Oh, I'm quite sure you and some others on the forum should be able to provide plenty of hot air to sustain the planet.
I'm going to propose that a requirement for posting in this thread being reading the book "Guns, Germs and Steel". No, it does not touch the issue of Climate Change, but is required reading for not being a complete idiot. Man is indeed responsible for many climate changes, including the fertile crescent no longer being fertile, Global Warming, however has not been proven, cannot be proven and is right now being discussed among scientists as a hypothesis and at the moment is mere conjecture.
No, you miss the point. It is logically impossible to prove the non-existence of the non-existent. Understand? I was illustrating the point that the EARTH's temperature changes and it's supposed be going up at this point in time. Ewww, fourier series. I remember that from mass class. Cool! *rolls eyes* Why are you telling me this for? You have to at least come up with the PROOF that I should need this information. CO2 is going up it's known fact. There is more CO2 coming out of the melting permafrost in the North. Fact. Undisputed Fact. Irrelevant, but fact. What you seem to miss is the SCIENCE that PROVES that GREENHOUSE GASES cause WARMING? You can dance around points like ice caps and water levels and hurricanes and flooding, it's all irrelevant. I want someone to explain how CO2 works in a heat transfer problem. All this bullsh*t boils down to CO2 and heat transfer. Explain. I dismiss it because it makes absolutely no sense.
Supper, respectfully, you're missing the point. You asked for evidence of causation beyond correlation, I believe. The IPCC data points to just that - not just that it is going up, but O2 depletion, and isotopal changes, point to the causation you asked for. That answer makes no sense, since I am not posing a theory in this paragraph, but asking a simple question. Sort of like saying there are new apples on the market - Madagascarian Violet Screamies - that are taking the culinary world by storm. Asking, "hat do you think?," followed by "that makes absolutely no sense." Which is nonsensical, as it's a question.
I asked for proof. I haven't seen any. Where is it??? Data points on what? WTF???? Seriously, I'm getting sick of this environmentalist doublespeak. Before we can even look at the science we need a consensus on the theory, which obviously doesn't exit. Al Gore says that sun rays to the Earth, they go in the ocean, they heat. This heat rises, and can't escape. Northpoint says that it is a chemical reaction in the sky. I heard another environmentalist claim that CO2 absorbs long wave radiation produced by the Earth. What is the THEORY? Which one is it? How can there be a consensus on science, when there isn't even a damn consensus of what is happening. God damnit.
Simply put: I think that the planet has a cycle of life, just like anything else. We are going to see changes, just like we see in ourselves when we get older. The eventual death of the planet is going to happen, no matter what we do. But, I do think we play our part in getting it there faster. It's just like the human body to me, the more we take care of ourselves, the better chances we have of lasting a bit longer. But, we are still going to die no matter what we do. But then again, I could be hit by a bus tomorrow just like the earth could be hit by a giant meteor tomorrow..... I try to do my part not because of "global warming", but because it's the respectful thing to do....
Supper, not sure why you're avoiding it, but the IPCC data specifically addresses the C02 content in the atmosphere - its mass, as well as other constituents, and the isotopal changes in our system's carbon. All of which have led to hypotheses, based on this data, that support a causality between the burning of fossil fuels and the changes we are talking about. Feel free to continue your emotional tirade, however. Really helps to support your contentions.
global warming is the most threatning part arising out of mad race among humans to grow beyond their means........i am very concerned about it and do whatever to save energy/reduce pollution in my best personal capacity.......SaveEcology.com
As a nature-lover, I detest pollution.. but I'm also not foolish enough to blame it for anything that could go wrong with the earth. I admit there's a possibility some forms of pollution could cause climate change, but it will come as global cooling. I'm no scientist like stox, but i know BS when I see it. I welcome others who adopt a respect for mother nature, but there's too much phoniness out there. If you want to think like a shameful human, go kill yourself. Lessen the weight on Earth's shoulders, you might save some trees in the process. On a lighter note I would like to see alternative fuel used for mass production but I have a good feeling it won't. Things like solar energy make you independent and uh.. yea I don't see that happening.
