Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?  
User currently offlineL0VE2FLY From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 1556 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4492 times:

If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

101 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6575 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4492 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing.

True - but does it have to do with the "rate of change"?

Is the temp raising faster because of human activity?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8702 posts, RR: 43
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4487 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
So what do you think?

The pace of the current change cannot be explained with natural phenomena.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4420 times:

Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7877 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

I think it comes down to what real scientists say because I highly doubt 90 some percent of them are in a conspiracy...

Then we got to see how much of an impact we make and if green measures do or don't help out, and the consequences are for not going green

Lastly, and this is a big turn off for many (and I can't blame people) is the politicalization of it all. On one side you bias energy companies funding anti-global warming stuff, then you have the other extreme which uses global warming to JUST increase taxes.

Politics seems to screw everything else and make steps 1 & 2 more meddled. I'm gonna go with the majority of climotologists on this one but at the same time, I'm gonna be very wary of exploitful governments...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6594 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4397 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4368 times:

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

Hmm, so if it was natural back then it must be natural now? Like if a house burns down after a lightning strike then no other house can be burned down by a pyromaniac.

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

I don't think that is where it begins. Looking at history it is clear that humans have had no problem changing the environment. Thus the question shouldn't be if global warming is man-made but where it is going and if we should help it get there or work on keeping it closer to what we have today.

I am convinced the negative effects of higher average temperature will have very negative effects on humans and then it is clear we should work on stopping it. The only difference between man-made and natural is that it is easier to negate man-made effects.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4359 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

And did you read this in Tree-Hugger Monthly by any chance?


User currently offlinezckls04 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 1323 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4358 times:

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

Cheaper for whom? Depends on which country is responsible for the warming.

I sometimes get very annoyed at the "anti-science" people who deny global warming is happening despite the enormous weight of evidence to the contrary. I have little sympathy for those who question whether global warming is man made or not- to me it doesn't really matter; the question is what the effect will be and what we can do about it. Questioning its cause seems too much like abdication of responsibility.

But when you start getting into the question of what to do about it there comes a problem. Most proposed solutions involve forcing large numbers of people to do things they don't want to in a uniform manner, which is simply unrealistic, especially when there's no visible driver for change. The vast majority of the world couldn't care less about a few atolls in the ocean disappearing- they will continue to delude themselves until the water is lapping at their front gate.

Challenging the science is futile and nonsensical. Challenging policy and direction should be encouraged, and I don't believe we're doing that enough yet.



If you're not sure whether to use a piece of punctuation, it's best not to.
User currently offlinefrancoflier From France, joined Oct 2001, 3741 posts, RR: 11
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4352 times:

Global Warming thread alert!

Don the gas masks, man the turrets, it's here again!...



Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit posting...
User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7877 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4349 times:

Quoting francoflier (Reply 9):

Global Warming thread alert!

Don the gas masks, man the turrets, it's here again!...

I'm hoping we can learn from it, because honestly, there is a lot I do not know because it gets drowned out by politics. How much is indeed human? How much good can we do (or can't do?) Etc.

Not sure if that was the intention of the thread but I'd like to see it go there (for once.) And I don't want it to be one sided, I still like to see anti-GW info... unfortunately, a lot of that info isn't peer reviewed like the pro-GW stuff is



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlineflymia From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 7140 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

It's happening. That's not much of a question what the question is, how much are we humans actually adding to climate change and do we really have an affect on changing something as unpredictable, huge and mysterious which earths climate is. Obviously not taking about weather or even climate over a few years I'm talking centuries. We have no idea what's going on with that and probably never will.

People talk about how strong hurricanes are yet some of the strongest happened in the 1920s and 1930s. People talk about polar ice but we have no idea how much sea ice there was 500 years ago.

Us adding in green houses gases has to do something I imagine but the actual impact is the question. A big impact? A little? Might take some time to figure out and then it might be too late but cities flooding by 2070 like showed in an inconvenient truth is not happening.



"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
User currently offlinecptkrell From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3220 posts, RR: 12
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4329 times:

After surviving Al Gore and other alarmist's barrages, my personal belief is that there probably is an impact on overall global climate via humanoids, however, the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual". Been that way for a zillion years and it will be that way for another zillion years (unless we blow ourselves up first).

