Signa said:
Considering how much energy the sun bombards us with every day, I'm going to say it's pretty arrogant to think that man is the only cause of global warming. The fact is, we've been on this earth for such a short time, and even shorter is our ability to measure and catalog data about its temperature. There is no way to tell if what we are measuring is truly our fault.
I'm quite certain we did cause some damage at some point though. The ozone layer and CFC's being something completely provable.
EDIT: I forgot to point out how I also don't trust agendas with a lot of cash behind them. I remember Penn and Teller doing an episode on going green. Al Gore's motives behind the movie was hardly for the sake of the planet. Also, the episode lead with reading an excerpt from a magazine talking about the dangers and current effects of the warming, and how it all spelt certain and impending doom just over the horizon. They then revealed the article was written in the 70's, pointing out how these alarmist discussions have been around for decades, and we really aren't worse for wear.
you have to remmeber that earth lets off almost all sun energy it has recieved away like a mirror. thats our natural magnetic shield at work. also, the amount of sunlight hitting earth amounts to less than half heat produced on earth, most of which is manmade.
As for the alarmist spin, yes, we are actually worse for weak, the temeprature has rise, water level has risen and plenty of species are at a bring of extinction due to it, let alone the fact of sachara and other deserts expanding leaving plenty of people having to either die of starvation of migrate towards the poles.
Lightknight said:
Just a side question, something I've wondered about regarding global warming:
What kind of shift would turn us into a moisture cloud-based planet. At some point wouldn't ocean and fresh water evaporate at a fast enough rate that our skies are filled with clouds and regular rain almost all the time? The conditions are already right for natural evaporation and rainfall cycles so I'd assume any increases in average water temperatures would result in water being more readily evaporated. What impact would this have on surface temperatures during a period of global warming severe enough to cause that?
we would need the heat to be so intense that all water would evaporate in the period of 10 days, because thats the time of water vapour cycle for it to return back down via rain. that would be.. .rather extreme temperatures.
lacktheknack said:
Well sure.
I'm not sure I buy the doomsday scenarios, though.
A. Doesn't carbon dioxide/methane/etc trap extra heat logarithmically?
B. Aren't we about to run out of available fossil fuels anyways?
C. If we "fry" the planet, then doesn't the Earth just reset itself? I mean, the blasted thing was covered by lava at one point. That's markedly more "completely screwed" than humans can even try to do to it.
D. Why do modern people, who apparently "care about the environment", keep buying gas instead of taking transit, buying cheap instead of high-quality, asking for more electronics, buying more stuff, increasing their carbon footprint, etc?
E. Why does Al Gore travel by jet and have a massive utility bill? D:
E was meant entirely as a dig at Al Gore, and not as an actual argument against Climate Change Doomsday.
Not sure abit A,
It is true for B, however we still got the whole new gas industry comming and still people clinge on oil reserves and as aoil beomes more expensive we are willnig to drill deeper. also so far noone has been allowed to drill on antactica, and if we find a way to easily break though the ice (global warming - less ice, so yay for oil industries) theres a lot of oil there. but so far its politically untouchable.
C: yes, but you wont live to see it. essentialy resetting takes millions of years, and what will result is unknown. either way, humans wont survive.
D: i take transit, that are run purely by electricity, that used to be created in atomic plant till EU forced us to close it, and is now made in oil run electric stations, because our people refused new atomic plant in referendum. I recycle. I try not to waste whenever i can. I dont need new electronics as long as the ones i have work, though, i will buy new PC as the one i currently have is both failing (had to manually melt together broken monitor cables, ect, and now even hdd and keyboard seems to be failing) and is incapable of running new games (and games dont polute!) since its 5 years old. i had a phone that worked for me for 10 years till eventually i got gifted a new one and the original still works, well you get my drift. I do not buy just to buy. whenever i buy something it is planned and serves a purpose. I believe that if you want to change the world, you should start with yourself, and i try.
E: because Al Gore is money grubbing bastard that pretends to care.
lacktheknack said:
The "reset" point is more of a question aimed at people who think that humans should be offed to "save the Earth". I know a lot of them, maybe I'm biased due to that.
And as for individuals, you'd think they'd start preparing for when, all of a sudden, their things can't be bought anymore and their allotted power allowance plummets. You do that by going green now, not later...
It's kind of funny. I'd rather bus instead of drive, I leave my lights off, I don't watch TV, I don't leave my electronics on, and my computer is sort-of-kind-of power efficient, so I'm technically more "green" than my hyper-environmental friends...
I think the whole save the earth is not really save the earth but adjust earth to save humans (and other animals) kind of deal. as in we change climate to suit us, you know, just like humans always did. humans are the only species that changes environment to themselves and not adapt to it.
They woudl start preparing, if you they a good logical thinking for far future. most dont. most cant even plan thier monthly budgets and spend everything in a week. you expect them to plan for decades?
"i leave my lights off" as oppsed to what? do some people actually leave the house and leave the lights on?
CloudAtlas said:
Strazdas said:
Thats like asking do you believe in gravity. Global warming is a fact, and while you can pretend it is not real, you wont float away. The actual discussion is whether it is man-made or natural.
Yes, it is, although the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is that it is man-made, to a large extent. Now someone might say he doesn't personally believe it, but that's just making a judgement about something he doesn't know anything about. Neither do I, of course, and acknowledging my best option is to believe the people who are less ignorant than I am - the scientists of the relevant fields.
But even if you don't believe in man-made climate change no matter what, it's still not a reason to do nothing about it. Thing is, you can't know for certain, and what do we call doing something against something bad that won't occur with certainty, only with some likelihood? Exactly, an insurance. So have enough common sense to support the modest efforts (we're generally talking about very few percentage points of global GDP, 2-3% perhaps) to attempt to prevent a really bad outcome for mankind & the planet even if it might only happen with some probability.
I never claimed whether i personally believe either way in that post, merely stated that the main debate is about that, as can be seen in this very own thread, people arguing whether it is man made.
Personally, i agree with the scientists, that it is man made or heavily influenced by humans. in the post above i have already said that i do my part in trying to make the worlf more enviroment friendly. and i support regulatory laws that would enforce such actions.
lacktheknack said:
Well, they want us all dead, as they think it's the only way to save said animals and plants. It's a... short-sighted viewpoint, to say the least.
Do they. Or do they just know that overpopulation is a real problem? I do not wnat humans dead, but neither i want 7 billion of us on a single planet.
RedDeadFred said:
Strazdas said:
Thats like asking do you believe in gravity. Global warming is a fact, and while you can pretend it is not real, you wont float away. The actual discussion is whether it is man-made or natural.
Or, you could use the BEST argument I've ever heard about why it doesn't matter which is: "who care? God's gonna rapture us all up soon anyway leaving the planet a desolate wasteland for the sinners." Can you believe that was from a fairly high ranking person in government?! (can't remember who it was, I saw it on a documentary).
God is always the best excuse. not only can you not feel guilty for doing bad things, you can blame somone else for it.
piinyouri said:
This is just simply not true in my eyes.
I don;t think were able to 'ruin' the planet. Even bathing it in nuclear fire from an all out war would not destroy the earth.
Actually, if all our nuclear arsenal exploded at once, it woudl be enough force to actually shatter the earth as a planet. We would not "Destroy" it so much as divide it in multiple parts, that likely wont reunite via gravity so easily.
