• The Global Warming Hoax (True or False)
    314 replies, posted
nobody who actually knows anything about anything thinks that global warming is a hoax seriously you must be literally ignorant of everything ever in history [editline]23rd September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;32433896]The planet is 4.5 billion years old and has seen more shit than a single species can throw at it. The time humans have existed on earth is a mere fraction of a fraction of earths timeline. We are just barely an honorable mention of earthly events as of right now. "Saving the planet" is a stupid thing to call "the cause" that so many Greenpeace hippies follow. The Yellowstone caldera could blow out next Tuesday and make every attempt at "saving the planet" irrelevant in a matter of hours. Or a meteor could hit the pacific ocean and wipe every trace of life off the coast of the pacific rim. Earth is changing, and we can't stop it. If humans are fortunate enough to live on this rock for another couple thousand years we may see a day when New York city is completely scrapped off the planet by a glacier that doesn't even think twice about destroying whatever stands in its way. What I'm trying to say is, we as humans have about as much control on what this planet does as a passenger of a commercial airline hurtling through space. We're really just a long for the ride. However, what we [i]can[/i] do is make this interstellar Boeing first class quality. With careful regulations we can make the oceans plentiful and healthy, along with other things that we depend on for a healthy happy life. Saving the planet is really, well, silly. Saving and prolonging our own species however, we can do. But that's going to require some cooperation with nature.[/QUOTE] nope this is totally dumb and wrong sorry we can easily throw too much at the planet, your arbitrary decision that we can't isn't based on anything but blind assumptions. the time humans have been here is irrelevant. protecting the environment is perfectly legitimate and we are spewing out emissions that are very dangerous to our climate. that much has been known for a long time, and it's only getting worse. you're just talking irrelevancies instead of actually talking about the subject. it doesn't matter whether or not some mythical meteor could bring the smackdown. as you said, prolonging ourselves is really important and so preventing the environment from taking a turn for the worst for all life is not something we should scoff at your idea of cooperating with blind acts of nature as they wreak havoc on us is just silly. leaving everything to run its own course doesn't help us and doesn't help any other life on this planet. why NOT preserve environment and reduce emissions? Oh no we would make a safer atmosphere for every plant animal and human, the horror.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;32437566]nobody who actually knows anything about anything thinks that global warming is a hoax seriously you must be literally ignorant of everything ever in history [editline]23rd September 2011[/editline] nope this is totally dumb and wrong sorry we can easily throw too much at the planet, your arbitrary decision that we can't isn't based on anything but blind assumptions. the time humans have been here is irrelevant. protecting the environment is perfectly legitimate and we are spewing out emissions that are very dangerous to our climate. that much has been known for a long time, and it's only getting worse. you're just talking irrelevancies instead of actually talking about the subject. it doesn't matter whether or not some mythical meteor could bring the smackdown. as you said, prolonging ourselves is really important and so preventing the environment from taking a turn for the worst for all life is not something we should scoff at your idea of cooperating with blind acts of nature as they wreak havoc on us is just silly. leaving everything to run its own course doesn't help us and doesn't help any other life on this planet. why NOT preserve environment and reduce emissions? Oh no we would make a safer atmosphere for every plant animal and human, the horror.[/QUOTE] Read the thread please.
no
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;32437566]your idea of cooperating with blind acts of nature as they wreak havoc on us is just silly. leaving everything to run its own course doesn't help us and doesn't help any other life on this planet. why NOT preserve environment and reduce emissions? Oh no we would make a safer atmosphere for every plant animal and human, the horror.[/QUOTE] Like I said on the previous page: if you plot the historical CO2 levels on Earth over the past few billion years and extrapolate the numbers out into the future you'll find that in about half a billion to a billion years from now the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be too low for photosynthesis to occur. If you REALLY want to save the planet and ensure life exists for the longest possible time it can then we really should be pumping out more CO2. Sure, it might fuck up the environment in the short run, but in the long run it'd allow for life to exist for longer.
