Global Warming

I started this to know your opinions, what do you think about the global warming? Can we fix it before its too late?

it's too late, the sun has already passed into the height of it's solar cycle, the earth will burn in cinders, just like in the mid 1900s the scientist said we'd go into an ice age, and it did.

it's all fake, the sun's solar activity is to reach it's peak in 2013, so it gets hotter, and we have a more likely chance of a big solar flare, but it will cool off, and i wasn't lying about that ice age thing, they were taught that.

that does not change the fact that we are adding more co2 into the atmosphere than we were in past times, and that needs to change before something like the global warming theory happens. not only co2 thickens the atmosphere though, water vapor does as well, so nuclear reactors everywhere may not be a great idea, but hydrogen powered cars would be better, even eco friendly if they had a condenser to turn the water vapor into liquid, but the environment may do that on it's own.

attk master wrote:it's too late, the sun has already passed into the height of it's solar cycle, the earth will burn in cinders, just like in the mid 1900s the scientist said we'd go into an ice age, and it did.

it's all fake, the sun's solar activity is to reach it's peak in 2013, so it gets hotter, and we have a more likely chance of a big solar flare, but it will cool off, and i wasn't lying about that ice age thing, they were taught that.

that does not change the fact that we are adding more co2 into the atmosphere than we were in past times, and that needs to change before something like the global warming theory happens. not only co2 thickens the atmosphere though, water vapor does as well, so nuclear reactors everywhere may not be a great idea, but hydrogen powered cars would be better, even eco friendly if they had a condenser to turn the water vapor into liquid, but the environment may do that on it's own.

I agree with you, I think that if we want to change this world (and the contamination problem) we need to change first, don't throw garbage at streets, things like that

Seriously, I don't believe this is just fake or an effect caused by solar activity.
According to the Technical University of berlin only 30% of the climate change since 1980 can be caused by solar activity.
At the Kopenhagen climatecongress in 2009, politicans and scientist signed a contract, in which is stated, that it shouldn't get warmer than +2°C. Right now we are at +0.8°C. The Second thing is that climatemodels calculated that even if we won't increase the CO2 production, the CO2, that we have right now, would warm the climate another 0.8°C. So we already passed 3/4 of the +2°C aim. The third fact is: Climate scientist claculated that +2°C would be the same as +565 gigatons CO2. According to a report from the Carbon Tracker Initiative the CO2, which is released if the companies burn there current stocks of oil, gas and coal, has a mas of 2795 gigatons which is 5 times higher than the 565 gigatons.

I believe it's already to late to stop the progress, because there won't be an inventer, who can sell electric cars and so on cheaply in the near future. Even if he could, politicans and the guys from the carproduction would stop him.

codingstyle wrote:Seriously, I don't believe this is just fake or an effect caused by solar activity.
According to the Technical University of berlin only 30% of the climate change since 1980 can be caused by solar activity.
At the Kopenhagen climatecongress in 2009, politicans and scientist signed a contract, in which is stated, that it shouldn't get warmer than +2°C. Right now we are at +0.8°C. The Second thing is that climatemodels calculated that even if we won't increase the CO2 production, the CO2, that we have right now, would warm the climate another 0.8°C. So we already passed 3/4 of the +2°C aim. The third fact is: Climate scientist claculated that +2°C would be the same as +565 gigatons CO2. According to a report from the Carbon Tracker Initiative the CO2, which is released if the companies burn there current stocks of oil, gas and coal, has a mas of 2795 gigatons which is 5 times higher than the 565 gigatons.

I believe it's already to late to stop the progress, because there won't be an inventer, who can sell electric cars and so on cheaply in the near future. Even if he could, politicans and the guys from the carproduction would stop him.

let's look at mars. mars has a very thin atmosphere, we have an atmosphere perfect for our form of life to live. in order to terraform mars and get the atmosphere to where ours is, it would take 10,000 years according to scientists. the industrial era started in 1760, you're telling me 252 years of a moderate output of co2 can cause our atmosphere to heat up this much? i seriously doubt that.

now for some math:

they're saying it is a +.8 C change over the course of 30 years, or at least that's how it seems from the way you worded it.

252/32 = 7.875 x .8 = 6.3

so in the course of 252 years the temperature has gone up by 6.3 C

in order to terraform mars the goal temperature would be 25 C, going from -55 C to 25 X is a +80 C change

80/6.3 = 12.6984126984127 x 252 = 3,200 years at the current rate of pollution...that's not even ½ of 10000.

lets see the effects on earth:

for a change of +25 C it would take 1000 years

for a change of +50 C it would take 2000 years

so...6.3 C increase every 252 years.

someone is lying, i think it's the scientists that provide the data, and calculate it. there's no reason to lie about how long it would take to terraform mars, but green products do make money. i see what may possibly be happening here, do you?

attk master wrote:
let's look at mars. mars has a very thin atmosphere, we have an atmosphere perfect for our form of life to live. in order to terraform mars and get the atmosphere to where ours is, it would take 10,000 years according to scientists. the industrial era started in 1760, you're telling me 252 years of a moderate output of co2 can cause our atmosphere to heat up this much? i seriously doubt that.

now for some math:

they're saying it is a +.8 C change over the course of 30 years, or at least that's how it seems from the way you worded it.

252/32 = 7.875 x .8 = 6.3

so in the course of 252 years the temperature has gone up by 6.3 C

in order to terraform mars the goal temperature would be 25 C, going from -55 C to 25 X is a +80 C change

80/6.3 = 12.6984126984127 x 252 = 3,200 years at the current rate of pollution...that's not even ½ of 10000.

lets see the effects on earth:

for a change of +25 C it would take 1000 years

for a change of +50 C it would take 2000 years

so...6.3 C increase every 252 years.

someone is lying, i think it's the scientists that provide the data, and calculate it. there's no reason to lie about how long it would take to terraform mars, but green products do make money. i see what may possibly be happening here, do you?

I must admit that i don't see what's happening in your opinion.

Firstly the scientist, aren't the one's, who are producing green-products and many of them aren't paid by the producers of green stuff, they are paid by university and so on.

Secondly I want to ask you to post some acadamic sources, that prove, that the warming can be caused only by solar activity.

Third, your calculations are wrong.
You assume that the warming caused by CO2 is liniar, else your calculations wouldn't make sense.
But the equation is way more complex and not liniar.

Example: If you constantly add CO2 over a periode of 1000 years, it would be something like: 50% of the total warming in the first 750 years and 50% of the total warming in the last 250 years.
(keep in mind: earth has more "starting CO2" than mars)

Also, on earth there are FCHs (bigger effect than CO2) and I don't think they would use FSHs on mars because they want to create an ozonosphere and not destroy it.

But you're right someone is lying.
But who is it? You skipped one side of this aspect. Who is the other side, the non -green products side?
Well there are the companies, who make their money with coal, oil and gas, there is the huge car industry.
So who do you believe has more impact on studies, politicans and scientists?
The green stuff producers or the concerns like BMW and BP?

I hope you understood my points, I know my english isn't perfect

codingstyle wrote:

attk master wrote:
let's look at mars. mars has a very thin atmosphere, we have an atmosphere perfect for our form of life to live. in order to terraform mars and get the atmosphere to where ours is, it would take 10,000 years according to scientists. the industrial era started in 1760, you're telling me 252 years of a moderate output of co2 can cause our atmosphere to heat up this much? i seriously doubt that.

now for some math:

they're saying it is a +.8 C change over the course of 30 years, or at least that's how it seems from the way you worded it.

252/32 = 7.875 x .8 = 6.3

so in the course of 252 years the temperature has gone up by 6.3 C

in order to terraform mars the goal temperature would be 25 C, going from -55 C to 25 X is a +80 C change

80/6.3 = 12.6984126984127 x 252 = 3,200 years at the current rate of pollution...that's not even ½ of 10000.

lets see the effects on earth:

for a change of +25 C it would take 1000 years

for a change of +50 C it would take 2000 years

so...6.3 C increase every 252 years.

someone is lying, i think it's the scientists that provide the data, and calculate it. there's no reason to lie about how long it would take to terraform mars, but green products do make money. i see what may possibly be happening here, do you?

I must admit that i don't see what's happening in your opinion.

Firstly the scientist, aren't the one's, who are producing green-products and many of them aren't paid by the producers of green stuff, they are paid by university and so on.

