Global warming, fact or fiction?

[gobucks1]

nothing to say about the first quote?

 

[King Edward]

I ripped this table of of Mr. Bush's EPA website. This is usually what people mean when they say that nature produces many times the CO2 that we do, so hey why worry. You can see in the top line that natural CO2 emissions (all emissions from everything that burns breaths and rots, not just volcanoes) are estimated at 150,000 Mtons while our outputs as of 1995 were just 7500 Mtons, nothing by comparison. But thats not whats important, whats important is how much accumulates in the atmosphere ie whats not absorbed by the sea and breathed by plants, and that is just 3500Mtons...So the end result is WE are responsible for ALL the increase in the atmospheres CO2 levels cause it is our addition that has exceeded natures ability to use CO2. It is us that has caused the imbalance. If we just halved our emissions then we would have stability...And this excludes our emissions of methane (which is 10 times as powerful at warming the planet than CO2) and a hundred other things like HFC's (that can be 1500 times as potent as CO2!)

Also, if you look at the second graph of overall CO2 concntration plotted next to anthropogenic emissions, do you really think its a coincidence that the two rise together???? Whats truly amazing is how much of our snot mother nature has already mopped up without getting angry!!!!

 

[King Edward]

nothing to say about the first quote?

I got lots to say about it starting with it not being true...thought I dig up some facts first for you...

 

[unstopable4700]

i did not read any of this post. none. the reason i answered no is, that our planet has been in constant change since its birth. just as of recent has the people on it been able to record its changes. hence our info of lets say 2000 yrs means nothing. we have no idea what our earth should be doing or the readings should be. the fact of the matter is we havent been here long enuf to know either way. suppossed test have been done in ice and dirt, blah,blah,blah. whos to say what that info should tell you. we cant get a good weather report but they can tell us what the outer atmospher was like 10,000 yrs ago? i'm calling bs. i'm done now

 

[King Edward]

i did not read any of this post. none.

Hmmm, this is starting well...so what your saying is you've read and thought about all the possible reasons we are seeing such rapid fluctuations in climate and that you have come to a thoughtful position that you would like to debate...

the reason i answered no is, that our planet has been in constant change since its birth. just as of recent has the people on it been able to record its changes.

Yes, and for most of this time it has been incapable of supporting human life, so while atmospheric conditions have varied enormously over the last four billion years I, personally, would like to keep them within the very narrow range that I find comfortable....

hence our info of lets say 2000 yrs means nothing. we have no idea what our earth should be doing or the readings should be. the fact of the matter is we havent been here long enuf to know either way.

go back and read the thread.

suppossed test have been done in ice and dirt, blah,blah,blah. whos to say what that info should tell you. we cant get a good weather report but they can tell us what the outer atmospher was like 10,000 yrs ago? i'm calling bs. i'm done now

Right, well given that your are tapping away on your computer I assume you agree that it works. I also assume that you do not deny that nuclear bombs work. Both of these are built on a knowledge of quantum mechanics which also tells us how isotopes (radioactive normal stuff) behave, this is where we get our 'bs' from, these isotopes are detected by mass spectrometry which again we are pretty sure works because it was used to build the first nuclear bombs in the manhattan project. You saying our data i BS is the same as saying computers posting on the internet is BS...ironic, no?

 

[Kobeclone]

i did not read any of this post. none.

Hmmm, this is starting well...so what your saying is you've read and thought about all the possible reasons we are seeing such rapid fluctuations in climate and that you have come to a thoughtful position that you would like to debate...




Yes, and for most of this time it has been incapable of supporting human life, so while atmospheric conditions have varied enormously over the last four billion years I, personally, would like to keep them within the very narrow range that I find comfortable....



go back and read the thread.



Right, well given that your are tapping away on your computer I assume you agree that it works. I also assume that you do not deny that nuclear bombs work. Both of these are built on a knowledge of quantum mechanics which also tells us how isotopes (radioactive normal stuff) behave, this is where we get our 'bs' from, these isotopes are detected by mass spectrometry which again we are pretty sure works because it was used to build the first nuclear bombs in the manhattan project. You saying our data i BS is the same as saying computers posting on the internet is BS...ironic, no?

