Global Warming. What should be done about it?

[3_Series]

Funny little thing that Industrial Revolution...

[DaveH]

3_Series;174190 wrote:
< snip> Funny little thing that Industrial Revolution...

The thing is, you are assuming scientists are guessing correctly at the temperature, CO2 concentrations, etc that were around 1000 years ago. Ok, assuming they are correct (which is a stretch IMO), these statistics can and usually are manipluated to make things look the way the particular individual/corporation wants. Most of the CO2/temperature charts actually show that CO2 concentrations "follow" the temperature fluctuations, they don't precede it.

[3_Series]

DaveH;174191 wrote:
The thing is, you are assuming scientists are guessing correctly at the temperature, CO2 concentrations, etc that were around 1000 years ago. Ok, assuming they are correct (which is a stretch IMO), these statistics can and usually are manipluated to make things look the way the particular individual/corporation wants. Most of the CO2/temperature charts actually show that CO2 concentrations "follow" the temperature fluctuations, they don't precede it.

With the many thousands of ice core samples, scientists can make pretty good estimates of the climate of the past (atmosphere trapped in tiny bubbles as new ice was formed on top of old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core)))).

You are saying that we had little/nothing to do with the rapid changes present over the past 200 years? I'm not saying that the climate doesn't fluctuate naturally, obviously it does, but it's hard to dismiss the recent trends mostly/purely on nature alone.

[DaveH]

3_Series;174192 wrote:
With the many thousands of ice core samples, scientists can make pretty good estimates of the climate of the past (atmosphere trapped in tiny bubbles as new ice was formed on top of old (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core)).).)

Yes, they are estimates. Again, there are a TON of assumptions being made. They assume that the earth's atmosphere was similar to how it is now, they assume they can estimate time based on the depth of the ice, carbon dating, etc, etc.

3_Series;174192 wrote:
You are saying that we had little/nothing to do with the rapid changes present over the past 200 years? I'm not saying that the climate doesn't fluctuate naturally, obviously it does, but it's hard to dismiss the recent trends mostly/purely on nature alone.

I don't know, don't pretent to know. I simply do not trust these scientific arguments because 99% of the time they are tilted one way or another depending on that scientists perspective. They can predict these terrible things are going to happen, and "whaalaa" they get a big government paycheck to figure out what we can do to avaid these terrible things. What happened to the global cooling that everyone was worried about back in the 70's?

I would not call it rapid change. I look at the weather when my folks were growing up vs now (60 years or so) and there sure isn't a noticable difference. I can talk to my grandparents and in the last 80-90 years there isn't a noticable difference in weather. (sure, there are cycles: drought, floods, etc). If you go back any farther than when man was actually recording the weather data then you might as well be licking your finger and putting it to the wind.

[Erik]

I understand about temperature cycles on this planet.

I understand the controversy.

But I think you also cannot deny that man's recent growth and industry has NO effect on our environment.

It may not be our fault, but its not like we're helping anything environmentally.

[Guest]

DaveH;174170 wrote:
IMO he was trying to appear neutral while making the case for global warming. His grid was way over simplistic (can you really call it a grid if there is only 4 boxes? :icon_cyclops: ), but IMO the whole premise is flawed. You could say the same thing about driving your car every day. There is a chance you could be in a car wreck and be killed each time you go for a drive. You can either A) do nothing and hope you don't get in a wreck and be killed, or you can B) install a roll cage, wear a fire suit, full body armor, a helmet, etc each time you go for a drive. The chances of getting injured wearing all that gear would next to nothing, but in reality it doesn't make sense to go through all those safety measures. There are probably a lot better analogies than the car wreck, but I thought it was most appropriate for this forum.

The difference between car driving vs. global warming/ice age is this:

Statistics show most of us drive cars, that most of us will be in an accident, but that the accident will not be severe and modern safety equipment will save the majority of us.

Also, statistics show that iceages are cyclical, its not if its when one will happen, and if nothing is done to try and offset it (not saying it can be offset, but pulling out the ol' ostrich move is worthless as well...pretending it can't happen, doesn't mean it won't), there will be major problems affecting the lives of everyone on earth...modern advances won't be enough to slow/delay it, but like everything, the tech will advance (look at the efficiency of a gasoline engine and how it has advanced in the past 100 years) to the point where some day it may become semi-efficient and affective..

[50stang]

MisterCMK;174042 wrote:
I think that we all should stop killing mother earth. I mean honestly, we're digging our own grave. :nonono:

-/stir
Actions speak louder than words! The problem I have with listening to half of these Greenpeace activists and extreme left wing liberals is that they preach one thing and do another. Most of them are all hippocrates.
I hate calling Chris out, but he throws out a statement like that and he himself drives around a V8 car, and also cut the cats off on said car to make more noise and to go faster. If he truly believed the bullshit he said, he would sell the Mustang, quit racing and buy a zero or ultra-low emissions car.
That is the problem with Al Gore’s big “mission” to get the word out. He is another big hippocrate. Someone stated he is just a “messenger”. Well… I wouldn’t listen to a preacher that was molesting the Sunday school kids in the back room, and I sure as hell wouldn’t listen to what that guy has to say either.
Another problem I have with these claims is that there is always “fact twisting”. I get rather annoyed reading through facts that have been twisted to make something look worse than it actually is and I found that in a couple areas on global warming websites and reports on a project I did back in college. One such area compared how globally our temperature had warmed 1 degree over a stretch of 29 years from 1963 to 1992 versus a stretch of 29 years from 1888 and 1917. It did not show any data between those year blocks which accounts for 46 years between 1917 and 1963. Just because one stretch of 29 years is 1 degree warmer then another stretch of 29 years does not in any way to me raise any flag of concern. 29 years is an odd block of data to test in the first place, and not showing any data between those years and around those years does not give you the whole picture.
IMO, we are just in another one of Earth’s many temperature cycles… but if there is a large group of people out there that doesn’t want to cause any more pollution and help out the cause… so be it. Go take some action and do something about it in your “own” life… and quit telling other people how they should run their lives.
-/end stir

[Stormwalker]

OMG you guys, have you noticed....the weather is changing?? It's not supposed to do that, is it? We have to do something!!! The sky is falling!!!!

[Guest]

Ok....better set of questions then since pretty much everyone here agrees that weather is cyclical:

1. Has earth experienced ice ages in the past?

2. Did said ice ages likely have a major impact on the earths climate and creatures?

3. If we have had ice ages in the past, is it a safe bet that due to the cyclical nature of weather that we may have another in the future?

4. If we agree there is a likelihood of another ice age somewhere in the future, is it not in the best interest of the human race to take measures to at least try and counter it?

5. Is there any chance Torbs will answer any of these questions without twisting the questions into something political?

[thurmanmerman]

tjamz;174382 wrote:
Ok....better set of questions then since pretty much everyone here agrees that weather is cyclical:

1. Has earth experienced ice ages in the past?YES

2. Did said ice ages likely have a major impact on the earths climate and creatures?YES

3. If we have had ice ages in the past, is it a safe bet that due to the cyclical nature of weather that we may have another in the future?YES

4. If we agree there is a likelihood of another ice age somewhere in the future, is it not in the best interest of the human race to take measures to at least try and counter it?Definately

5. Is there any chance Torbs will answer any of these questions without twisting the questions into something political?lol