Global warming is 'irreversible'

Post Reply New Topic

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7852628.stm

I'm probably not going to make many friends by saying this but it's something I feel I need to get off my chest.

Global warming is a myth. Before you react with SHOCK and anger let me continue.

The Earth has gone through, currently goes through, and will continue to go through, cycles of warming and cooling. These cycles generally last for ~10,000 thousands years. It's not only arrogant to assume WE humans are causing it but I believe it is also foolish to ignore what many in Science and Agricultural community are finding.

Source: Science @ NASA



Source: "Global Warming and Solar Radiation"



Source: "Effect of Solar Cycle on Climate" by Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Seattle Washington



Source: Center for Global Food Issues

I also found this graph from Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The graph shows real CO2 (red line) and temperature cycle (blue line) Earth has gone through over the last 650,000 years compared to today's CO2 concentration. Notice the red and blue graph lines between 600,000 and 100,000 follow a predictable pattern. Compare that to the insane "spike" to right. That's not exactly REAL or scientific.

If people really wanted to worry about something worry about compact fluorescent lamps. Nearly every lamp has the symbol (Hg). That's the symbol for mercury on the periodic table of elements. Why is that important?



Source: Wikipedia

Ask yourself what would you do if a fluorescent light ever broke in your house? o_o

I know this might be hard to understand but you really need to educate yourself on stuff like this. DON'T let the hype of being green and having a small carbon footprint fool you. You are not causing global warming any more than that hot pizza you ordered last night, or your tall latte. The fact is the "Greendustry" has become the new dotcom in America. It's a business venture with greed at its roots just like any other. And like the dotcom, one day it will bust. A lie can only go on for so long...

I hope you found this informative and I hope you guys don't hate me.

'man-made' global warming is the biggest crock of crap that the counter-culture has ever tried to get over on the voting consumer.

Are we really supposed to be worried about a figure as miniscule as 350-parts-per-million? Are ya kidding me?! That is equivalent to only 3-&-a-half strides of a 6-mile run -- GIMME A BREAK!

Global warming is real. Global cooling is real. What is not real is that we humans are the cause or primary cause of it. There was a time when Greenland was ... well .... green. Before the Little Ice Age the world was warmer than it is now.

Lots of things cause climatic variation:

cosmic ray inflow which influences cloud formation
orbital variation.
variation in the tilt of the earth to the plane of the ecliptic
solar output variations including sunspot activity.

And yes there is CO2 production by humans. But global warming has, in the past, led the increase in atmospheric CO2 , not followed it.

The Chicken's Little of Climatic Change love to attribute the nasty changes to what people do. That is so that have a pretext for making regulations and imposing their will upon what people do. The best way to introduce Tyranny is to declare an Emergency, so that "temporary" regulations maybe be introduced and that the great number of people will accept interference with their lives for what appears to be "the greater good".

ruveyn

I only say it because that industry and line of thinking is one of the things Obama wants to "address". If he was really honest he would seek out members from the Agricultural and Science communities. Very quickly he would realize there's no factual evidence global warning is man-made. And of all people I would expect Obama, a LAWYER, to seek the truth. As Captain Picard said once, "Your honor, the courtroom is a crucible; in it, we burn away irrelevancies until we are left with a purer product: the truth, for all time." Why can't Obama burn away irrelevancies? I'll tell you why... because its not about saving the planet. It's about how you FEEL. The entire culture bent on some fool-hardy crusade that means absolutely nothing but it makes them feel good at the end of the day. It really is like a cosmic joke on us, and literally goes like this... "Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." THAT is what global warming is.

I wish more people would see it.

Last edited by kxmode on 28 Jan 2009, 8:06 am, edited 2 times in total.

Not to deviate off topic too much but that's happening right now in the economic sector. and more...

"Obama's centerpiece tax cut would provide $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple for low and middle-income wage earners, including those who do not earn enough to owe income taxes."
source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/obama_economy

including those who do not earn enough to owe income taxes is socialism in its purest form.

Eh, when every peer-reviewed study that's come out in the last few years starts pointing toward your theory, maybe you'll have something. But for the time being, the evidence is pointing very strongly in the direction of climate change being man-made. Where do you think that enormous spike in CO2 has come from? As you said, it doesn't appear earlier in the graph where man didn't have an influence.

Really, when the oceans are a lot bigger, mass wise, than the atomosphere, and we've already polluted it with enough mercury and heavy metals to make most fish dangerous to eat, then why is the idea that we could pollute the atomosphere to the same point of change so hard for you to believe?

Well in either case, we humans still damage the world we live in. China and Japan are very poluted. THe whole ocean has, God knows, because of our kind. When it rains here in the city I live in, those chemicles that peel paint off concreet, oil, and other drippings from cars, ect. go down the storm drain and into the ocean. WHen I visited the gulf there, it smelled like damp old bread with oil. It stank, and I didn't want to stay outside. THat all goes into the shrimp that is caught and given to the public, amung many other things. In fact, as I looked out there were "clear" spots in the water. ugh.

Last edited by LiendaBalla on 28 Jan 2009, 9:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not very sure about how much humans have to do with it but what I do now is that the frequently repeated claim "the scientists are now agreeing" is %(%/¤&¤ BS.

It was started by Al Gore in 2006, the ~900 climate-studies, pretty much all of them had noted or concluded that there was both measured increase in Co2 as well as measured increase in temperature. RIGHT, THERE IT IS, SCIENTISTS ARE IN AGREEMENT, AL GORE IS RIGHT!

..... no wait, the fact that they all made such a notion does not mean they are all agreeing with Al Gore, or saying we should do anything but rug our shoulders. That man is a bloody skilled crafter of missleading propaganda, and his movie is full of similar examples, sigh.

There are evidently enough scientists, who think Al Gore and Co. are idiots, to craft media and studies that are harshly sceptic to his claims.
There are plenty of scientists with valid studies saying that what humans do does not matter at all.

Scientists are not in agreement, no.

note: I do not claim that we shouldn't do anything about the possible phenomenom of global warming, but what I do know is that people need to learn some healthy scepticism.

It is not pollution, it is about a natural balance, which is possibly threatened, between Co2 and O2 in the atmosphere.

And imo that's pretty important to distinguish, look at it like this: Co2 and O2 belong in the atmosphere just like carbs and protein belongs in your body, if you eat 10mg of copper/day(pollution/poisoning) you will die pretty soon, but if you add 100g of carbs/day, you will effect the natural balance, but it's very unlikely that you will get any problem.

It's the same with the greenhouse effect, when it's being mentioned that human technology is only responsible to less than 2% of the Co2 the earth produce/day, many thinks: "but if we keep doing that for several years, it will build up....", well it doesn't work like that.

This article has the stupidity and gall to refer to a 1000 year interval (and that has yet to proved) as a permanent change. The earth is 4.5 thousand million years old. A thousand years if 1/4.5 millionths of the age of the earth.

ruveyun

Quick review in Science

Reviews peer reviewed lit. related to climate change. Draws conclusion that near totality of literature endorses man-made global warming or makes no comment on the origin at all.

If anyone can find a review of comparable scale and reputability published more recently then I'd love to see it.

Of course there are natural cycles. It doesn't mean that humans aren't changing the cycles. Soil erosion is a natural phenomenon, yet humans can accelerate it greatly. In many areas, human accelerated erosion is greater and more destructive.

Actually, he is doing exactly that - reversing a 8 year period where oil company lackeys overruled science whenever they didn't want to hear what science had to say.

Agricultural researchers recognize that human activities are changing the atmosphere, while impoverishing our soils. Not all of them believe that increased carbon will change climate, but that is outside of their expertise. There expertise does tell them that adding nitrogen to soils speeds up the destruction of organic matter, releasing large quantities of CO2. In the prime farm lands of the US, the amount of organic matter in the soil has declined by 50% since these soils were first broken by the plows (starting in 1810-1850).

Semantics.

People think of the existing coastlines as permanent, and they build accordingly. Is that stupid? In the long run, all of these houses may be underwater, or the lake front lot may be 200 yards inland.

Others think of the climate as fixed, and they plant citrus groves or spruce forrests according. Are they morons, or living within a reasonable definition of fixed or permanent?

Cool. Can you post a couple links where I can read that President Obama is consulting with the Agricultural and Science communities? Thanks!

Science Debate 2008: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008 ... ers-y.html

So the News in 2059:

Bern, Switzerland:
The administrative committee "Floated Netherlands" introduced a new scheme for under water tourist in Amsterdam. A 15% raise of the newly raised charges for diving in the former city of Amsterdam will be used for investments into public transport in Amsterdam-II in Swizz Alps.

Brussels:
The Scottish olive tree farmer protested against plans of the EU-commission to cut their substitutes in favour to the wine growers in Nord-Norway.

Athens:
The price for one m^3 water at the ex-change in Athens sunk the first time since three year yesterday morning, but raised drastically just hours later. The Regulator investigates into accusation that rumours were spread for the first rain in seven years for the purpose of an unlawful manipulation of the exchange. The price stabilized at €560.00. The Greek government declared that the daily ration of 1.5 litre of water is safe, regardless the speculation.

Moscow:
The Russian Ministry for Agriculture published today its new plan to limit the over production of pineapple and bananas in Siberia.