Global warming

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 13-10-2009 09:27PM #1

I was reading another thread and some people write "I don't believe in global warming" like its some sort of religion...

For what reason do people not believe in global warming? It's pretty obvious that we do have an effect on this earth, a pretty negative one. We also know that climate change is a pretty natural thing, yet from scientific research it shows it takes much longer than what is happening now.

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

I hear a lot of liberal rockers saying "global warming is a government conspiracy to bla bla bla". Is it a PR stunt? Are they really that thick and paronoid?

I mean, of course people are going to cash in on this, increasing taxes and selling "environmental friendly" products etc etc.

I mean, recycling is a great thing, we don't have as much waste and we get to keep more resources.

Why are people so "hippyish" against global warming. A lot of them fools will say "if you believe that crap then you are a sheep"... I say people should be left to believe what they wish. No need to directly insult people based on their beliefs.

PirateShampoo · 13-10-2009 09:28PM

Its a myth, the planet goes through cycles, it always has and it always will.

Jesus Wept · 13-10-2009 09:30PM

TBH, I'm reserving my judgements until I find out what Jim Corr's stance on the matter is.

genericguy · 13-10-2009 09:30PM

some people are cnuts, essentially. there's too many joe higgins types going around looking for something they can say no to, so that they can feel like they're fightin' da powah.

genericguy · 13-10-2009 09:32PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

TBH, I'm reserving my judgements until I find out what Jim Corr's stance on the matter is.

he said it's all part of elton john's plan for the establishment of a new world order, to be led by rocket-men.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 13-10-2009 09:33PM

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Its a myth, the planet goes through cycles, it always has and it always will.

This is true, it is a natural occurance. Yet, it doesn't happen as fast as it is now. The change between tempretures and the likes is more noticable. In our life time a lone it will change quite a bit.

Genericguy, this is so true, didn't think about that though

It's more of a stand than anything else I guess?

AckwelFoley · 13-10-2009 09:34PM

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Its a myth, the planet goes through cycles, it always has and it always will.

Some experts point out that natural cycles in Earth's orbit can alter the planet's exposure to sunlight, which may explain the current trend. Earth has indeed experienced warming and cooling cycles roughly every hundred thousand years due to these orbital shifts, but such changes have occurred over the span of several centuries.

Today's changes have taken place over the past hundred years or less.

Its the rate of the change that is alarming.
Yes, we had an ice age infact at least four of them, but they didnt take a few hundred years to come develop. Add a few zeros.

My name is URL · 13-10-2009 09:37PM

The problem is that the people in charge of stopping it have latched on to it as a bargaining chip to gain support

only an idiot would say that Climate Change isn't happening..
only an idiot would say that it's solely the fault of humans for causing it..
and only an idiot would choose to ignore it because of that...

It's happening, whether it's natural or caused by man, and instead of arguing about it, we should be figuring out ways of dealing with it

Pompey Magnus · 13-10-2009 09:39PM

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

For what reason do people not believe in global warming? It's pretty obvious that we do have an effect on this earth, a pretty negative one. We also know that climate change is a pretty natural thing, yet from scientific research it shows it takes much longer than what is happening now.

Climate records are extremely poor and hard to guage over long periods, it is unwise to compare climate change rates over the last few years with periods of hundreds of thousands of years.

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

Eh, life would be impossible on Earth without CO2 so in fact it is very, very good for the environment.

I hear a lot of liberal rockers saying "global warming is a government conspiracy to bla bla bla". Is it a PR stunt? Are they really that thick and paronoid?

Well it did get a big boost as a result of the Thatcher governments dispute with the coal miners during the 80s, don't know about consipracy though.

I mean, recycling is a great thing, we don't have as much waste and we get to keep more resources.

Recycling is only cost effective for aluminium, all the rest is done at a loss and usually the recycling process creates more pollution than landfill.

Why are people so "hippyish" against global warming. A lot of them fools will say "if you believe that crap then you are a sheep"... I say people should be left to believe what they wish. No need to directly insult people based on their beliefs.

When people suffer because of the policies suggested to combat global warming then your opinion that people should be left to believe what they want goes out the window. This stuff actually affects people I'm afraid.