OWNED! After being totally proven wrong, and frankly embarrassed, I doubt he will be posting here again.

 

[mike dunagan]

Quick point, it has long been accepted by those that are not in favor of the global warming idea that Bush acceptance of the theory is a grave mistake by him. Quoting his governmental report will not sway those who are not in favor of your argument. Most anyone who follows the argument should know that those who are not in agreement with this theory of global warming see Bush's joining on the other side and government trying to scared people into change.

Just trying to help since people are posting information from him over and over again... Those who are against the idea would be the Conservatives in case any was unclear on that.

Also when you are less than 20 you can not say the weather in your life time has changed so much lately as proof of change.

If you in favor of Obama you can not be against Global warming...

There are many who have proof of the lack of global warming caused by Man out their, listen to Rush once in a while and you will scientist after scientists who have reports to contour the ones above... don't say show me... go check his site... also the mass media will not show those reports... It is not doom and gloom enough to make the news... Yellow Journalism has not died, it just be came all of Journalism...

 

[Chaitika]

I actually have no doubt in my mind that we are destroying this planet's climate at an unprecedented rate. Greed brings about destruction, and what is happening to our planet's climate is being driven by greed. I guess what keeps me in denial to some degree is that it is unbelievable that people are prepared to destroy their grandchildren's world in the name of short-term profit.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/

 

[X24]

I ripped this table of of Mr. Bush's EPA website. This is usually what people mean when they say that nature produces many times the CO2 that we do, so hey why worry. You can see in the top line that natural CO2 emissions (all emissions from everything that burns breaths and rots, not just volcanoes) are estimated at 150,000 Mtons while our outputs as of 1995 were just 7500 Mtons, nothing by comparison. But thats not whats important, whats important is how much accumulates in the atmosphere ie whats not absorbed by the sea and breathed by plants, and that is just 3500Mtons...So the end result is WE are responsible for ALL the increase in the atmospheres CO2 levels cause it is our addition that has exceeded natures ability to use CO2. It is us that has caused the imbalance. If we just halved our emissions then we would have stability...And this excludes our emissions of methane (which is 10 times as powerful at warming the planet than CO2) and a hundred other things like HFC's (that can be 1500 times as potent as CO2!)

Also, if you look at the second graph of overall CO2 concntration plotted next to anthropogenic emissions, do you really think its a coincidence that the two rise together???? Whats truly amazing is how much of our snot mother nature has already mopped up without getting angry!!!!

You do realize that CO2 is REQUIRED in the atmosphere. The absorption rate compared to the naturally produced rate is showing me that nature seems to be taking care of the extra CO2 we have put out.

Do you have any fancy charts like this showing how much CO2 was absorbed when we had no impact on the earth? Did you know 2 3/4th million years ago the climate was hotter, had higher sea levels and higher levels of CO2 then now?

Climate shifts whether we are here or not. Blaming something that occurs naturally on humans is basically a way of saying "We are god, we change the earth for the better or the worse" when really we have nothing but the slightest hand in this.

We are currently in an inter-glacial period and this will last a couple million years maybe less maybe more, but all this global warming talk is just people being paranoid. People think it gets hotter every summer, so they check out weather history and see the average temperatures are getting warmer, but its just normal temperature fluctuation. Its like flipping a quarter. Its not always going to be 50/50 heads tails. You may end up with more heads sometimes you may end up with more tails sometimes.

Its not as simple as flipping of coin though, because there IS a little heating up occurring, that was just to show temperature fluctuations as a possible cause for the average temperature being 1-2 degrees warmer over the last 150 years.

If you want to base global warming off of ice cores, then let me tell you, the planet has ALWAYS warmed up in between and before ice ages. That is if the ice cores are as accurate as people think they are.

There is really no proof to man made global warming that can't be proven to be false or really what nature is intending to happen.

One of the few ways i can think of that we COULD alter climate dramatically is by Nuclear Winter, which i believe is much more possible to happen then man made global warming.

 

[Chaitika]

Another part of the David Suzuki site I was glancing through....

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp