Let's talk global warming...

[DeadYetiBrew]

Also, I can't trust anything Al Gore has to say on global warming since he's making a profit out of it. Did you know you can pay a certain amount of money and create all the CO2 you want? Yeah who's pocket does that go to?

There was a scientist working at a research lab that studied Ice deposits. The current data said that the ice deposits were becoming smaller according to their readings history. Well, going back to some of the original readings he noticed that their readings were miscalculated, recalculating them he realized that the ice deposits were actually growing. He decided to come out and make his findings public. He was canned and his work censored by his boss because his boss had a different opinion on the matter. Now his boss claims he was canned and censored because he didn't come to him on the matter first... Right so you could do what you did anyway?

I think the bs about big business not supporting global warming because it means they lose money is total crap. There's people making money off of it that do support it (al gore).

You also can't say scientists support the theory that global warming is mans fault because you have to first look at what those scientists study. A biochemist won't know anything about the matter. However if everyone geologist and climatologist were to claim it was man's fault I would start to beleive that side more...

 

[DeadYetiBrew]

um yeah that earth is growing thing is full of ****. where is the mass coming from? PFM?

DeadYeti, read my massive ppt, one of the slides has a nice spectrum analysis and absorption by various molecules. H20 is one of them. ... slide 3.

Yeah I saw it... i was just saying a lot of people don't look at H2O... I know it plays a part in it...

 

[DeadYetiBrew]

These facts must have been determined based on scientific evidence (1300s). It is scientific evidence that is proving global warming today. Why should we accept the evidence in that case and dispute it in this (current) case.

Actually the argument is about 50/50... there's scientific facts disproving global warming and proving natural cycle... The results either side gets can be disputed and used for the other sides gain, it's turning into politics...



EDIT: I didn't mean to make 3 posts in a row, i meant to put them all in one...

 

[z987k]

What the hell lets just argue with nothing but opinions and unsupported facts!

deadyeti, u post whore

 

[DeadYetiBrew]

What the hell lets just argue with nothing but opinions and unsupported facts!

Why argue it at all? I mean when you look at the different variables that are possible there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure what the cause is.

I agree on the natural cycle, i even have facts to back up what i said i'm just too lazy to fetch them lol... I think the PPT you made is awesome and could be used to show people the facts. I hate the fact that people are agreeing with it being completely man made because that's the 'popular concensus" without getting the facts for themselves.

I swear i wasn't trying to post whore... lol

 

[z987k]

Why argue it at all? I mean when you look at the different variables that are possible there is absolutely no way of knowing for sure what the cause is.

I agree on the natural cycle, i even have facts to back up what i said i'm just too lazy to fetch them lol... I think the PPT you made is awesome and could be used to show people the facts. I hate the fact that people are agreeing with it being completely man made because that's the 'popular concensus" without getting the facts for themselves.

I swear i wasn't trying to post whore... lol

While I do believe that the climate is changing and I do believe it's due to man's influence, I also know that there are some things that dispute the other evidence and therefor it's more of the theory right now than fact.

 

[z987k]

Oh and here's some graphs that I thought were some rather important ones if someone doesn't want to download the whole thing. But if you want a lot more data, get the whole thing.

ftp://[email protected]/co2nh4no2.jpg

ftp://[email protected]/so4c.jpg

ftp://[email protected]/temperature.jpg

 

[DeadYetiBrew]

While I do believe that the climate is changing and I do believe it's due to man's influence, I also know that there are some things that dispute the other evidence and therefor it's more of the theory right now than fact.

http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html

That's a great read on scientific method and why we'll never prove which theory is correct.

or

http://www.freeinquiry.com/intro-to-sci.html
This ones a little shorter

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/nowarm.htm
Article about Essenhigh

http://www.gcrio.org/CONSEQUENCES/winter96/geoclimate.html
Article on Geologic History

Grr i'm trying to find my other articles... My head's killing me i'll find em tomorrow...

 

[z987k]

Actually we will find out who is right in 20-100 years

I too have **** loads of articles. I actually have probably over 100 ppt's/pdf's from professors, scientists that came and lectured - for and against, and other general things pertaining to the matter. The 65 I chose was hard, I wanted to include every one, lol.

 

[desiderata]

Well I decided to host it on my computer, I've got **** tons of bandwidth so what the hell.
ftp://[email protected]/climate.ppt

So much for the condensed version, LOL I did get the gist, though.

I wish I knew how to (or if there is even a way to) make multiple quotes in one post. I'm borderline becoming a post-whore too.

 

[Dude]

um yeah that earth is growing thing is full of ****.

No it isn't, that is a fact disputed in the Glenn Beck interviews by a scientist. I am still looking for the transcript of the show....bear with me.

These facts must have been determined based on scientific evidence (1300s). It is scientific evidence that is proving global warming today. Why should we accept the evidence in that case and dispute it in this (current) case.

What I can't get over is we have much more exact and accurate instruments now vs. the 1600s or whenever most of this data was compiled....What do you believe?

The bottom line is we know very little about the salinity of the oceans and the oceans in general. So many meteorlogical factors are influenced by the oceans. They cover 3/4 of the Earth. The land masses have less to do with GW than the ocean currents do, believe that if nothing else.

 

[z987k]

No it isn't, that is a fact disputed in the Glenn Beck interviews by a scientist. I am still looking for the transcript of the show....bear with me.



What I can't get over is we have much more exact and accurate instruments now vs. the 1600s or whenever most of this data was compiled....What do you believe?

The bottom line is we know very little about the salinity of the oceans and the oceans in general. So many meteorlogical factors are influenced by the oceans. They cover 3/4 of the Earth. The land masses have less to do with GW than the ocean currents do, believe that if nothing else.

With the earth growing thing, I have 2 hudge questions. 1 The earth is not getting less dense, and if it's volume is growing the mass also has to go up to compensate for the increased volume. How would that be explained?

2 if the earth was growing and everything was pulling apart like the video shows there would be no mountains. Explain all the mountains. (lots of mountains have nothing to do with volcanic activity,)

Next, on the data from the 1600's most of this data has been compiled from recently. Read my section on paleoclimate in the massive ppt.

An next your right the oceans have a hudge impact on the climate. 1 oceans are a huge carbon sink(absosb carbon from the atmos) and second it takes way way longer to heat/cool the oceans and thus why no immediate change will change the climate very quickly.

 

[Dude]

Here is a link but it has at least one missing part.

Very interesting read. Pay particular attention to the part about the C02/Temperature argument.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/02/gb.01.html

 

[z987k]

So much for the condensed version, LOL I did get the gist, though.

I wish I knew how to (or if there is even a way to) make multiple quotes in one post. I'm borderline becoming a post-whore too.

to quote multiple people do this {quote=z987k}blah blah blah {/quote}
replace the {'s with ['s.

 

[z987k]

Here is a link but it has at least one missing part.

Very interesting read. Pay particular attention to the part about the C02/Temperature argument.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0705/02/gb.01.html

you're going to have to quote something, I read a few pages, but I think that's longer than my ppt I made

On the kyoto protocol, their right. It screws the 1st world and hands everything to the developing countries on a silver platter. Surprisingly I am completely against the kyoto protocol. China and India pollute less than us per capita, but more overall, and here china is putting up a new coal plant every month or so. There just going to kill themselves when the rain's pH drops to like 3 or 4 and crops wont grow, ecosystems are destroyed and fish die.

ok edit I found the temp and co2 thing.... give me a sec to find real data.

 

[Dude]

you're going to have to quote something, I read a few pages, but I think that's longer than my ppt I made

Meh, I think you are just too biased to read real scientific evidence.

I admit I haven't gone through your ppt yet, although I did download it. It is time for me to hang up the laptop for the night...but i will continue this discussion tomorrow.

 

[z987k]

no I ended up reading it. I noticed the thing about temp goes up before co2 I found 3 graphs. 1 is ch4 plotted vs co2 to show a direct correlation between their total amount in the atmos one is ch4 vs temp and one is ch4 and co2 vs temp. Their on slides 17, 18 and 20. You decide.


Also something that can be fun to play with is a model that will predict various changes in a lot of things (temp, co2, sea level, nox, sox, ch4, etc) given variables. What can be fun is you can set the variables to anything. Say like putting 400 gigatons of carbon in the atmos every year. temp goes way up I ran one with outrageous data input and the temperature raise and ocean level rise was off the chart 100. Co2 in the atmos in 100 years was 3909.71ppmv vs 359.27ppmv in 1995.
http://isam.atmos.uiuc.edu/isam2/index.html

 

[user 574]

ok well I made a ppt that ended up to be 65 slides long and ~18mb.
Hmmm, I don't know how I can host this anywhere.

Save as html might reduce size. Then you just need to find a hosting site

 

[desiderata]

You guys are the experts here, so I can't contribute anything significant to this debate. But, I enjoy reading the arguments. Keep it up.

 

[user 574]

Too many people on earth and it's only getting exponentially worse like olllllo stated. Even if you believe / don't believe the increase in warming is based on 2-leggers.

Lets start with this family (yea, that's cropped for General Public )

 

[z987k]

Save as html might reduce size. Then you just need to find a hosting site

good idea.

actually it makes sense to make a pdf out of it since it's hard to host a website from an ftp server, and I'm not installing apache.

ftp://[email protected]/climate.pdf ~3.7mb.

 

[user 574]

Wierd. This banner was on the bottom of my screen in this thread

 

[z987k]

Wierd. This banner was on the bottom of my screen in this thread

View attachment 1611

maybe it's like google adsense. But I have no ads here at HBT, I don't think I ever have.

 

[user 574]

maybe it's like google adsense. But I have not ads here at HBT, I don't think I ever have.

probably, never knew much about the technology behind ads/banners since I HATE THEM. I think my membership just expired. Time to re-up...

 

[z987k]

http://adblockplus.org/en/installation

for firefox, I highly recommend it.

 

[Pumbaa]

or ya could just click a add or 2 a day and help TxBrew out . . . I know that click takes so much energy . . .

 

[TheJadedDog]

Someone please explain how climate change is any less of a threat if it is not a man-made phenomena. I see all these people who refute the evidence that we are contributing to the warming of the Earth as if that means climate change isn't happening or isn't going to drastically alter the word.

Personally my favorite thing about global warming is that by the time the real effects start, it will be too late to do anything about it (hence my name is jaded). I think what we really ought to be doing is finding alternative ways to grow food, so we can all still eat once the arable land starts disappearing (which may not have anything to do with rising ocean level, but rather desertification).

As for the use of fossil fuels, my reasons for wanting to find some alternatives have more to do with global politics than global warming.

 

[Dude]

Someone please explain how climate change is any less of a threat if it is not a man-made phenomena. I see all these people who refute the evidence that we are contributing to the warming of the Earth as if that means climate change isn't happening or isn't going to drastically alter the word.

Personally my favorite thing about global warming is that by the time the real effects start, it will be too late to do anything about it (hence my name is jaded). I think what we really ought to be doing is finding alternative ways to grow food, so we can all still eat once the arable land starts disappearing (which may not have anything to do with rising ocean level, but rather desertification).

As for the use of fossil fuels, my reasons for wanting to find some alternatives have more to do with global politics than global warming.

While interesting, that is another discussion for another time.

I don't think anyone here is refuting that man has certainly contributed to global warming, but opinions differ on exactly how much. I tend to believe it is a normal cycle of nature more than man made. There is evidence out there that proves it. I have some ammo in my hip pocket--I'm just trying to get the discussion going.

 

[2nd Street Brewery]

Sorry Dude, I haven't heard a word you've said since you changed your avatar.

 

[uwmgdman]

This topic gets me very angry and I am very passionate about it. Especially when I see people like Al Gore saying things like, 'the debate is over, it's proven all meteorologists and climatologists agree we are causing global warming and it will be the end of society as we know it'. Without raising my blood pressure, here are a few of my points.

In my opinion people are quite naive when they think that you can go to the wall and set Earth’s thermostat to whatever temperature you feel is Earth’s right or natural temperature. The Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over its history and will continue to do so for eternity, to believe that people have the ability to hold a specific temperature, is laughable.

The global average temperature is somewhere between 12-14C. If you look at the 2 billion year history of the Earth, the global average temperature has ranged between about 10C and 22C. With the cool valleys brief compared to the warm stretches (see http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm). Our globe is warming, are humans having some impact? Probably, how much of that is Earth returning to ‘normal’, most of it. Do we also have impacts that cool our planet? Probably. Can you make an accurate climate model that accounts for all of those parameters and unknown natural variation? Definitely not.

One point people like to bring up, it’s not that we are warming, it’s the rate at we are warming. They cite ice core samples that go back hundreds of thousands of years or more. The major problem with that data is, the older an ice sample is, you lose the fine scale (short-term) variability and you see more of a long-term trend. When you compare that to very fine temporal data we have for the past few hundred years, well of course we are warming faster than the past many thousand years, the ice cores you are using intrinsically blur (or effectively time average) that data. It is not appropriate to make comparisons as such.

To construct public and economic policy to attempt to set an artificial ‘normal’ Earth temperature not only is irresponsible, it is a worthless endeavor because it plain will not work.

The attention that these people give to ‘global warming’ should be directed to things we actually do have a large impact on and could change. Fresh clean drinking water that could end up being what the next major regional, if not world war is over, not oil. 80-90% of the rivers in China are polluted to the point where it is undrinkable. Over a billion people with not enough water to drink, sounds like a problem to me. The Earth is overpopulated, some sort of epidemic will occur on this planet, even with modern medicine, will kill millions if not billions, but that will actually benefit the planet in the long run. And we must use the oil on our land now and MUST develop an alternate to oil because it will run out or become unimaginably expensive.

The global warming alarmists like Al Gore are in many ways like religious fanatics, in many ways global warming and his version of environmentalism is his religion. Al Gore and people like him, believe what you like, live how you feel is right, but for one minute don’t push your beliefs on others (note beliefs, his statements are NOT fact), especially when your goal is truly unobtainable, but comes at an extremely high cost.

Stepping down from my soapbox without getting too worked and keeping this short. Yes, I think this is short.