By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - What Do You Like Most About Global Warming?

Rath on 23 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Did I see a (reliable) graph of solar activity being closely followed by the Earth's temperature, or am I imagining?

 

Imagining. Solar activity is one of the things that have been ruled out as a major cause.

 

I promise you all the money in the world, without question, the #1 factor contributing to global warming is the sun. No question.

Without it, we would be a lot colder ;)

But I of course meant for the modern rise in temperature =O

@Kasz. Isn't that exactly the same solution as the ones proposed for anthropogenic global warming - reduce the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (whether through cutting emissions or through removing stuff already there)?

 

Indeed.  The difference is that people who support anthropogenic global warming greatly underestimate the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced natuarally.

At one point it's even been suggested that manmade greenhouse gases are somehow "worse" then regular gases despite having the same atomic structure to explain this.

People just don't talk about it anymore though.

I think of it like being on a sinking ship.  Sure you could of left the faucet on... and that is going to stop the bathroom from flooding... but your ignoring the huge hole in the wall.

 

Its the straw that breaks the camels back. Humans are undoubtably increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses significantly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses#Natural_and_anthropogenic).

Manmade ones are only worse than natural ones because they are the ones that are upsetting the balance that has been around for at least the past 10,000 years (which has been a period of extreme environmental stability).



Around the Network
bardicverse on 23 October 2008

I have 2 favs -
1 - Everyone will die. Yay! I finally get my wish.
2 - I get to swim. A lot. Waterworld, anyone? ;)



Kasz216 on 23 October 2008
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Did I see a (reliable) graph of solar activity being closely followed by the Earth's temperature, or am I imagining?

 

Imagining. Solar activity is one of the things that have been ruled out as a major cause.

 

I promise you all the money in the world, without question, the #1 factor contributing to global warming is the sun. No question.

Without it, we would be a lot colder ;)

But I of course meant for the modern rise in temperature =O

@Kasz. Isn't that exactly the same solution as the ones proposed for anthropogenic global warming - reduce the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (whether through cutting emissions or through removing stuff already there)?

 

Indeed.  The difference is that people who support anthropogenic global warming greatly underestimate the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced natuarally.

At one point it's even been suggested that manmade greenhouse gases are somehow "worse" then regular gases despite having the same atomic structure to explain this.

People just don't talk about it anymore though.

I think of it like being on a sinking ship.  Sure you could of left the faucet on... and that is going to stop the bathroom from flooding... but your ignoring the huge hole in the wall.

 

Its the straw that breaks the camels back. Humans are undoubtably increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses significantly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses#Natural_and_anthropogenic).

Manmade ones are only worse than natural ones because they are the ones that are upsetting the balance that has been around for at least the past 10,000 years (which has been a period of extreme environmental stability).

That's not what has been argued though.  It's been argued that manmade gasses are "heavier" because when you science like a buisness (like our modern system does) you end up people defending hypothisis by making guesses and changes in variables to make their numbers play out.

Which is why I don't trust computer models.

 



Kasz216 on 23 October 2008
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
Did I see a (reliable) graph of solar activity being closely followed by the Earth's temperature, or am I imagining?

 

Imagining. Solar activity is one of the things that have been ruled out as a major cause.

 

I promise you all the money in the world, without question, the #1 factor contributing to global warming is the sun. No question.

Without it, we would be a lot colder ;)

But I of course meant for the modern rise in temperature =O

@Kasz. Isn't that exactly the same solution as the ones proposed for anthropogenic global warming - reduce the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (whether through cutting emissions or through removing stuff already there)?

 

Indeed.  The difference is that people who support anthropogenic global warming greatly underestimate the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced natuarally.

At one point it's even been suggested that manmade greenhouse gases are somehow "worse" then regular gases despite having the same atomic structure to explain this.

People just don't talk about it anymore though.

I think of it like being on a sinking ship.  Sure you could of left the faucet on... and that is going to stop the bathroom from flooding... but your ignoring the huge hole in the wall.

 

Its the straw that breaks the camels back. Humans are undoubtably increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses significantly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses#Natural_and_anthropogenic).

Manmade ones are only worse than natural ones because they are the ones that are upsetting the balance that has been around for at least the past 10,000 years (which has been a period of extreme environmental stability).

 

That doesn't tell anything to be but gives me a correlation.  Which is fairly pointless considering all the many many different factors at work.

Greenhouse gases also didn't start increasing during the industrial age.  They started increasing slightly before the industrial age.



akuma587 on 23 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

But I of course meant for the modern rise in temperature =O

@Kasz. Isn't that exactly the same solution as the ones proposed for anthropogenic global warming - reduce the greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (whether through cutting emissions or through removing stuff already there)?

 

Indeed.  The difference is that people who support anthropogenic global warming greatly underestimate the amount of greenhouse gases that are produced natuarally.

At one point it's even been suggested that manmade greenhouse gases are somehow "worse" then regular gases despite having the same atomic structure to explain this.

People just don't talk about it anymore though.

I think of it like being on a sinking ship.  Sure you could of left the faucet on... and that is going to stop the bathroom from flooding... but your ignoring the huge hole in the wall.

 

Generally they ARE worse, not because of their atomic structure, but because most of the man-made sources of CO2 produce a lot of OTHER pollutants.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
Rath on 23 October 2008
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

Its the straw that breaks the camels back. Humans are undoubtably increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses significantly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gasses#Natural_and_anthropogenic).

Manmade ones are only worse than natural ones because they are the ones that are upsetting the balance that has been around for at least the past 10,000 years (which has been a period of extreme environmental stability).

That's not what has been argued though.  It's been argued that manmade gasses are "heavier" because when you science like a buisness (like our modern system does) you end up people defending hypothisis by making guesses and changes in variables to make their numbers play out.

Which is why I don't trust computer models.

 

Where did you see that argument? I certainly have never heard of people arguing that man made greenhouse gasses are physically worse.

 



MrBubbles on 23 October 2008

i also like all the snow i get to shovel



"I like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

stclam on 24 October 2008

it's a hoax



JustinUK on 24 October 2008

That a lot of people dismiss it thinking it won't affect them but give no thought to their children and grand-children.