PirateShampoo · 13-10-2009 09:41PM

Well at some point we are going to reach critical mass on population, the pollution will get worse and there will be a global catastrophe, famine, plague etc. Then nature will balance it self out if we are here or not.

Did anybody watch the nature program on Chernobyl, where the wildlife is booming because man has gone?

Somnus · 13-10-2009 09:41PM

I agree that the earth does go through cycles but it's happening too quick as a result of human activity. It won't be the end of the world though.
Cue massive natural disaster at some point in the future that will wipe out a vast majority of the human race so the world can balance itself out.

Edit: Damn you Pirate , got there jsut before me

13-10-2009 09:43PM

There are benefits to global warming !! But nobody ever mentions this!
The damn Sahara was a helluva lot greener about 10,000 years ago

During the holocene optimum the temp was warmer than it is now. This was the warmest period since the ice age. The Sahara was green and forests in Russia extended 200km further North than they do now. A bad thing?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara_2.html

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Earth/Computer_simulations_reveal_three_green_Sahara_episodes_over_120000_years/rssarticleshow/3549438.cms

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14536-stone-age-mass-graves-reveal-green-sahara.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

http://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/advantages.htm
^^ That site has a list of advantages and disadvantages.
If the holocene optimum is anything to go by you can add alot more to the advantages list.

Stansted University says we will live longer and be healthier in a warmer world
http://www.stanford.edu/~moore/health.html

A warmer globe would likely result in the polar jet stream's retreating towards higher latitudes; in the Northern Hemisphere the climate belt would move North (Lamb 1972, p. 117-118; Giles 1990). Thus an average annual 3.7deg.C increase in temperature for New York City, for example, would give it the climate of Atlanta. NYC's summertime temperatures, however, would not go up commensurably: the average high temperature in Atlanta during June, July, and August is only 2.2deg.C warmer than New York City's and the latter city has on record a higher summer temperature than does the capital of Georgia. Summer temperatures generally differ less than winter temperatures on roughly the same longitude and differ less than average temperatures.

A sample of 45 metropolitan areas in the United States shows that for each increase of a degree in the average annual temperature, July's average temperatures go up by only 0.5 degrees while January's average temperatures climb by 1.5deg.[2]. Since warming will likely exert the maximum effect during the coldest periods but have much less effect during the hottest months, the climate change should reduce deaths even more than any summer increase might boost them.

13-10-2009 09:46PM

PirateShampoo wrote: »

Well at some point we are going to reach critical mass on population, the pollution will get worse and there will be a global catastrophe, famine, plague etc. Then nature will balance it self out if we are here or not.

Did anybody watch the nature program on Chernobyl, where the wildlife is booming because man has gone?

Be a good idea to heat the planet up so and expand the land we can grow on.
Has anyone been to Phoenix Arizona? The city in the desert? The US grows a hell of alot of wheat there using irrigation. Same in Western Australia just north of Perth they have the Wheatbelt. The west of Australia is pretty much desert except in the south and extreme north. Anyway point is we can deal with global warming and humanity has proven itself capable of living well and comfortably and profitably in these areas.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

Known for its massive ice sheets, Greenland is feeling the effects of global warming as rising temperatures have expanded the island's growing season and crops are flourishing. For the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise cattle and start dairy farms.

Jesus Wept · 13-10-2009 09:47PM

The-Rigger wrote: »

TBH, I'm reserving my judgements until I find out what Jim Corr's stance on the matter is.

Got a txt back from Jim; apparently it's the new Y2K... ...yadda yadda... something about lizards... ...etc etc... and then a joke that's so offensive to all races I won't be repeating it.... ... he had potato waffles for his tea.

So I'm agin it.

PirateShampoo · 13-10-2009 09:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Be a good idea to heat the planet up so and expand the land we can grow on.
Has anyone been to Phoenix Arizona? The city in the desert? The US grows a hell of alot of wheat there using irrigation. Same in Western Australia just north of Perth they have the Wheatbelt. The west of Australia is pretty much desert except in the south. Anyway point is we can deal with global warming and humanity has proven itself capable of living well and comfortably and profitably in these areas.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,434356,00.html

And what will happen when man is forced into desert areas and there isn't enough fresh water to water crops and drink.

Like i said its all about critical mass. At some point it will implode.

soundsham · 13-10-2009 09:55PM

who cares we'll all get the benefits of a warmer climate
some other gimp can fix it when we're gone.......

ah ok so I'll help......reducing screen brightness to save the world

dr.bollocko · 13-10-2009 09:57PM

Load of crap.

galwayrush · 13-10-2009 10:05PM

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Load of crap.

Yep, it's happened before a few times, bloody nature.:p

jumpguy · 13-10-2009 10:06PM

I'm more annoyed that global warming has become the fixation when it comes to human's effects on climate. Has everyone forgotten about deforestation, acid rain, radioactive pollution, water pollution depletion of the ozone layer, etc? These things have immediate and severe consequences but you'd bearly find a breath about them in the press these days, it's all global warming this and that.

As regards global warming, whether humans caused it or not, it's a problem that needs to be tackled/slowed by us somehow. Pumping CO2 into the air at alarming rates, and cutting down the very tree's that absorb it isn't helping. I think global warming is a combination of natural planet rhythms and human interference. We exasperate the cycle. For example, in 2006 (I think), if nature had it's way, the North Pole would've shrunk to 6 million square kilometers. A pretty big shrinkage, just for nature all by itself. However, thanks to the excess greenhouse gasses due to humans, instead in went to less than 4.5 million square kilometers (don't quote me on that figure). Smaller than it would've been if it was natural cycles alone.
There's evidence of these cycles alright, but the speed at which this one is taking place is unprecedented.

13-10-2009 10:06PM

PirateShampoo wrote: »

And what will happen when man is forced into desert areas and there isn't enough fresh water to water crops and drink.

Like i said its all about critical mass. At some point it will implode.

The Sahara was greener the monsoons were stronger during the holocene optimum. They get on fine in Arizone they use irrigation. Groundwater, desalination. Its all possible. Population is an issue regardless of warming or not. In fact if you read my posts you would see that in a warmer world the amount of arable land increases from the Sahara to the Tundra!

13-10-2009 10:08PM

jumpguy wrote: »

I'm more annoyed that global warming has become the fixation when it comes to human's effects on climate. Has everyone forgotten about deforestation, acid rain, radioactive pollution, water pollution depletion of the ozone layer, etc? These things have immediate and severe consequences but you'd bearly find a breath about them in the press these days, it's all global warming this and that.

As regards global warming, whether humans caused it or not, it's a problem that needs to be tackled/slowed by us somehow. Pumping CO2 into the air at alarming rates, and cutting down the very tree's that absorb it isn't helping. I think global warming is a combination of natural planet rhythms and human interference. We exasperate the cycle. For example, in 2006 (I think), if nature had it's way, the North Pole would've shrunk to 6 million square kilometers. A pretty big shrinkage, just for nature all by itself. However, thanks to the excess greenhouse gasses due to humans, instead in went to less than 4.5 million square kilometers (don't quote me on that figure). Smaller than it would've been if it was natural cycles alone.
There's evidence of these cycles alright, but the speed at which this one is taking place is unprecedented.

THREAD SPOILER:

Its called climate change now because they cant stand over the phrase "global warming" anymore

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 13-10-2009 10:37PM

Charco wrote: »

Climate records are extremely poor and hard to guage over long periods, it is unwise to compare climate change rates over the last few years with periods of hundreds of thousands of years.

It's not that hard actually... You find an increase of 1 degree over a period of about 25 years, the same increase would take 250 years thousands of years ago... It is comparable.

[Eh, life would be impossible on Earth without CO2 so in fact it is very, very good for the environment.[/quote]

I meant an excess, which is what we are pumping out at the moment, this is not good for anything.

Recycling is only cost effective for aluminium, all the rest is done at a loss and usually the recycling process creates more pollution than landfill.

Who said anything about money?

When people suffer because of the policies suggested to combat global warming then your opinion that people should be left to believe what they want goes out the window. This stuff actually affects people I'm afraid.

Who are effected by combating global warming? A lot of people are already effected by global warming as it is. Be it minor or major problems.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Load of crap.

Why? Do you have a proper argument? :rolleyes:

dsmythy · 13-10-2009 11:24PM

Thoughtful non-hysterical article from the bbc on the subject recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

I didn't know the hottest year on record was 1998 and we havn't surpassed it yet. If the increase in temperatures are meant to be so stark and sudden the warming really ought to be getting it's act together.

The article asks whatever happened to global warming. The answer is it is now been renamed climate change. So it can get cooler, warmer, wetter whatever and it fits nicely for them.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 13-10-2009 11:34PM

dsmythy wrote: »

Thoughtful non-hysterical article from the bbc on the subject recently.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm

I didn't know the hottest year on record was 1998 and we havn't surpassed it yet. If the increase in temperatures are meant to be so stark and sudden the warming really ought to be getting it's act together.

The article asks whatever happened to global warming. The answer is it is now been renamed climate change. So it can get cooler, warmer, wetter whatever and it fits nicely for them.

1998 was 11 years ago, that is so small it is actually insignificant on the earths time line...

Maybe climate change is a better name for it, more accurate. Global warming wasn't a great name for it at all. Why do you say "it fits nicely for them". Who is "them"?

SLUSK · 13-10-2009 11:46PM

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

I was reading another thread and some people write "I don't believe in global warming" like its some sort of religion...

For what reason do people not believe in global warming? It's pretty obvious that we do have an effect on this earth, a pretty negative one. We also know that climate change is a pretty natural thing, yet from scientific research it shows it takes much longer than what is happening now.

Co2 can't be good for the environment.

I hear a lot of liberal rockers saying "global warming is a government conspiracy to bla bla bla". Is it a PR stunt? Are they really that thick and paronoid?

I mean, of course people are going to cash in on this, increasing taxes and selling "environmental friendly" products etc etc.

I mean, recycling is a great thing, we don't have as much waste and we get to keep more resources.

Why are people so "hippyish" against global warming. A lot of them fools will say "if you believe that crap then you are a sheep"... I say people should be left to believe what they wish. No need to directly insult people based on their beliefs.

If you say that the earth is warming, which data are you basing this on? Which methods have been used to measure the temperature, ground based stations, satelite readings?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i · 13-10-2009 11:57PM

SLUSK wrote: »

If you say that the earth is warming, which data are you basing this on? Which methods have been used to measure the temperature, ground based stations, satelite readings?

General reading of many articles. I don't filofax them in my brain so I don't have links. I can search for them if it is essential, but I rather not

A lot of it is general knowledge, not including all the figures and the likes. I am basing it on facts that come from NASA space research as well as research done on ground.

The earth will continue to cool and warm, until it dies. Both sides argue on mans influence in this. Normally scientist will put forward evidence that our presence is speeding things up. The opposition normally post like Dr. Bollocko did, but don't back up their reasoning.

I think it is happening because there is more evidence to back it up.

Pompey Magnus · 14-10-2009 12:06AM

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

It's not that hard actually... You find an increase of 1 degree over a period of about 25 years, the same increase would take 250 years thousands of years ago... It is comparable.

Our thermometer record began about 150 years ago, the coldest part of the little ice age. Therefore our most accurate temperature record starts at the coldest period that the earth has experienced in 10,000 years. Naturally enough the temperature has risen. You are comparing accurate temperature records with records derived by proxy, there are serious risks with assuming you are comparing like with like.

Also I don't know where you got 1 degree rise in 25 years, even the most far fetched IPCC figures claim it was less than a 1 degree rise over the last 100 years.

I meant an excess, which is what we are pumping out at the moment, this is not good for anything.

Depends on what you define as excessive CO2 emissions, if you put the cart before the horse and assume that CO2 is the main driver for climate change then fair enough.

Who said anything about money?

Like it or not we live in the real world and cost benefit analysis is a pretty good system for deciding whether to do stuff, recycling fails in this regard.

Who are effected by combating global warming? A lot of people are already effected by global warming as it is. Be it minor or major problems.

