arguing that there IS definitive evidence. Some say there is, some say there isn't enough to make a decision. |
Oxycontin Genocide.
Banned
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 2955 | July 5th, 2007 at 11:28pm pirate wifey:I'm not saying it doesn't exist Oxycontin Genocide, I'm just saying that there is alternative theories as to what it's caused by.
There is no definative evidence either way. Until there is, teach all the theories that make sense and for which there is scientific evidence. That's common sense and a right. There is plenty of evidence though. Most scientists believe it is caused by greenhouse gases. Until, it's proven wrong, we should still teach it. It's not like it's harming anyone. It's better than saying, 'We don't know enough information to inform you about global warming'. Is cutting carbon emissions going to speed up global warming?
|
Hell Yeah Georgie
Really Not Okay
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 727 | July 6th, 2007 at 06:18am But there's also plenty of evidence for th theory that global warming is natural. So, by your logic, we should be teaching that theory too.
And I know there is evidence for the greenhouse gas theory, there's just nothing that absolutely proves it, there's no evidence that can't be disproved, or explained in some other way.
No, it isn't going to speed it up, but it could upset the natural balance, or afftect the process f natural climate change.
And if it did speed it up (which it won't) but even if it did, so what? If it's natural it's going to happen anyway.
If everyone has their heart so set on cutting carbon dioxide emissions, why don't you try cutting thecarbon footprint of a volcano? |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 6th, 2007 at 09:40am pirate wifey:But there's also plenty of evidence for th theory that global warming is natural.
Well, I think that's the main argument for global warming. Natural vs. Man-made. The evidence that's out there would suggest that in all of recorded history there ARE warming periods through time BUT that this warming period we're experiencing is so far off the charts and so far beyond anything the earth has ever been through before that it cannot possibly or reasonably be natural. I think scientists are trying to say nature is not capable of warming of this magnitude.
However, I tend to think the whole global warming = doosmday idea is utter bullsh**. The earth is very resilient. If we do f**k it up, it will always balance itself out. But that still doesn't give us the right to be a slob about it. It IS proven that carbon emissions are destroying the ozone layer and this has NEVER been a natural occurance.
Ozone depletion can cause increased amounts of UV radiation on Earth which can lead to more cases of skin cancer, cataracts, and impaired immune systems. Overexposure to UV is believed to be contributing to the increase in melanoma, the most fatal of all skin cancers. Since 1990, the risk of developing melanoma has more than doubled.
UV can also damage sensitive crops, such as soybeans, and reduce crop yields. Some scientists suggest that marine phytoplankton, which are the base of the ocean food chain, are already under stress from UV radiation. This stress could have serious consequences for human food supplies from the oceans. |
Hell Yeah Georgie
Really Not Okay
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 727 | July 6th, 2007 at 10:40am Beeblebrox I am actually immensely confused by you. It's as if you just don't register what I'm trying to say.
As for this 'so far off the charts' thing, I really beg to differ. There was a period in Medieval times when the world was far hotter than today, and the Holocene Maximum was hotter still - the hottest period in the last 10,000 years. I think you'll agree, humans were hardly destroying the ozone layer 10,000 years ago. So I'm not sure where you found that this is 'beyond anything the earth has ever been through'.
So do you believe global warming is a result of carbon emissions or making holes in the ozone layer? |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 9th, 2007 at 07:04pm pirate wifey:As for this 'so far off the charts' thing, I really beg to differ. There was a period in Medieval times when the world was far hotter than today, and the Holocene Maximum was hotter still - the hottest period in the last 10,000 years. I think you'll agree, humans were hardly destroying the ozone layer 10,000 years ago. So I'm not sure where you found that this is 'beyond anything the earth has ever been through'.
Actually I was referring to CO2 emissions, not heat. Our CO2 emissions are off the charts, not our temperatures. Sorry to confuse. Yes, that is a hard fact.
pirate wifey:So do you believe global warming is a result of carbon emissions or making holes in the ozone layer?
Well, I see global warming as tied to BOTH. Carbon emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, leading to rising temperatures and the CFCs (which are contributors to the greenhouse effect) also contribute to the depletion of our ozone layer which in turn, give way to a harmful rise in UV rays on earth. Put those two together and you have extreme climate problems. Excessive heating and rapid cooling. You'll get droughts on one side and floods on the other. Global warming isn't just one cause with one effect. It comes from a wide variety of irresponsible actions we take here on earth. |
Hell Yeah Georgie
Really Not Okay
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 727 | July 9th, 2007 at 08:05pm Right, I think I follow. But how do you explain the extreme changes in temperature over the last 10,000 years? At one point, England was so cold, that the river Thames was solid all the way through and people could hold public events on the ice. At another time, the earth was extremely hot. All before humans started producing carbon dioxide.
