Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

Status
Not open for further replies.
New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
654
Best answers
0
Hee hee I loved the Beyond Belief: Fact or Fiction show where you had to decide whether a story was genuinely strange or just some BS that the writing staff came up with. However I found it to be a nice exercise for doing what I like to do most, breaking down a situation, analyzing it, and coming up with an answer.

That randomness aside, this is exactly what I have been doing with Global Warming in my head. I've read a few books and articles from both sides, watched Gore's movie (ps he is an assface) read Crichton's State of Fear, and have listened to countless young college students discuss the subject (one of the great things about working at a restaurant with a bachelors). So what's the dealie yo?

Well I personally felt that Crichton hit a strong note with his book. I'm a huge fan of the man's brain and the radical views he takes on subjects before they even gain global recognition. Fanboyness aside, the point that he brings in his book is that our world is constantly changing. Think about it this way. After the Ice Age, what do you think lived in the areas previously covered by ice? Do you think that Redwood forests simply popped up as the glaciers receded? Things had to start off small, and since vegetation can greatly affect temperatures and all of their surroundings, air composition moisture level, I think it would be fair to say that the weather patterns and temperatures were nothing like what they are today. So this means that our climate has changed before, and is more than likely going to change again, depending on the factors that affect it.
Global Warming advocates have one thing right if nothing else. We need to be aware of what we are doing on a large scale to the planet, and how that may affect it. However I do not believe that all the scares that are being brought into the media and pop culture are all that well founded. Long term weather prediction is just ****. The margin of error for long term climate prediction is laughably larger than most areas of science (don't have numbers, sorry).
My favorite part of all of this is how there is scientific evidence supporting both sides of the story. Just goes to show how unbiased and objective science is today.

So, to those of you on these forums who have an interest in the subject, and can speak their point clearly and without flaming, what is your position on the subject?

And while the whole media side to this story is a whole discussion of its own, it sure does make the conspiracy theorist in me stir around a bit. Gotta love using mob mentality to control your public.
 
ESF Head Team Mapper
πŸ‘‘ Administrator
🌠 Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
πŸ‚ Regular
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
3,619
Best answers
0
To me, debating if global warming exists is just as pointless as creationism vs evolution.
Obviously global warming exists and beyond the point where we could stop it already. And no so-called "evidence" against it can disprove it simply because there is none (as in, serious evidence).
 
New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
654
Best answers
0
and thanks for that input, do you have anything else to say? Maybe your thoughts on why it is "fact" and not "fiction". I'm looking for a discussion please, not one word assertions

To you DJ, there is validity in discussing global warming because it is something that can/may/will affect us, whereas creation/evolution is history. And please don't refer to Global Warming as the changes in climate that we have recieved, the idea of Global Warming encompasses so much more than just the changing temperatures.
 
ESF Head Team Mapper
πŸ‘‘ Administrator
🌠 Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
πŸ‚ Regular
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
3,619
Best answers
0
not may affect us, it will affect us.
And there is more then enough obvious evidence and even more so abstract studies about it.
And I'm not talking about "random" temperature spikes in the global temperature
 
New Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
@Blim: Thank you! There is a God! Finally someone else reads State of Fear! I've felt so alone in this debate that I never thought my views would gain any support at all. Thank you good sir!

@DJ-Ready: Okay, NOW you're being close-minded. Your first post basically said that there is NO scientific evidence against global warming. Can you back that up? With actual references? Because to me it sounds like you're talking out of your cornhole.

First of all, I take issue with you stating that there is no debate between evolution and creaionism, because I'm a Christian and I think evolution makes no real sense (the functions of our bodies are just too complex to have come together by chance, regardless how long you allow nitrogen and ammonia to stew)

Put this into perspective: The IPCC (the commission who reports on the state of the environment) is where the world gets most of it's "confirmation" that global warming is occuring. Well, here's why you can't trust them. Their policy when assembling their report which they release every few years is to create a summary before the reearch is actually conducted on what the officials "predict" the results will be. If their research contradicts what they prdicted, then the RESULTS OF THE RESEARCH will be changed to mirror the summary, and not the other way around.