When I opine that there probably is an impact as a result of advanced human endeavor, I do believe the impact is far down on the scale of importance versus the impact of, say, a couple of monumental volcanic eruptions. I guess we can help the environment a bit, but I am thinking natural phenomina will probably always win. Must stop here. all best...jack



all best; jack
User currently offlineNoUFO From Germany, joined Apr 2001, 7951 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4311 times:

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual".

It cannot be the sun for at least 2 reasons:

1) While it is getting warmer near ground, it is getting cooler higher up in the atmosphere. It is the same effect as putting a lid on a pot. Would it be the sun, temperatures would climb everywhere in the atmosphere.

2) Night temperatures near ground are climbing slightly faster than day temperatures.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
I do believe the impact is far down on the scale of importance versus the impact of, say, a couple of monumental volcanic eruptions.

But it is actually the other way around. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Your two arguments have long been outdated, sorry, and if people are interested in Al Gore, then they are Americans. Only Americans mention his name when discussing global warming.

[Edited 2013-04-25 18:38:17]


I support the right to arm bears
User currently offlineStarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3359 posts, RR: 9
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4293 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Well if a few large cities are deemed inhabitable in the next century then we will know the answer to that question.

Quoting flymia (Reply 11):
People talk about polar ice but we have no idea how much sea ice there was 500 years ago.

Regarding Sea Ice that doesn't contribute to rising sea levels as an iceberg has already displaced that water. Also climatologists have a good idea of how much ice there was up to hundreds of thousands of years ago as well as the gas concentrations back then. They are alarmed because they cannot find historical evidence of this much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Where sea ice is relevant also is that ice reflects heat and water absorbs it.

One of the things humans are doing besides emitting so much greenhouse gas is taking away a lot of the things that suck up the carbon such as trees (deforestation needs to be slowed) and farming practices can be changed that could do much more to reverse the trend than stopping all industry.

This TED talk gives some insight to a potential solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
But it is actually the other way around. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Volcanoes would actually help to reverse the warming as SO2 reflects sunlight back into space and has a temporary cooling effect. It happened in 1992 after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, and bigger eruptions such as Krakatoa also had this effect.



Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
User currently offlinetrav110 From Canada, joined Jun 2005, 536 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4243 times:

There is virtually no dispute among climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is happening. This is not political, it's scientific. I certainly don't consider myself very well-versed on the subject but I'll believe a scientist before I believe someone who is uninformed and who uses anecdotal evidence and personal experience to support their opinion.

[Edited 2013-04-26 00:28:14]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4235 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

If you think that changes in climate don't have significant economic and geopolitical costs, then you're very much mistaken.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25086 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4217 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

So - what - things like the Clean Air Act in London were a waste of time?

That all those pollutants pouring into the air from coal burning fires weren't really a problem, that buildings weren't really caked with soot because of them and that thousands of people didn't really die from the effects of the great smog of 1952?

Gosh.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
If you think that changes in climate don't have significant economic and geopolitical costs, then you're very much mistaken.

First of all define "significant".

Secondly where have i ever stated there would not be costs?

The point i made is that the costs of climate change are unlikely to exceed the costs of preventing it.

Quoting mariner (Reply 17):
So - what - things like the Clean Air Act in London were a waste of time?

No because the Clean Air Act looks to be economically viable. Having a deadly smog in your capital city is probably worse for business than changing household fuel sources and relocating power plants out of cities.

However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.


User currently offlinemariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25086 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.

Not for those countries which will disappear under the sea.

There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlineAF1624 From France, joined Jul 2006, 657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4166 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.

I recommend you watch the film called "The Island President" which covers in quite nice detail what would happen to the Maldives if this happened.



Cheers
User currently offlineconnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4165 times:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual".

It cannot be the sun for at least 2 reasons:

1) While it is getting warmer near ground, it is getting cooler higher up in the atmosphere. It is the same effect as putting a lid on a pot. Would it be the sun, temperatures would climb everywhere in the atmosphere.

2) Night temperatures near ground are climbing slightly faster than day temperatures.

Agreed it is not the Sun. It's slightly variable, but not a Cepheid-type variable star. If it was, we wouldn't be here. If you take as true that the Sun's output is constant, and also accept as true that we have hugely depleted the ozone layer in the stratosphere, then:

- insulating ozone blanket no longer effectively absorbing solar energy in the stratosphere;
- solar energy therefore penetrating close to ground level;
- ergo average temperatures near the ground increasing (this is independent of CO2-induced temperature rising);
- night temps increasing more quickly due to large swathes of land 'baking out' during the day, re-radiating heat back to the lower atmosphere at night.

There are of course many other factors involved: deforestation/reforestation, agricultural practices, solution of CO2 into the upper layers of the oceans, and so forth.

One thing seems clear: there is likely about 2 degC 'worth' of CO2 in the atmosphere working it's way up into the stratosphere now, and this is likely unstoppable. So over the next 50 or so years, we are going to see a much different Earth than we have now. Not quite like Venus, but taking a couple of steps down that road. And the effects on the human population and condition are going to be significant.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 20):
I recommend you watch the film called "The Island President" which covers in quite nice detail what would happen to the Maldives if this happened.
Quoting mariner (Reply 19):
Not for those countries which will disappear under the sea.

There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

mariner

Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

Really?


User currently offlinecmf From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4151 times:

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):
Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

Do you think that by giving up a few islands we can forget about CO2 for all future? Sounds to me that you take a view that the problem can be pushed till after you're dead.


User currently offlineRomeoBravo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

Quoting cmf (Reply 23):
Do you think that by giving up a few islands we can forget about CO2 for all future? Sounds to me that you take a view that the problem can be pushed till after you're dead.

Not at all. Unlike people who espouse spending our way out of our current economic problems i am against passing on our problems to future generations.

The amount of oil on the planet is finite. At some point price incentives will divert behaviour to carbon neutral fuel sources. It may even happen before if we discover new technologies like fusion.


25 aloges : I see that you're focussing on monetary costs. That begs the question: do you think that the only relevant aspect of climate change is its financial
26 RomeoBravo : What other effects do you believe exist?
27 aloges : You must be joking. off the top of my head and in no particular order: starvation, political upheaval, war, destruction of homelands and habitats, fu
28 Mir : The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as
29 RomeoBravo : But these things implicate economic problems. Starvation means a lack of ability to pay for food. Man made and natural disasters implicate negative e
30 cmf : Great, you agree there is a problem. SO why not start dealing with it?
31 RomeoBravo : Where did i say there was a problem? It's not necessary to put words in my mouth.
32 captaink : Climate Change (not global warming) is a fact. The earth´s climate patterns are responding to anthropogenic activities. The earth´s natural variatio
33 northstardc4m : This isn't factual. Hurricanes have occurred long before man was burning oil, and there has been no increase in Hurricane, Typhoon and Monsoon activi
34 aloges : ...or to produce it in the first place: "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you
35 cptkrell : I based my post (Rep 12) from memory, often the wrong thing to do, but will submit the following in reference to Siberian engineer Mulkin Milankovich'
36 mt99 : Why do anything then really? Why clean the water supply? Why not dump raw sewage on a river? I bet its more economical to sh*t in outside your doorst
37 northstardc4m : Even if sea levels go up by 30m we loose very little farmland. If theres a 30m increase, it sucks for Bangladesh, Florida (but hey Disney World will
38 RomeoBravo : A lack of ability to produce food in sufficient quantities is one half of what causes a lack of ability to pay for it. Obviously not, because I'm arg
39 aloges : You're talking about a country of more than 150 million people. "Sucks for them" is completely inappropriate. Apart from that, you seem completely ob
40 mt99 : Of course not. But why wouldn't you want to plan another tree some other place to replace it?
41 Post contains links and images zkojq : For those interested in the Geopolitical consequences, I would suggest you have a read a book by Gwynne Dyer. It is called Climate Wars. Otherwise, I'
42 northstardc4m : Nice cherry pick and ignore the point of the sentence... I was speaking of lost farmland, nothing more... relocations of coastal cities is a differen
43 RomeoBravo : Yes, of course, look at the Weimar Republic, unlimited amounts of money didn't solve that. Same as QE isn't solving today's problems. Money is just a
44 Darksnowynight : Short answer, yes. Long answer, hell yes.
45 AM744 : To the best of our knowledge at this point the answer is yes. We can think whatever we want, but science doesn't work that way. For example, there ar
46 mariner : I would see the low lying islands as the canary in the mine shaft. If they go under, quite a few of the big port cities are in trouble. mariner
47 Post contains links connies4ever : I wouldn't go so far as to assert that it isn't factual. Hurricane frequency and intensity appear to depend on a phenomenon called the Atlantic Multi
48 Post contains links something : Benjour mon ami! There is a fairly comprehensive study conducted by a leading economic council for Hamburg, Germany. Unfortunately it is available on
49 RomeoBravo : Yes it's a negative externality that has been grandfathered in of which the costs are near impossible to calculate and apportion. Certainly a pigouvi
50 cmf : When I ask if you think we can forget about CO2 for all future you say "not at all" and follow up with that you don't agree with "passing on our prob
51 RomeoBravo : Maybe try reading post 24 again.
52 cmf : You think I would ask if I hadn't done that? How about providing some answers instead of sidestepping?
53 RomeoBravo : All the answers are in post 24 and it's very clear. If your verbal reasoning skills are so poor you can't see what is being said then there's not any
54 Post contains links something : Explain to me how. Why nonsense? It is completely arbitrary what we pay people to build powerlines, windmills, solar panels etc. Just as it is arbitr
55 RomeoBravo : You can't see how we would be significantly worse off if we didn't burn fossil fuels? Hardly seems much point continuing this conversation if you can
56 connies4ever : Spent CANDU fuel decays back to background levels (i.e., when the raw ore was mined from the ground) in about 700 years. PWR fuel is somewhat longer
57 DeltaMD90 : I don't want to speak for anyone, but I'm 99% sure no one here is saying we should just stop burning fossil fuels tomorrow, rather, invest and use mo
58 cmf : Your statements in post 24 and the rest are very clear - You can't defend your statements. They are random ramblings where each time you're challenge
59 wingscrubber : The anthropogenic global warming theory is just a modern-day pascals wager. It's proponents believe that there's too much to lose by not believing in
60 DeltaMD90 : You do realize that you could change the names around and describe much of the opposing side with the same description? I've seen some questionable d
61 connies4ever : Two, actually. Do better fact checking. These were the oldest plants around in any event. "Waste" ? Far better to place a future resource in a retrie
62 Post contains links and images something : The ''new rage'' is to produce excess energy which is used to electrolyse sea water. That way you produce hydrogen, which can be used for a multitude
63 Darksnowynight : Debate? What debate? That there is anthropogenic global warming is quite settled. It's only for folks with a political or economic dog in the race th
64 Post contains links connies4ever : Depends on how you define waste. In Canada, and I suspect France, we include paper lab smocks, booties, flasks, pipettes, and beakers as waste. These
65 windy95 : What rate of rise. There has been no warming for some 15 years. And it has actually been cooling in the near term. Because of UHI effect. Because of
66 Post contains links and images windy95 : Epic fail for the computer models. Garbage in and you get garbage out as the old saying goes. Since the Satellites have been up we have .3 degrees of
67 Post contains links and images something : Impressive theory. Unfortunately, most of Dr Roy Robson's theories have been disproven. http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1987 Or more speci
68 Post contains images windy95 : Who is Dr Roy Robson and where did I mention his theory? And you are going to use that skeptical science site as proof of disproving theories...
69 cmf : You're using the chart he made and don't know who he is.... Doesn't sound very informed. When you use a sceptical site...
70 Ljungdahl : Something #67 cmf #69 https://www.google.se/search?q=Roy+Robson&aq=f&oq=Roy+Robson&aqs=chrome.0.57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=sv&
71 NoUFO : Ljungdahl, Your posts is telling me that you did not understand one single thing about global warming. Bull. It is 3.2 mm per year - that's about 60 p
72 Post contains links Ljungdahl : Maybe you missed how this fellows see it? Maybe they also is a part of "coal and oil industry"? http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLev..._Level_Rise_Bu
73 cmf : Yes it should have been Spencer. Shouldn't reply just before rushing out. The rest still stand. It has been delivered over and over again. Every clai
74 northstardc4m : Disaster has not been proven at all. Even the IPCC has told the world that the effects of global warming may not be seriously felt for generations. T
75 cmf : I took his use of disaster as hyperbole. The effects of CO2 are not in doubt, the details are. Pretty sure we can. If we couldn't it wouldn't make an
76 Ljungdahl : Basic science is to explain observations with your theory/hypothesis. If they do not match, is the hypothesis or the observations wrong then in your
77 cmf : In my view, you're making a logical fallacy by trying to suggest it is always the same one that is wrong. You want me to say the hypothesis is wrong
78 Post contains links NoUFO : Why bother? We have had lots of discussions here on a.net, you don't sound like anyone who asks honest questions because he requests information, and
79 DeltaMD90 : I agree with what you said earlier... let's avoid where the money is and avoid the politics. We can all agree that special interests and politics has
80 Ljungdahl : If we define "independent", then all the scientists that are funded by governments (or organisations controlled by them as the IPCC) can not be consi
81 Post contains links Ljungdahl : The sooner people realize what actually happens, the better: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/0...resource-misuse-on-a-global-scale/
82 zckls04 : The consensus among climate scientists is that those are likely future events. Nobody's claiming the world is too hot to inhabit yet. There's no poin
83 cmf : That is tin hat territory. Why don't you tell us where next plane will crash. Just because it can't be said exactly where, when and how doesn't mean
84 Post contains links and images windy95 : http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/20...a-falsifies-basis-of-man-made.html Numerous new studies coming out debunking the alarmist vapor feedback. No ou
85 Post contains links and images windy95 : 15 years of no warming according to the Met office which is the Vatican of the religion of global warming... And basically ten years of no rise in th
86 Flighty : Do you believe global deforestation was done by men, or some other creature such as goblins? Do you believe coal mining and oil wells were built and o
87 Post contains links NoUFO : According to the tabloid Daily Mail (this is where your graph comes from) *not* the MET. This is what MET says: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-c
88 Post contains links casinterest : Anyway, For those of you that care, here is a recent blog containing the fact that 97% of published paper's by those that study climate change for a l
89 AM744 : Not too hot to inhabit of course. It's been said by scientists that my city has become 3C hotter based on historic records of the past 100 years. I d
90 DeltaMD90 : Where is the peer reviewed literature, sir? Your credentials only go so far in the scientific community... for your research to have any merit you ne
91 Post contains images NoUFO : But that's not the point AM744. The point is more extreme weather causing severe damages, higher sea levels causing more damage, faster extinction ra
92 Post contains links and images zkojq : A very good point, though people tend to forget this. Keep in mind that in certain parts of the world this issue is one based on ideologies, not fact
93 AM744 : I agree. I was just trying to reinforce the fact that I do think global warming is happening based on my own experiences. I'm fully aware that consec
94 L0VE2FLY : I still don't think it's possible to prove with 100% certainty that humanity is the main cause of global warming. It's been an interesting discussion,
95 cmf : Why does it matter if it is 100% man made or not? Isn't it the effects of global warming and what we can do to prevent it that matters?
96 Post contains images NoUFO : Where do you have 100% certainty? Do you need 100% certainty before you start doing something?
97 Post contains links windy95 : Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_so...ation_global_warming_deb
98 casinterest : Another article written poorly. Here is it is in simpler terms. CO2 molecules reflect heat, whether it is from the Sun , or from the earth. The artic
99 DeltaMD90 : Uhhh, I'm not trying to throw out what you say, I always try and have an open mind, but reading the actual NASA thing and then the website you linked
100 Post contains links NoUFO : No need, really. It is well understood that and not at all new that less than half of Sun's energy entering atmosphere does not reach Earth's surface
101 NoUFO : Well, that would be a tad too simplistic ... but what the hell. CO2, as well as other greenhouse gases, absorb (not reflect, contrary to what the art
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Global Warming... Is There Anything It Can't Do? posted Mon Jun 18 2007 23:55:47 by MDorBust
Is It Really That Cold? posted Thu Dec 20 2007 07:03:57 by Farcry
Do You Believe Global Warming Is Real? (1 Wrd Ans) posted Wed Dec 19 2007 09:29:32 by Deaphen
OK, Naysayers: Global Warming Is Real posted Thu Jun 22 2006 20:31:18 by Boeing757/767
Is It Really Totaled? posted Mon May 22 2006 00:41:21 by BR715-A1-30
Is It Really Called "Kurdistan"? posted Tue Apr 18 2006 06:39:00 by Marco
Spencer Tunick: Is It Really Art? posted Mon Mar 20 2006 08:41:42 by 9VSPO
Bush Approval Rate. Is It Really That Important? posted Mon Oct 31 2005 20:11:25 by Aleksandar
Is It Really This Strict In Dubai? posted Wed Apr 27 2005 19:45:03 by KLMA330
Light Rail: Is It Really All It's Hyped Up To Be? posted Sat Apr 16 2005 18:13:48 by Matt D