And what about all the other species on Earth? And the volcanoes, and the oceans, all of which produce carbon dioxide in mammoth quantities, do you suppose we cut down their carbon emissions also? |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 9th, 2007 at 10:15pm pirate wifey:But how do you explain the extreme changes in temperature over the last 10,000 years? All before humans started producing carbon dioxide.And what about all the other species on Earth? And the volcanoes, and the oceans, all of which produce carbon dioxide in mammoth quantities, do you suppose we cut down their carbon emissions also?
It's true that the trees, plants, and animals emit about ten times more CO2 every year than humans. However, all that CO2 is taken up by plants and forests during photosynthesis, leaving no net change in the atmosphere. In a balanced environment, all natural emissions of CO2 would be balanced by natural plant life that remove CO2, meaning they do not increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Anthropogenic emissions from fossil fuel combustion (cars, factories, etc.) are not completely balanced by plants and represent a growing source of CO2 to the atmosphere that plant life cannot handle. This effectively increases greenhouse gas concentration and warms the planet.
The warming periods you described in the past were likely the result of an increase in volcanic activity or solar intensity (caused by the earths wobbling path around the sun). This is normal. CO2 is natural and should be in the atmosphere, but in much much smaller quantities. |
Thug Life.
Bleeding on the Floor
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 1315 | July 10th, 2007 at 03:28pm
IREALLY didint want to make a whole new thread for it
but i thikn this is the best place to put it.
well
i heard live earth was a giganto success.
but like
i hear it was pretty stupid
considering madonna is a giant shareholder in a oil company.
and flew a private jet with just four people in it as apose to a regular plane with 400 people in heinsight would seem more logical if your trying to save the planet.
|
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 10th, 2007 at 05:33pm Live Earth was a successful event in that millions of people watched to see their favorite music artists perform. It was a failure in the sense of motivating people to take action against global warming.
I was at Live Earth in the U.S.. It was very sad. People cheered when the bands played but talked, chatted and went out for food when the speakers came on about the environment. Plus, to make matters worse, the crowds trashed the stadium. It was a huge sea of garbage when we left. The threw food, wrappers and bottles right onto the floor and grass.
While the concert itself was very clean and green (it used half the electricity or a normal concert, used all biodegradeble papers, organic foods, tour buses with bio-fuels, etc.) MOST of the bands playing were fairly ignorant about global warming. They were just there to play music and gain publicity. Only AFI really seemed to have a strong knowledge of the real issues and actually said how they were doing their part. None of the other bands cared. No one felt inspired to help the cause, no one applauded the 7-point pledge for global warming. It was a wasted effort.
The point with celebrities is, no one is perfectly environmentally conscious. Madonna said she had done nothing up until the concert and that she was using it as her starting point to become more aware and start to make changes in her life. We have no right to complain about her lifestyle when we trash our own stadium with garbage. People are such hypocrites. |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 10th, 2007 at 05:40pm Here, I took these pictures as we were leaving Giants Stadium. It was sad. When driving out of the parking lot (in our hyrbid, no less) were were followed by FOUR SUVs and a HUMMER. I was so ashamed of our country, of how were are in a perpetual state of "ignorance is bliss".
 |
MrRandomGuy
Fabulous Killjoy
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 128 | July 10th, 2007 at 08:00pm Global warming is real but it's not caused by humans and it cannot be prevented by humans.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/causes_other.htm
most of the changes are from climate change which is due to changes in the earth's tilt in space.
http://vathena.arc.nasa.gov/curric/land/global/climchng.html
This is a history of Earth's climate change. Notice that it has a regularity to it's random fluctuation.
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
This page shows the temperature history of the earth. You can see from the picture that the temperature rises then falls. Now when the temperature started rising was when the industrial revolution started. I have heard some arguments that because of the rise of temperature when the industrial revolution began humans are to blame for global warming. This is not true.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
This is an article from Time Magazine from 30 years ago. The article explains that humans are to blame for global cooling.
what happened with global cooling? Did we suddenly get an ice age? No. The so called experts were wrong then.
Don't buy into the crap that global warming is a problem. It's just a tool for political purposes |
Karma Kills
Salute You in Your Grave
Age: 103
Gender: Female
Posts: 3976 | July 10th, 2007 at 08:21pm Okay, I'm going to take a shot at stating my opinion here.
So, I don't believe in Global Warming. The democrats have everyone scared about something that isn't real. The Earth goes through warm periods and cools periods, and now we just happen to be in a warm one. Al Gore is lieing about/exagerating about a lot of stuff and he has a lot of people worried over nothing. If we're really going through Global Warming, why did some places have record lows this winter? Also, when he sayed the ocean was going to rise 100 something feet, he exagerated, it was more like 10 inches. Seriously, how can you believe someone who said they invented the internet and then tried to cover it up when it was on record?  |
Karma Kills
Salute You in Your Grave
Age: 103
Gender: Female
Posts: 3976 | July 10th, 2007 at 08:23pm MrRandomGuy:Don't buy into the crap that global warming is a problem. It's just a tool for political purposes  |
Karma Kills
Salute You in Your Grave
Age: 103
Gender: Female
Posts: 3976 | July 10th, 2007 at 08:26pm Oh and one more thing, Live Earth was a COMPLETELY STUPID IDEA. They were trying to say SAVE energy, but while doing this whole thing, they were using unlimited amounts of energy for sound and unnecesarry lights. It was totally pointless. |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 10th, 2007 at 08:38pm At Live Earth, we heard a speech by a Nasa Climatologist. Now, this guy has more cred than any magazine I've read. He is one of the world's leading experts on global climate and if he says, based on his knowledge and findings that it is real, I'm going to believe him over any magazine. A magazine has one goal, to sell as many copies as possible.
Someone also once said that when scientific evidence has be found that is in contradiction with political goals, that scientific evidence is repressed, hidden, ignored and re-written so that the people in power can maintain control over their assets. The men who run our government are governed by their wallets. They all have large investments in the oil industry, which make them very wealthy. If you have a scientist that comes out and says "the oil and oil refineries are causing global warming and you have to shut them down" then the men in power panic because they don't want their cash flow to die. So they pay a scientist to find loopholes in the evidence and then claim it's all a lie. I, for one, cannot continue believing anything the governent explains away.
So you can find a climate graph that says no major change, just small fluctuations. I have a chart that shows the opposite. It shows the small rises and small dips, then it shows the cooling period you mentioned in the 1970s, then the huge increase today. So which one is wrong?
 |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 10th, 2007 at 09:03pm Krayola.:Oh and one more thing, Live Earth was a COMPLETELY STUPID IDEA. They were trying to say SAVE energy, but while doing this whole thing, they were using unlimited amounts of energy for sound and unnecesarry lights. It was totally pointless.
It WAS stupid, but not for those reasons. They went around the stadium and actually turned off MOST of the lights that they normally use in a concert. The scoreboards, the basement rooms, the parking lot lights, the unused rooms, everything was shut off. The stage was built with LED and LCD lighting, which uses 1/10 of the energy of regular stage lighting. Smaller amps were used throughout the stadium so that energy consumption would be at a record low. Hell, they even turned off the air conditioning. Do some research, you'll see. |
MrRandomGuy
Fabulous Killjoy
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 128 | July 11th, 2007 at 02:23pm Beeblebrox:So you can find a climate graph that says no major change, just small fluctuations. I have a chart that shows the opposite. It shows the small rises and small dips, then it shows the cooling period you mentioned in the 1970s, then the huge increase today. So which one is wrong?
http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/christinaterry/Temps.jpg
Your climate graph only looks at the past thousand years. How old is the earth?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.
One thousand years is nothing more than a period at the end of this sentance compared to the overall age of the earth. People who say global warming is a problem look at your graph without looking at the entire graph. Your graph isn't wrong, it's just incomplete. |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 12th, 2007 at 04:11pm Well, my point with the graph was to show you were right about the cooling period 30 years ago while also pointing out that everyone has charts spanning all sorts of timelines and that everyone's chart is very different and no two are alike. This all stems from honest people that are doing research and then dishonest people that are trying to bend data to fit their opinions. I did find a chart somewhere that goes back much further based on ice core samples. I'll try to find it for you. It shows the same thing, small warming periods followed by small cooling periods followed by a giagantic warming period. |
Beeblebrox
Really Not Okay
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 688 | July 12th, 2007 at 04:29pm Here is a chart taken directly from the data on the vostok ice core sample which spans 420,000 years back and revealed 4 past glacial cycles and from Dome Fsample that spans back 730,000 years. They recently completed te deepest core sample ever from Dome C last year which spans back 800,000 years and all three samples taken from three different teams show the same thing.
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 has varied greatly over time, from a recent high of more than 380 parts-per-million (ppm) 25 million years ago, to a low of about 180 ppm during several periods of glaciation over the past 650,000 years (Figure 1).
As can be seen, CO2 levels go through cycles of increase and decrease over 100,000 year intervals, which correspond to eccentricity changes in the earth's orbit.
The atmospheric concentration of CO2 was relatively constant at about 280 ppm for ~1,000 years before 1750. Since 1750, the CO2 concentration has risen, reaching ~377 ppm in 2005. The inset (small graph in upper right) shows the atmospheric levels of CO2 for the last 44 years. During that short period of time, CO2 levels have risen nearly 60 ppm, producing the sharp spike at the far right of the main graph.
Although the cycles of CO2 levels (approximately 100,000 years apart) are naturally on a rise from the last ice age, the spike is dramatically higher than any levels seen over the last 800,000 years.
And here's the article on the last drilled ice core.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm |
