Crazy weather...

[Optimus Prime]

And more than a few minor ones.

Exactly.123

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

Still, there couldn't have been one 4.5 billion years ago since it's a scientific face that the Earth appeared around that time and back then there wasn't enough water to create and Ice Age. Only after the famous 4000 year-long global rains, the Earth was almost completely covered in water, then slowly it evaporated and there was land again. Then it could've been possible for an Ice Age to happen, since there was enough water. At least that's what I learned at school.

 

[Killface]

Yes, exactly. A cycle which human activity has sped up, but never the less, a cycle.



Well, there's been more than just one ice age in the, oh, about 4 and a half billion years it has existed.

But yeah. The Earth warms up slowly, melts the glaciers, which cool down the Earth again. Rinse and repeat.

See... i should know this stuff. Especially since i want to specialize in the field of Meteorology and Climatology.

I disappoint myself

*begins to study*

 

[Optimus Prime]

Still, there couldn't have been one 4.5 billion years ago since it's a scientific face that the Earth appeared around that time and back then there wasn't enough water to create and Ice Age. Only after the famous 4000 year-long global rains, the Earth was almost completely covered in water, then slowly it evaporated and there was land again. Then it could've been possible for an Ice Age to happen, since there was enough water. At least that's what I learned at school.

Nobody said there was an ice age 4.5 billion years ago, you simple misread.

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

Oh yeah, I guess I did, seems Khaze forgot to use the word 'Earth' though.

 

[Mog]

Interesting topic... most of everything J-Dude has said has been spot on imo, so I don't really need to say anything.

Here is an important thing people might want to know about the IPCC.

The scientists that do the research for the IPCC are doing a great job, but the idiots that run the IPCC are not.
Here is a very disturbing line from page 4 of the IPCC's own procedures document which can be found on their site here.

"Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter."

Now you may not fully understand what that means, but it basically means this:
If the scientifically researched evidence is not consistent with the summary to be given to the UN policymakers, then the scientific reports (not the summary!) will need to be modified!!! :scared:

That is just insane... why would they want to do that!?
If you want to see the original scientific reports before they may (or may not) have been mutilated go to www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4

And if you didn't bother reading any of that, just remember this:

CO₂ is NOT a pollutant!

 

[Growler]

CT is weird too... in mid-dec. we had a few days where it was around 70 degrees... then temperatures proceeded to drop to the 20s, then till now.

 

[J-Dude]

Interesting topic... most of everything J-Dude has said has been spot on imo, so I don't really need to say anything.

Here is an important thing people might want to know about the IPCC.

The scientists that do the research for the IPCC are doing a great job, but the idiots that run the IPCC are not.
Here is a very disturbing line from page 4 of the IPCC's own procedures document which can be found on their site here.

Now you may not fully understand what that means, but it basically means this:
If the scientifically researched evidence is not consistent with the summary to be given to the UN policymakers, then the scientific reports (not the summary!) will need to be modified!!! :scared:

That is just insane... why would they want to do that!?
If you want to see the original scientific reports before they may (or may not) have been mutilated go to www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4

And if you didn't bother reading any of that, just remember this:

CO₂ is NOT a pollutant!

SOMEBODY who gets it *sighs in relief*. Exactly. For instance, there was an IPCC report in the early 90's whose scientists concluded after dilligent research that they could not identify a visible human impact on the global climate. Well, like mentioned, this didn't match their summary, so they changed the reports to say that there WAS a discernable human impact on the climate.

Big difference huh? I think so too

So if you want to take the IPCC's word for it, then you're wasting your time. This is exactly why it's all so blown out of proportion. The reasoning behind this policy is beyond me. I always thought facts were facts, but here they change their findings when they don't agree with their preconcieved predictions. It's the simple psychological rule gone awry: the researcher will unknowingly recieve the results he/she expected. You send two people out to take a survey and ask them what they thought their results would be in the end, pretty likely that's what they'll end up with. But of course, this is a major gap in human methodology, not a psychological mistake.

Really, (one or two at a time please) list your reasons for believing that we're doomed from global warming. I can nullify just about all of it.

 

[Khaze]

Oh yeah, I guess I did, seems Khaze forgot to use the word 'Earth' though.

Aye, by "it" I meant Earth.

CO₂ is NOT a pollutant!

That's true. Why would it be? All the vegetation on Earth use it to produce oxygen via photosynthesis. It is, however, immediately dangerous to the life and health of humans and other animals when inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume).

CO₂ is however also a greenhouse gas. In high concentrations in the air it will help absorb the sun's radiation and thus warm the climate. Just like water vapors, which are obviously not dangerous.