Stox is right, from what I have seen, Nate - it is the global warming itself that will likely lead to a massive cool-down, and this is a major problem. I've mentioned this before...in my own small corner of the world, formerly, French chef, I have already seen a change in the availability of materials - wines formerly from warm regions only moving further northwards, or drying out altogether in their "home" regions; fish species' availability has also been impacted. It is a real thing, and not some wild-eyed "envirofascist" fantasy.
I certainly believe climate change is happening, but I'm not ready to jump on the bandwagon about how it's happening. In the meantime, people should consider polluting less and suing more if their property is polluted.
*shakes head*. I'm not avoiding anything. You seem to be missing the pivotal point. You have to PROVE that CO2 has an effect before you can start quoting CO2 information. Do you understand? Do you really get the gravity of what I'm saying there? How exactly am I being emotional? I'm sick of people telling me there is global warming, without any PROOF and than having 10 -15 different theories on what is happening, which means there are 10-15 sciences to it. You can't just say, CO2 went up and temperature went up, therefore CO2 made temperature go up. You can't correlate like that. You need to come up with the PROOF that CO2, causes warming. You decided not to explain the theory behind global warming, so I can't really ask what science it would relate to. If it is like Al Gore has said, than the proof with have to do with heat transfer and CO2.
Could have merit, there's plenty of correlations. 2012 is the big year, so much is going on at once, climate is just one element. Once we reach a state of mass-higher consciousness, our problems will resolve as fast as they came. It's a turning point, and all futurists know it, most anyhow. Say you are right, what should be the next steps taken?
I think a lot of people in the next few years are going to make a ton of money by turning things we currently consider waste and pollution into industrial commodities. Concerns about sustainability are likely to support commodity price levels and manufacturers are going to want to maximize their use of output materials. Who would give away perfectly good CO2 if there were a convenient boom in nano-tubes and other carbon-based fibers?
I do concern a lot. But all I can do is struggle alone. All people in my place seems don't care about it. Or maybe they all think that they are alone. I dunno. But I do care about this. I do care about my children's earth in the future
Supper, "proof" is a mathematical concept, it only exists in maths. In every other form of science we can only have conclusions based on evidence and theories to explain the facts. So given that by it's very nature the cause of climate change is impossible to "prove", How strong would you say the evidence is that CO2 emissions are causing climate change when there is a direct correlation between climate change and amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? We know that Co2 helps retain heat on a planet. Planets without it are bitterly cold and planets with too much are excessively hot, Like Venus, it has an atmosphere of 96.5% cO2 and a temperature of 872 °F If you want to know the mechanics of the "greenhouse effect" I'll explain it. because the sun is a lot hotter than the surface of the earth it radiates heat at a much shorter wavelength than the earth. This shorter wavelength makes it hard for the gasses in the atmosphere to absorb the heat and so the heat travels through the gas and hits the earth. Now, because the earth is cooler than the sun it radiates it's heat at a much longer wavelength (you know heat is radiation right), The gasses that make up the atmosphere can absorb long wavelength heat a lot easier, So what happens is heat that would normally pass through the gas is absorbed by the gas instead of just being reflected back out into space and the atmosphere becomes warmer. This is how the greenhouse effect works. It is a fact, it is happening, we are causing it, and if you disagree it's simply because you haven't read enough about it. So now you know that CO2 does contribute to the greenhouse effect (don't get me wrong, we do need some greenhouse effect) and you know how the greenhouse effect works how can you deny that we are having an effect on climate when you learn that pre-industrialisation levels of Co2 were 280 parts per million and are currently at 384 parts per million [r](Co2 is responsible for 1/4 of our planets heat retention, and in the last 100 years we have increased it by almost 30%).