Developing countries are affected by the environmentalist movements attempts at bringing about global change. Africa will never industrialise if it is expected to be reliant on green energy. You will never run steel mills using wind energy and solar panels. If we in the west tell developing countries that they must reduce their pollution we are in effect saying "we have our cake now you can't have yours because it may negatively impact on our comfortable way of life".

dsmythy · 14-10-2009 12:33AM

Quinton Ripe Choke wrote: »

1998 was 11 years ago, that is so small it is actually insignificant on the earths time line...

Maybe climate change is a better name for it, more accurate. Global warming wasn't a great name for it at all. Why do you say "it fits nicely for them". Who is "them"?

It was only 11 years ago but with people pushing the urgency of our situation as heavily as they are it's a fact that makes me not 100% certain on it's urgency. We hear about how the temperature increased so dramatically in the last few decades yet it appears not to have been occuring in the last decade despite the fact that our CO2 emmisions are as high as ever. Will we get the increase in temperature over the next 10 years? If not when do we doubt ourselves and our predictions? What were the predictions in the late 90's for temperatures in 2009? Were the scientists correct?

I'm not doubting it full stop myself like others who seem to do it just to be of the non-prevailing opinion. I'm just not convinced on the imminent seriousness of man's impact on the planet. Im sure there's scientists doing the same thing as we speak. Seeking other possibilities as well as developing the current opinion for manmade changes in climate.

As for 'they'. 'They' are not the scientists (except perhaps those who have played a lead role in the theory and have a big interest for their career and reputation that they be proven correct) changing phrases to suit them. they are the people whose lives are connected to climate change in some way. Big business, environmental protesters, and the aforementioned reputation risking scientists are 'they' who will change their minds on phrasing, processes and what the data is saying to them to suit their message.

I just ask that we lose the one track mind on climate change and question it without fear of being called a 'loon' for doing so. Maybe the answers we get will convince us. Maybe the questions will make us reconsider what the hell we've been doing for the last 20 years.

DigiGal · 14-10-2009 01:04AM

No point even arguing about this...

People would rather pretend something bad isn't happening and go about their own little existences

Anyone who feels empathy or is worried about the planet etc will be seen as an idiot or a "hippy"
I mean how dare we think about anything but our own lives. There will always be the arseholes who take a 20 minute shower cause its all a conspiracy and propaganda...
People who will give cleverly thought out smart arse replies to generate as many thanks as possible as they think it some how makes them more valuable in teh real world cause their lives are that small....

Pollution is there you can see it, yes its a natural cycle but there wasn't any smog or cars or light pollution or nuclear waste etc etc thousands of years ago....But of course all that ****e we are pumping out into the atmosphere has no effect on anyhting what so ever i'm sure they had the same amount of pollution before the last ice age, all the dinos farting and all....

But no its all lies, the ice shrinking in the artic, the massive tsunamis, hurricanes etc, acid rain, deforestation, the bizzare weather patterns...all the people saying ah we will get a warmer climate sure, no in fact itwill have quite the opposite effect on Irealnd as it will disturb movemnts in the gulf stream and half freeze us to death...if we aren't half under water by then.

But of course all the scientists, political leaders, independent groups and average people are all lying, its a giant conspiracy against all the car drivers and tech lovers...

If people read up on how much money not keeping to the Kyoto agreement is costing us they'd be quick enough to moan about it then

thebman · 14-10-2009 01:28AM

There is no conclusive evidence that we are having a massive effect.

Sure we are polluting and effecting the environment in some way but to say sure look at the pollution, there is loads of it isn't evidence that we are effecting anything to any significant degree.

I think many people just want to believe we are on the brink of catastrophe, same as Y2K. Maybe it makes their lifes more exciting or something. I'd rather see evidence before I accept the claim. Oh but I'm for polluting less because I like clean air although we'll probably just find out everyone else is farting a lot in public like with the ban on smoking in pubs

squod · 14-10-2009 01:54AM

Also very hard to sell stuff or raise taxes based on solar anomylies, we're through the looking glass here people.

Global warming

Comments