 

[J-Dude]

Ah, now you see. I'm liking the direction this thread is going. Intelligent contribution to conversation instead of "I'm right, you're wrong" flame-fests. I see open minds here and am I ever happy about it =)

 

[Jakut]

Earth is hard to kill Even for us humans. Everything that we did wrong in the past is going back in place. And now, we contribute to that also: planting trees, releasing environmentally friendly products and figuring out new ways to cause less pollution.

All those green peace bastards that say "OMG we'll all die" can suck my balls -.-

 

[J-Dude]

Indeed, the planet has it's own cycles which can eventually negate anything we've done. After all, certain past volcanic eruptions have done as much damage to the air in the past as we have (there's a LOT of greenhouse gasses in that stuff) . The planet cleanses itself. The only way I foresee us truly being wiped out would be for a nuclear holocaust to uccur, in which case every living thing on this planet is ****ed something aweful. I only sleep every night on that hopes that nobody is stupid enough to engage a true nuclear war. Nowadays with nations, having nukes is like the friendly competition between people insecure about their penis-size. We fear the weapons, and so we do not use them. We fear striking the enemy in case we invoke their fury to nuke us and so the bombs become a symbol of national protection instead of an actual weapon.

I can only hope I'm right, and the likes of Iran and North Korea don't follow up with actual strike targets when and if they get hold of the bomb. Entangling alliances would cause several countries to launch bombs. And then, after just six nukes, this planet is dead.

 

[frsrblch]

Here's a non-traditional explanation of global warming.

Oh, and watch An Inconvenient Truth.

 

[Khaze]

And then, after just six nukes, this planet is dead.

I don't think any country has tested the most modern nuclear devices on ground-level. Theories say that detonating even one of these would obliterate the atmosphere. Oxygen is highly combustible you see, and if an explosion is large enough to reach the ozone layers... nice knowing you.

Modern nukes are thousands of times more powerful than Hiroshima was.

 

[Killface]

I don't think any country has tested the most modern nuclear devices on ground-level. Theories say that detonating even one of these would obliterate the atmosphere. Oxygen is highly combustible you see, and if an explosion is large enough to reach the ozone layers... nice knowing you.

Modern nukes are thousands of times more powerful than Hiroshima was.

Russia detonated the most powerful bomb, Tsar Bomba, which was 50+ Megatons. That reached over 30 Miles into the sky... which is pretty much the ozone layer.

If that didnt ignite the atmosphere... nothing in anyone's arsenal will.

 

[frsrblch]

I don't think any country has tested the most modern nuclear devices on ground-level. Theories say that detonating even one of these would obliterate the atmosphere. Oxygen is highly combustible you see, and if an explosion is large enough to reach the ozone layers... nice knowing you.

While oxygen is consumed in a combustion reaction, it requires a fuel to oxidize, or you get no fire. The atmosphere isn't going to blow up, simply because it is not explosive. One thing I've noticed about you from this thread is that you like to state things without a shred of evidence. From melting glaciers causes ice ages to nukes blow up the ozone layer, you're all over the place with all kinds of fantastical knowledge that really doesn't make any sense. Could you, you know, maybe provide a source next time you make such an outrageous claim?

And while I'm posting...

And when it is warmed up enough, it will melt the glaciers completely, cooling the oceans, which in turn leads to cooling of the climate, which in turn leads to an ice age.

This really bugged me, but I didn't post anything. You're saying here that glaciers will act a sort of planetary ice cube and cool off the oceans. While this may work in Futurama (see my above post), reality says otherwise. When those glaciers disappear, the land or ocean beneath will then absorb the light from the sun much more than the glacier that once reflected most of it back into space (read: Global Warming, Causes). Even if melting glaciers caused the ocean to cool in the slightest, we would have observed such an effect already, as glaciers have been disappearing at a much accelerated rate for the better part of a century now. In fact, you can see how wrong this idea of yours is by current data.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

Note how CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have never been this high any time during the past half million years? Or how the graph of temperature matches the chart of CO2 concentration? Notice how, although glaciers have been melting off, the temperature continues to increase quite rapidly.

Really, if you have any doubt that Global Warming is a fact, WATCH THE ****ING MOVIE. Take two hours out of your life to rent the movie and look at this from the other side. There is no debate within the scientific community, the consensus is almost unanimous. To continue to hold the belief that we are not facing a crisis is to willfully accept living in ignorance.

 

[Jakut]

Some russian scientists state that the cause of global warming is in fact the increasing activity of the sun or something like that >_>

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

 

[frsrblch]

Some russian scientists state that the cause of global warming is in fact the increasing activity of the sun or something like that >_>

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070115/59078992.html

This isn't a new idea, and although it seems to make sense, about 20 years ago solar intensity and mean temperature seemed to diverge. Solar intensity surely plays it's part, but it's not the whole picture.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation