Many people consider global warming to be a problem that must be corrected or it will be all of humanities downfall. However, I also know some people that think it is a hoax, or the problem is not developed enough to worry about. I would like to know what you guys think about it. Thanks.
There are two studies that I regard as the absolute worst science of the twentieth century: the first was the ozone hole. These idiots postulated a question that had only one possible answer and then acted surprised when it turned out to be true. Specifically, in no uncertain terms and intent for no ambiguity, I know that the sum total of human activity in all of history (recorded or otherwise), did not contribute to the formation or the existence of the ozone hole. Let me put it this way: Do you know what the biggest destroyer of ozone is? The Sun. The sun has the greatest interaction with the atmosphere (at least in these respects) over the poles where the Van Allen magnetic field enters the crust and particles are allowed to follow it down. This is the same effect that leads to aurora (want to see ozone destruction in action? watch the northern lights sometime). The poles are the region where the ozone is most at jeopardy and the hardest to replenish. Add in some other interesting effect derrived from ice having a high albedo and there never should have been any ozone there to begin with. And the hole will change sizes, appear to stabilize, shrink, and go through a complex behaivor governed mostly by the eleven year solar cycle (offset by a production lag), and to a lesser degree the area of ice available underneath it. I was seething mad when eco-nazis saw the hole stabilize and then patted themselves on the back for it. Despite the fact that a number of people, myself included, had predicted this behaivor right down to the month, they still took it as some kind of huge victory for the enviornment. Like I said, it was some of the worst science of the last century, and today we're still wrestling with it's legacy. The bandwagon was so huge and so many formerly respected people bought off on it that it had a life of it's own. Today, 10 years later, there are still people talking about it and NASA's orbiting probes to study it under the guise of "studying the sun's interaction with ozone depletion." They won't come right out and say "we fucked this all up" because it has too much momentum and they'll lose the last schreds of credibility they have. So they're doing a couple decades of research until everyone has forgotten how it all got started and then they'll lose interest. It's all politics now, which all but precludes the possibility of rational thought. The same is becoming true of global waming. The lack of evidence is almost as apalling and mechanisms are being speculated at with less than 25 years of careful observation. Running a close second to that insult is the sideshow of Global Warming. Having the same lack of factual support (grounded in biased data collection and patently stupid experimentation), global warming has systematically used correlation to imply causality. The only two things that are known for certain is that: Average global thermal count had been increasing in the timespan of the measurements. Human CO2 production had been increasing, also in the timespan of the measurements. That was seemingly all the linkage these people needed to construct a vast and complex mechanism for them to actually be related. They then back is up with measurements taken 10 miles downwind from and active volcano to show the horrors that civilization is bringing to the poor defenseless planet. There are prehaps 30 people on the planet who are making a honest and truly scientific investigation, and sadly, they are getting lost in the static generated by the people whose most compelling arguement is "can we afford to wait?" My own response to that would be "do we even get a choice?" With the numbers they create their own studies would indicate that we're already fucked, so why bother? The reduction of CO2 production is probably going to be a good thing, but for absolutely none of the reason the global warming supporters would have you believe. I have ignored them (as opposed to attacking them) based on the strength of this belief alone. Global Warming is absolutely happening. Yet we have absolutely no idea how much humans have to do with it, if anything at all. Just like the ozone hole theory, global warming will die a quiet death in the coming years and will undoubtedly be replaced with something else. We've seen this kind of long term faddish nonsense before and it has yet again taken on a different form. I've have been singularly unimpressed by their preformance this time around. I fully support research into finding the cause behind global thermal count fluctuation. I also support the reduction of human CO2 output for tertiary reasons - none of which have to do with climate. However, if you read up on the EPA's site, they have it in text that there is no conclusive evidence that human CO2 production has anything to do with the temperature fluctuations. I mean, the middle ages were warmer than today, so go figure. While many of the frothing Greenpeace weenies do have somewhat of a noble intent as an impetus for their actions, with all the negative attention whoring their rhetoric draws to the cause, we would quite frankly be better off without their help.