Secondly I want to ask you to post some acadamic sources, that prove, that the warming can be caused only by solar activity.

Third, your calculations are wrong.
You assume that the warming caused by CO2 is liniar, else your calculations wouldn't make sense.
But the equation is way more complex and not liniar.

Example: If you constantly add CO2 over a periode of 1000 years, it would be something like: 50% of the total warming in the first 750 years and 50% of the total warming in the last 250 years.
(keep in mind: earth has more "starting CO2" than mars)

Also, on earth there are FCHs (bigger effect than CO2) and I don't think they would use FSHs on mars because they want to create an ozonosphere and not destroy it.

But you're right someone is lying.
But who is it? You skipped one side of this aspect. Who is the other side, the non -green products side?
Well there are the companies, who make their money with coal, oil and gas, there is the huge car industry.
So who do you believe has more impact on studies, politicans and scientists?
The green stuff producers or the concerns like BMW and BP?

I hope you understood my points, I know my english isn't perfect

the scientist are being paid by big corporations, universities are for profit, and get donations from big corporations. there are many sources on google about this, click here for a news article about the climate summit in copenhagen. i clearly stated that the calculations were based on a linear pattern, but using the .8 as a constant, ofc that is known to go up, yet i cannot predict it as i don't have the data, so based on that my calculations would be right. i don't know how you got those answers, but they look wrong, there was no significant output of co2 until 1760, when the industrial era started, so it would be more like 100%+ in the past 750 years and easily 50%+ over the past 250 years. either way yes earth does have more pollution, which is the problem itself, not the warming i still believe it's causes by solar activity, i dont' know if you can comprehend distances in space, as most people cannot, it's really overwhelming, but based on what i see the .8 C increase could easily be from the sun's increased solar activity, we're just a mere 93 million miles from the sun, meanwhile alpha centauri is 4.367 light years or 2.56714087 × 10^13 miles from us and we still receive radiation from it. if you don't realize how vast distances are maybe try this, you might understand why this could easily be possible. http://workshop.chromeexperiments.com/stars/ look at the distance we are from the sun, look at how big the sun it in our sky, realize how powerful it is? imagine what were to happen if it were to get more powerful, that's why i believe it's solar radiation. either way someone is lying, it's big corporation, don't forget the same companies who make non-green products may make green products, they are profitable. scientists ofc have more impact on studies, they're the ones conducting them, they have the direct data, but they're human and they like money more than life, which is absurd, but that's the world we live in. something has gotta give, pollution still exists, and that is the real problem i believe, not the warming.

It's very real and some people need to realise it. Im not the type of person to showve my oppinion down the neck of somebody who doesn't share it with me, but I change my tune in some circumstances.

Those being 2012, flat earth and global warming.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=cdd5e2439f7b7345e9c6b9a673418876

I've heard oppinions saying "All the CO2 from fossil fuels will just diffuse into the greater atmosphere and nothing will happen"

Fair enough lets entertain that idea, now lets remind ourselves that we have been pumping stupid ammounts of this stuff up for almost 200 years. And this has been happening 24/7 for 200 years.

To blame it on the sun is PARTIALY valid but you cannot ignore the fact that burning all of this has to have SOME impact on the planet.

Biggest cause of greenhouse gases = Water vapor. We don't help with the pollution. But we also reduced the CO2 emission by over 20% the last 10 years, with all this global warming stuff.

Even with clear evidence of warming, we still can't stay 100% certain "global warming" will continue, because we just don't know.
(Source: My geology professor- he has been in the field for over 43 years).

I like turtles wrote:It's very real and some people need to realise it. Im not the type of person to showve my oppinion down the neck of somebody who doesn't share it with me, but I change my tune in some circumstances.

Those being 2012, flat earth and global warming.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=cdd5e2439f7b7345e9c6b9a673418876

I've heard oppinions saying "All the CO2 from fossil fuels will just diffuse into the greater atmosphere and nothing will happen"

Fair enough lets entertain that idea, now lets remind ourselves that we have been pumping stupid ammounts of this stuff up for almost 200 years. And this has been happening 24/7 for 200 years.

To blame it on the sun is PARTIALY valid but you cannot ignore the face that burning all of this has to have SOME impact on the planet.

you seemed to have missed my calculations for thickening the atmosphere on mars, it would take 3200 years putting the same amount of pollution we put out on earth in 1 day to make mars go from -55 C to 25 C at a constant rate of .8 C/252 years. pollution is a cause, but the sun is doing most of the warming imo, this isn't just a matter of putting water vapor and co2 into the air, it's a matter of the intensity of the sun. most people cannot comprehend distance in space, look at my post above yours, maybe you'll understand where i'm coming from.

you're ignoring data that's right in front of you, take a look and you'll see how we're being affected, keep in mind those calculations are linear and basic, those aren't 100% correct, just a simple calculation attempting to see the effects of our pollution output on a planet with a very thin atmosphere.

I believe the global warming occurring today is a natural cycle that the Earth goes through.It warms up then cools and that cycle continues. I believe we have little effect on it, and at the moment the cycle is peaking and will begin to fall and cool down.

colactix wrote:I believe the global warming occurring today is a natural cycle that the Earth goes through.It warms up then cools and that cycle continues. I believe we have little effect on it, and at the moment the cycle is peaking and will begin to fall and cool down.

i agree, but we do have an effect on it, we're still pumping massive amounts of pollution into the atmosphere, which makes it thicker. refer to my calculations to see how we affect it, it may not be much but it is still some. and when stating your opinion do back it up with a reason why you think so and add facts to back your reason why up.

Yes I agree with attk, we should do something about it although it's natural and changing if we don't do anything about it we will have a rough time in 30-40 years.

Well Gohan you do point out a valid arguement, but if we refered to attk masters calculations it makes more sense.... I repped you for your effort anyway, I can see your new reputation is something you earn from helping people.

Medo wrote:Biggest cause of greenhouse gases = Water vapor. We don't help with the pollution. But we also reduced the CO2 emission by over 20% the last 10 years, with all this global warming stuff.

Even with clear evidence of warming, we still can't stay 100% certain "global warming" will continue, because we just don't know.
(Source: My geology professor- he has been in the field for over 43 years).

I know that this thread is gravedug a bit, but I want to point something out:

It's true that water vapor is the gas most responsible for the greenhouse effect. But water vapor doesn't cause warming by itself. The amount of water vapor our atmosphere holds is a function of the temperature. Which is to say, the warmer it gets, the more water vapor gets collected. There is a correlation between the increase in evaporation and the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike water vapor, which is constantly cycling in and out of the atmosphere within WEEKS, carbon dioxide sticks around for DECADES.

So basically:

Water vapor helps warm the planet. Carbon dioxide also warms the planet. As the planet gets warmer, there is more evaporation. Completely normal. However the amount of carbon dioxide increasing means that more water vapor is created, which worsens the effects of the carbon dioxide, making the temperature go further. Meaning that it creates a much deeper cycle.

So the water vapor argument is not necessarily true. And you're right, Medo, we don't actually know if the trend will continue. We haven't been studying the Earth's temperature for long enough to actively predict whether the warming will continue. What we do know is that carbon emissions are a part of the reason the water vapor increases, which causes further wild temperatures. I think having an intelligent discussion about global warming and climate changes is relevant, but I also believe that a lot of the foundations for the skeptics are actually weak and only serve as disinformation.

JIGL0JAY wrote:

Medo wrote:Biggest cause of greenhouse gases = Water vapor. We don't help with the pollution. But we also reduced the CO2 emission by over 20% the last 10 years, with all this global warming stuff.

Even with clear evidence of warming, we still can't stay 100% certain "global warming" will continue, because we just don't know.
(Source: My geology professor- he has been in the field for over 43 years).

I know that this thread is gravedug a bit, but I want to point something out:

It's true that water vapor is the gas most responsible for the greenhouse effect. But water vapor doesn't cause warming by itself. The amount of water vapor our atmosphere holds is a function of the temperature. Which is to say, the warmer it gets, the more water vapor gets collected. There is a correlation between the increase in evaporation and the amount of carbon dioxide emissions. Unlike water vapor, which is constantly cycling in and out of the atmosphere within WEEKS, carbon dioxide sticks around for DECADES.

So basically:

Water vapor helps warm the planet. Carbon dioxide also warms the planet. As the planet gets warmer, there is more evaporation. Completely normal. However the amount of carbon dioxide increasing means that more water vapor is created, which worsens the effects of the carbon dioxide, making the temperature go further. Meaning that it creates a much deeper cycle.

So the water vapor argument is not necessarily true. And you're right, Medo, we don't actually know if the trend will continue. We haven't been studying the Earth's temperature for long enough to actively predict whether the warming will continue. What we do know is that carbon emissions are a part of the reason the water vapor increases, which causes further wild temperatures. I think having an intelligent discussion about global warming and climate changes is relevant, but I also believe that a lot of the foundations for the skeptics are actually weak and only serve as disinformation.

That is a good point. I just don't understand the disagreements between experts, but then again ignoring the situation is a more of a harm then talking about it.

Medo wrote:That is a good point. I just don't understand the disagreements between experts, but then again ignoring the situation is a more of a harm then talking about it.

In reference to climategate, nothing scandalous or out of the ordinary was found in those emails. There were rude remarks, but that was about it. In Feb 2010, Pennsylvania State University did an investigation and found that there were no attempts at falsifying or retracting data. In March 2010, the UK government's House of Commons Science and Technology Committee filed a report that found that there was nothing out of the ordinary. In April 2010, the University of East Anglia set up an international panel to investigate. They found no malpractice. I wouldn't take it at completely face value, but July 2010 the EPA also stated that there was no false data. In 2011, the National Science Foundation concluded there was "no research misconduct or other matter raised by the various regulations and laws discussed above, this case is closed".

Scientists aren't in disagreement with themselves about climate change. That would require there to be an international conspiracy to cover up the global warming.

Between 1993 and 2003, all the studies about climate change and not a single paper rejected the consensus that further global warming is man-made.

Let me list off some basic arguments and their counter points:

• Climate changes over time, this has happened before

Yes it has, whenever a dominating force in the environment is changing it.

• The sun causes global warming, clearly

Unfortunately, solar activity and climate have gone in opposite directions.

Red line: Global temperature (from NASA)
Blue line (1979-2009): Solar irradiance [activity] (from PMOD)

• 1934 was the hottest on record.

Only in the US, which accounts for 2% of land in the world. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998, with 2005 and 2010 as the hottest.

• Medieval warming period did the same thing.

Global temperatures are higher now than they were then. There are different reasons for climate change now than there were then. Our CO2 emissions create more water vapor, making it even hotter than before. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

I'm gonna make a machine that sucks up CO2 and become rich and live happily ever after

plexiscore wrote:I'm gonna make a machine that sucks up CO2 and become rich and live happily ever after

What would that machine run off of?

If it absorbs CO2, what does it do with it?

Who would pay you for it, and why hasn't anyone else done that?

I know you're just spamming for post count, but these are serious questions.

Hey, aren't you that guy that thought I didn't have any sheep?

Zyger wrote:Hey, aren't you that guy that thought I didn't have any sheep?

Firstly, I assumed you weren't serious, especially because I doubt that someone would come on a forum such as this to buy livestock.

Secondly, all of this isn't relevant at all. If you're not going to answer me questions and continue to post irrelevant things, I'll get a mod to delete these posts.

Your idea of a CO2 machine is extremely naive and absent minded. It has no basis in reality because if it were really that simple, someone would have done it already.

JIGL0JAY wrote:

Zyger wrote:Hey, aren't you that guy that thought I didn't have any sheep?

Firstly, I assumed you weren't serious, especially because I doubt that someone would come on a forum such as this to buy livestock.

Secondly, all of this isn't relevant at all. If you're not going to answer me questions and continue to post irrelevant things, I'll get a mod to delete these posts.

Your idea of a CO2 machine is extremely naive and absent minded. It has no basis in reality because if it were really that simple, someone would have done it already.

Yes, this.

Global warming is a myth, since the beginning of time there have been periods of excessive heat and at other points in time there have been periods of excessive cold.

Drygores wrote:Global warming is a myth, since the beginning of time there have been periods of excessive heat and at other points in time there have been periods of excessive cold.

I'm starting to think you're spamming this section. please refer to my signature for help when posting in the debate section. Global warming definitely happened in the past but for a completely different reason. You provide no source, no statistic, and therefore your claim is baseless and dishonest.