For instance, the big spur which has most people think Global Warming to be incontrovertible is the IPCC report released in the early 90s'. Well, their prediction was that they would find a discernable human impact on the global climate. But the actual scientists who researched this returned with their findings which stated that they could NOT find a discernable human impact on the climate. Well, since this data didn't fit their summary, the research was re-written to reflect their original summary, and the rest is history. Bull****, but history.

Still think we're out of order?

It's obvious that you're a keen believer, but I'd like to know exactly what makes YOU personally convinced that global warming is occuring. What, honestly, made you a believer?
 
New Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
531
Best answers
0
and thanks for that input, do you have anything else to say? Maybe your thoughts on why it is "fact" and not "fiction". I'm looking for a discussion please, not one word assertions

To you DJ, there is validity in discussing global warming because it is something that can/may/will affect us, whereas creation/evolution is history. And please don't refer to Global Warming as the changes in climate that we have recieved, the idea of Global Warming encompasses so much more than just the changing temperatures.
because walmart security made allready a thread similar to this ;) but you don't know it .
 
New Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
Ah, the ol' hokey-stick graphs. I remember those days.

Okay, your first graph. Yes, there's no doubt on Co2 rising, but here's the reality: If our atmosphere was scaled to the length of a football field high, then the layer of co2 in our atmosphere would be perhaps an inch thick. It's an amazingly small part of our atmosphere. And also, normal co2 levels are equal to 316 parts pe million. The increase that has been made in that regard has been from 316 parts per million, to 376 parts per million, which actually doesn't account for much and is hardly capable of heating the planet to such degrees. I we apply the increase to the football field measure, then the one inch would turn into 1 3/8 inches. It's a lot more carbon dioxixde, but it's still tiny in the scheme of things.

Your next two temperature graphs are tainted by something called the "urban heat island" effect. You see, many weather stations where temperature data is collected have since been surrouned by concrete, skyscrapers and other heat conducting elements of urban life which make those local temperatures register as quite a bit warmer. Also, changes in land use will affect the temperature readings greatly. For instance, croplands will be warmer than forested lands. You have to understand that these weather stations provide an average global temperature based on the data from each station, and those stations have been recording temperature data through a time of unprecedented change and alteration in the land. The cluprit of the higher temperature readings is not related to global warming when this factor is brought into play.
 
ESF Head Team Mapper
πŸ‘‘ Administrator
🌠 Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸš‚ Steam Linked
πŸ‚ Regular
Joined
Dec 25, 2001
Messages
3,619
Best answers
0
@DJ-Ready: Okay, NOW you're being close-minded. Your first post basically said that there is NO scientific evidence against global warming. Can you back that up? With actual references? Because to me it sounds like you're talking out of your cornhole.
Uh yes I can, but because I'm too lazy I'll just point you to this website

First of all, I take issue with you stating that there is no debate between evolution and creaionism, because I'm a Christian and I think evolution makes no real sense
too bad we cant have a discussion about this topic on this forum. I'm certain it would be fun to hear your "arguments" haha
 
New Member
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 14, 2003
Messages
3,974
Best answers
0
i've noticed significant changes in the seasonal weather here over the last couple of years, could be down to global warming, but i am a firm believer that england sits in a weather vortex, where whatever the weathermen say will happen, the opposite occurs.
 
New Member
β˜… Black Lounger β˜…
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 15, 2003
Messages
4,628
Best answers
0
Ah, the ol' hokey-stick graphs. I remember those days.

Okay, your first graph. Yes, there's no doubt on Co2 rising, but here's the reality: If our atmosphere was scaled to the length of a football field high, then the layer of co2 in our atmosphere would be perhaps an inch thick. It's an amazingly small part of our atmosphere. And also, normal co2 levels are equal to 316 parts pe million. The increase that has been made in that regard has been from 316 parts per million, to 376 parts per million, which actually doesn't account for much and is hardly capable of heating the planet to such degrees. I we apply the increase to the football field measure, then the one inch would turn into 1 3/8 inches. It's a lot more carbon dioxixde, but it's still tiny in the scheme of things.

Your next two temperature graphs are tainted by something called the "urban heat island" effect. You see, many weather stations where temperature data is collected have since been surrouned by concrete, skyscrapers and other heat conducting elements of urban life which make those local temperatures register as quite a bit warmer. Also, changes in land use will affect the temperature readings greatly. For instance, croplands will be warmer than forested lands. You have to understand that these weather stations provide an average global temperature based on the data from each station, and those stations have been recording temperature data through a time of unprecedented change and alteration in the land. The cluprit of the higher temperature readings is not related to global warming when this factor is brought into play.
sorry, but the second paragraph is completely unfounded - http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=16&page=206
they monitor across 6 continents, on land and sea.

I believe that there's definately something going on, I mean my mate who's studying chemistry at university said he's being taught things about atmospheric changes at the moment, he said something about the current state of the air being quite scary, and something about it never been seen before. I'm not a chemist so I couldnt tell you exactly what he said, but I got the rough Idea. Not only that, but the current state of weather in my own country seems freaky, up untill the past 5-6 years I remember all the seasons being clearly defined as I grew up, the weather now is completely ****ed, for the lack of a better word. I could go on and on about skin cancer cases and hurricanes, natural disasters, but you'd all put it down to being unable to be solidly founded. However, take a look at creationalism before you try to make those judgements, there's no solid hard facts there either yet you believe, not saying theres anything wrong with that, just it seems a little hypocritical to me.

I don't believe its a scare campaign, based upon - nobody is actually scared, everyone is still just that little bit sceptical about it and nobody so far as instigated some kind of world wide change. However, doesnt mean its wrong to stop these people from campaigning for a cleaner less waist-ful world If anything it's a beneficial to us all. It doesnt take a genius to work out how waistful and lacking in resources the world is. Im greatful, whatever the tactics may be for this new way of thinking, It needs to be done at some point, and its better to do it now before things become more crucial.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
J-Dude said:
Okay, your first graph. Yes, there's no doubt on Co2 rising, but here's the reality: If our atmosphere was scaled to the length of a football field high, then the layer of co2 in our atmosphere would be perhaps an inch thick. It's an amazingly small part of our atmosphere. And also, normal co2 levels are equal to 316 parts pe million. The increase that has been made in that regard has been from 316 parts per million, to 376 parts per million, which actually doesn't account for much and is hardly capable of heating the planet to such degrees. I we apply the increase to the football field measure, then the one inch would turn into 1 3/8 inches. It's a lot more carbon dioxixde, but it's still tiny in the scheme of things.
Did you know that the lethal dose of cyanide is 200 mg? That's 0.000267% of my body weight, or 0.01056" by your "model". Surely something so small could never have any real effect, right? Your argument is right up there with that "the human body is too complex" comment, but that is neither here nor there. Chance, ha!
 
Pwns Mastasurf at TF2
Retired Forum Staff
βœ”οΈ HL Verified
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Messages
5,115
Best answers
0
There is no question. End of debate. The science is solid, all scientists worth their salt agree. Furthermore, there is PLENTY of peer reviewed literature out there, whereas that is not so for the opposite view. Also, most of the people claiming that it's false are people who have financial interests in continuing to pollute, politicians in the pocket of said companies for campaign contributions, and scientists who have sold themselves out to said companies for the money.
 
New Member
Joined
May 20, 2006
Messages
207
Best answers
0
Most scientists agree with global warming, but here's the hypthesis I belive:

Global warming is enevetable, all we are doing is speeding it up, but even if we were go-lucky tree-huggers, the envierment would still be changeing. Although some people think this is a "human caused global-warming", they have no evidence of that and are just trying to upsurge the general public.
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
Up here in Boston the strange weather continues.

The state looks like a frozen wasteland thanks to this recent and odd valentine's day "deep freeze." It snowed--for the first and pretty much only time since eary 2006, very strange for Boston--and the snow was pretty thick. However then an unbeknownst pressure change coming in from the ocean--an abnormally warm one for this time of year--raised the temperature back to above freezing IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SNOWSTORM.

Do you know what this means? It means it started frigging POURING OUT while the snow fell, in the middle of the storm.

Quickly the strange warm front dissipated, and as the storm reached its apex temps dropped below freezing again--this all happened in the space of an hour and a half or so.

So yeah. All the rain FROZE within, on top of, and throughout the snow.

Karrde is absolutely right. The debate's long over.

J-Dude--have you been outside in the last ten years? It's obvious to anyone that something is drastically off about the weather, and as this forum shows us, it's not a localized phenomenon.

I think it's time to get with the program, dude.
 
New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2003
Messages
654
Best answers
0
Generalizations that's all that have been stated. Don't just think about what the scientists have told you, think about what makes sense. Does it make sense that the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere coming from mankind (do remember that before us there were other creatures and organisms putting their own spin on atmosphere temperature land topography etc) in an atmosphere that is less than 5% CO2 to begin with, our contribution to that percentage is even smaller. Or is it more feasible to accept that the world is in a constant state of change. Where just because things have been a certain way for so long, doesnt mean that they cannot change.

My argument is not that mankind does not affect the earth at all. My point is that the wold and its climate are more powerful and more resistant to us than some would have you believe.
 
Active Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
1,037
Best answers
0
The earth is older than 2000 years, we don't know if similar phenomena happened long time ago.
But I don't ignore that mankind has an effect on the world.
But even if rising CO2 levels affect the climate, there's no friggin way we could stop that.
Reducing the CO2 exhaustion won't stop anything, because the rise of CO2 levels will still be there, and there is already more than enough of it in the air to change the weather (if those climate researchers are right).

Just my opinion >.<
 
New Member
πŸ’» Oldtimer
Joined
Dec 3, 2002
Messages
2,490
Best answers
0
I'm sorry, there is no way any naturally evolved animal can match the timeframe and extent of our pollutant output.

I mean, the automobile isn't even a hundred years old yet. A blink of an eye, to the planet. And already things have changed drastically. Add in all the other things we do--cut forests down, use nuclear materials for power, fight wars, drill for minerals and oil--and you have a culmination of things that are happening vastly too quickly for nature to course correct.

If there were an abundance of plants doing this whole 'too much pollutants' thing, the change would be very gradual, over thousands of years probably. The atmosphere, evolution in general...it would have time to adapt.

We are too efficient at outpacing evolution, bottom line. If we had developed pollutant output at a gradual rate over many years, it might be different, but the past two hundred years (again, the blink of an eye for the planet) have seen whole forests razed, gas-powered cars spouting CO2 at a rate vastly beyond any natural CO2 emissions on a global level, industrialized zones with nuclear and coal power, etc.

It's not even remotely feasible that we have "caused no effect."

Either way the whole debate is foolish. Whether whats going on is natural or unnatural, we should still take steps to be preventative. Anything less is eventually going to amount to global suicide.
 
New Member
Joined
May 30, 2003
Messages
842
Best answers
0
I think I would be naive to say that global warming or some version of it doesn't exist. Something is happening. Quite clearly our CO2 emissions are not acceptable, and are doing some damage to the environment. However, there is evidence that this rise is partly natural as well. I honestly don't think we know all the facts, and I think to come down square on either side before we know everything there is to know doesn't help.
So long as there are people on this planet that believe the Earth is flat, or that man and all of existence appeared out of thin air by the will of a man, I doubt debating on things like this accomplishes much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top