Sorry about my extra postings, but global warming is simply too important. We should have been getting into our next ice-age; Global warming has been expedited by way of our own human arrogance and absolute dumb and dumber stupidity that is going to get us all killed off before our time. Tens of thousands have just recently proved that point, and unfortunately there's lots more to come. Instead of global warming; I believe from those CO2 charts going back some 700,000 years, that it has been clear we should have been getting into our next ice-age; Global warming has been way off track for decades if not centuries, as if anything this planet Earth should have been cycling itself into it's next ice-age, but thanks to the absolute lack of intelligence, loads of greed and outright dishonesty running amuck, as such our levels of artificial CO2 and secondary methanes and loads of other natural freons are off the freaking charts and still going. The global environment has been artificially shifted so as to be absorbing 5% more solar energy within just the last century. That 5% of 1400 w/m2 is one holy heck of a lot of influx that's clearly responsible for melting ice before our dumbfounded eyes. If merely one tenth the investment (talent, energy resources and $) had been devoted into something a whole lot closer to home than Mars, and of such mostly invested into R&D as for applied technology which could have transpired specifically upon Earth, with perhaps the likes of our moon next and only then Venus, lo and behold, all of the supposed spin-offs and/or secondary benefits would have been had long ago, though at not 10% the overall drain upon our limited energy resources, and of not likely impacting 1% the pollution to Earth because, some of that Earthly investment on behalf of humanity would have greatly improved upon the efficiently as to our human consumptions and/or depleting resources of energy, and we'd most likely already have the LSE-CM/ISS along with all of those nifty lunar resources at our disposal, and BTW, the likes of 9/11 would never have happened, at least not over anything oil related. Such as, no such missions (robotic or otherwise) are investment "stand alone", as there has always been the ongoing horrific cost of the pre-existing infrastructure, and then we have the aftermath of sustaining thousands of newly related folks in a very grand style, that which the lower 99.9% of humanity always gets to pay for in more ways than just dollars, and of no matters how much the utilize the expertise of Arthur Andersen book cooking, all of resources and of whatever required loot comes from the lower 99.9% of humanity. There's so much other that needs to be invested per mission that's external to any robotic probe or manned craft, that it would require volumes of pages to list such a global impact, especially if there's the sorts of dog-wagging and disinformation that needs to be sustained. If those usual billions upon billions are going to be continually invested in spite of best wishes upon humanity (actually we seem to be talking of trillions as to accomplishing anything close to our surviving Mars, and nearly another trillion for accommodating those ESE freaks), instead those amounts need to directly benefit humanity, and that benefit must include the lower 99.9% of humanity and not just those of the upper 0.1% that doesn't require any such benefits, nor are they willing to share with the lower 99.9% (scum of the Earth), other than for going after more money as always extracted (directly and/or indirectly) from the lower 99.9%, and then we have those 100 tonnes of artificial CO2 created per tonne that being delivered to Mars (if that's not global warming, then I don't know what is). There has been absolutely nothing Mars related, nor certainly of what's further away that humanity has ever benefited from in the past, nor is there anything on the books that'll justify even that penny worth of "spin off" per billion dollars invested into anything Mars, and much less of whatever is further away. The moon is something all together different, whereas there's loads of potential energy benefits, plus countless Earth sciences and of what the moon itself has to offer humanity: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/lunar-space-elevator.htm Except there's been a wee bit of a nasty problem with any notion of getting ourselves onto and back from the moon: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-photo-entro.htm Venus has also been offering something all together different, and for nor a tenth the investment of our doing Mars: http://guthvenus.tripod.com/gv-town.htm.htm And there's lots more on the UPDATE page. Regards, Brad Guth (BBCI h2g2 U206251) http://guthvenus.tripod.com/update-242.htm
Yo bradguth, you're copying and pasting your thread replies everywhere... Are you advertising for your webbie or something?
I don't think global warming is as much a problem as it is made out to be, but according to "experts", a small amount will be necessary to prevent the downfall of mankind. And stokes, what is the second study you disapprove of? :m:
hotsexyangelprincess; "I don't think global warming is as much a problem" Global warming isn't such a problem for those of us that can afford the necessary energy as to compensate, and otherwise live on sufficiently dry land that's not going to easily become flooded. Clearly the notions of whaever global warming isn't a problem if you're driving your fully air conditioned Lambergini to one of your hill top villas in France. the_greenvision; "Yo bradguth, you're copying and pasting your thread replies everywhere... Are you advertising for your webbie or something?" You bet I'm advertising, as I've got lots of perfectly good notions, and I've got better science to boot. At least my research is honestly reflecting what's what, without an ulterior motive nor hidden agenda that's intended to easily snooker dumbfounded folks. I'm cross-posting because global warming is actually a real and present danger to humanity. Unlike what "hotsexyangelprincess" thinks, and unlike those invisible WMD, you and I can see what has been going on, and of any honest scientist with an once of morality and thereby remorse can extrapolate the likely course of events that'll most likely cook our goose if we don't do many things before it's too late, which by the way it's already too late for tens of thousands of otherwise nice folks that last year had to parish specifically due to the recent global warming trends, with perhaps hundreds of thousand more having to bite the dust throughout this year, or having run for higher ground due to rising oceans. Unfortunately, that's no lie. The secondary release of methanes and natural freons is yet another dagger that's getting us where it hurts, plus the added 5% of solar influx is way more than what most folks can calculate. It'll require clean and efficient energy as to counteract the rising temperature, and clean energy we simply do NOT have even enough as to sustain the status quo. Nearly 75% of our energy is as dirty as it comes, and now there yet another senseless war over said energy, thus even more inefficient energy is being consumed in massive volumes at that. Of course one solution is to quickly use up all of the natural gas and oil reserves, as then we'd be forced into nuclear (preferably French), fusion and all of those clean natural resources that do NOT pollute. BTW; you do realize that R-1024/m insulation is doable, and of at least R-16 if not R-32 air-to-air exchangers are easily obtained, and otherwise if the energy resource was sufficiently clean, then CO2-->CO/O2 is doable.
Global warming isn't real. The authors of the original paper have even recanted, admitting the many flaws and mistakes and omissions that led to their conclusion: - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html
Sorry, I can't buy that "Global warming isn't real" status. You must be part of the "Skull and Bones" borg cult that's intent upon running humanity amuck, as in directly into the nearest space toilet. Even the satellites have confirmed upon the 5% less reflective aspect of what mother Earth has to offer, as such there's the additional influx of said energy, and more than you can shake a flaming stick at. GOTO: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=38275 or http://www.sciforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47 "Population control to conserve upon energy"
Did you even read the page? You're speaking very short term. Data shows temperatures have actually gone down, not up.
Here is a study presented by NASA as of 2001 rather than that 1998 study you cite Alpha: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2001/HansenRuedyS.html . From other research I have seen, I believe that the temperatures in the stratosphere has gone down but at the same time, average temperatures in the troposphere have increased which does seem to be the analysis as now presented with apparently an honest attempt to incorporate the corrections suggested in that 1998 study and other recent research I have seen. No die hard proof either way has been within human capability or will be for the foreseeable future. I do not know if global warming is real or not. Starting out your statement, Alpha, with "Global warming isn't real" has me wondering if you are willing to make a fair appraisal of the data. I see that study you cite is on the web site of an individual who is selling a book debunking the global warming hypothesis. Sure that means he has a vested interest for the sales of his book but I'm not necessarily denying the possibility that the average overall temperature has decreased or stayed the same. However, it does appear average surface temperatures, where humans have their direct interface with the atmosphere, has warmed despite the stratospheric cooling trend. Things are rarely black and white especially when discussing huge dynamic systems.
I wasn't aware there was a book being sold there. Honestly, I haven't done much research on global warming. I just happened to have come across that doing an unrelated search, and thought it was interesting. Then I came here and saw this thread, so posted the link. While there may be a vested interest, that in itself doesn't negate any evidence or claims. It should be evaluated on the merits of it's arguments & evidence. I'm really not all that interested in the subject, so judge for yourself.
I think its a problem to be aware about, as warming persists, storms extend their lifetime and magnitude. Hurricanes, being the most sensitive to heat, will get stronger and much more destructive. Millions of damage costs are being spent every year because of hurricane coastal collisions.
If you Google "Global warming isn't real," or some such, you'll get a million or more sites that have information supporting that fact. If you put in "Global warming," or somesuch, you'll get the milion or more supporting THAT fact. Find some relatively non-partisan sources, and decide for yourself. Of course, you're biased too, so that doesn't quite work.
Energy in = energy out, plus whatever we manage to contribute and/or trap within our environment via arrogance and our own dumb and dumber stupidity. Thus we're receiving and retaining as a global environment an additional 5% of solar energy, a portion of which is attempting to radiate out the backside. More energy retention = more thermal energy extremes, thus more dead folks that apparently don't count in your rule book.