[QUOTE=DOG-GY;32437711]no[/QUOTE] If you would, you would clearly see my stance on the subject. [editline]23rd September 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=sltungle;32437788]If you REALLY want to save the planet and ensure life exists for the longest possible time it can then we really should be pumping out more CO2. Sure, it might fuck up the environment in the short run, but in the long run it'd allow for life to exist for longer.[/QUOTE] No. Not necessarily. Were shooting ourselves in the foot and that's why CO2 emission needs to be cut drastically. That's also what I mean by saying it's not the earth that needs saving. In the long run earth will shrug off everything we threw at it and life will continue and thrive. By destroying fisheries and natural resources, and emitting CO2 that causes the acidity of the ocean and temperatures to increase, we are harming not only the biosphere, but ourselves. Were harming ourselves in such a way that it could cause serious economic ramifications possibly resulting in a large loss of human life. Though the planet will live on, albeit with the bump that is anthropogenic effects on climate.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32437788]Like I said on the previous page: if you plot the historical CO2 levels on Earth over the past few billion years and extrapolate the numbers out into the future you'll find that in about half a billion to a billion years from now the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be too low for photosynthesis to occur. If you REALLY want to save the planet and ensure life exists for the longest possible time it can then we really should be pumping out more CO2. Sure, it might fuck up the environment in the short run, but in the long run it'd allow for life to exist for longer.[/QUOTE] did you know that in fifty billion years all matter in space will have spread out so far that life will be incapable of existing due to heat death that means we should turn the earth into a black hole and set it on fire im a scientist give me money
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32437929]did you know that in fifty billion years all matter in space will have spread out so far that life will be incapable of existing due to heat death that means we should turn the earth into a black hole and set it on fire im a scientist give me money[/QUOTE] You can't sit there and go, "IT'S FOR EARTH! IT'S FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!" and then when you get told how it really is suddenly refuse to accept it. Either you admit you're being 'selfish' and thinking of humanity only and you don't give a shit what happens to Earth in the long run, or you're legitimately doing it for the entirety of the planet, with or without humans, and in which case you'd realise that, in the long run, increased CO2 levels will prove to be beneficial.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32437962]in the long run, increased CO2 levels will prove to be beneficial.[/QUOTE] I'm not exactly sure how you got this conclusion.
[QUOTE=Soviet Bread;32438049]I'm not exactly sure how you got this conclusion.[/QUOTE] *sigh* How many times do I have to explain this. Over time, since life developed, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have trended downwards. Quite sharply so, in fact. For example, during the Triassic Period CO2 levels were 1700ppm in the atmosphere. Now they're at about 390ppm. If this overall, long term downwards trend continues, then in about 500 million to a billion years time the CO2 levels will be so low that no plant life on the planet will be able to facilitate photosynthesis which will result in the death of all life on Earth. Hence, in the EXTREME long run having more CO2 in the atmosphere benefits Earth as a whole more so than having less CO2 in the atmosphere as it'll allow life to exist for longer.
So, uh, how is that beneficial. To anything, except misanthropists. Or people who hate the planet.
I think he means it gives plant life more CO2 to work with, thus greatly increasing vegetation. That's all assuming that severe global warming won't flood the coasts or turn large tracts of land into deserts.
[QUOTE=OvB;32438129]I think he means it gives plant life more CO2 to work with, thus greatly increasing vegetation. That's all assuming that severe global warming won't flood the coasts or turn large tracts of land into deserts.[/QUOTE] Basically. More CO2 means the plants will be able to live for longer, and life as a whole will continue longer than it otherwise would. Also, there have been points in history when there have been NO polar ice caps (in fact, it's perfectly normal, it happens all of the time; If I'm not mistaken we're technically in an ice age as long as we have ice caps) and the Earth's been just fine. Given that, for the most part, the volume of water on Earth is constant (we're not gonna pick up significant quantities from meteorites or anything, and we probably don't lose too much to space) I think it's probably safe to assume that if we ever come to a point again whereby the polar ice caps melt again life will probably continue pretty uninterrupted.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32438185]Basically. More CO2 means the plants will be able to live for longer, and life as a whole will continue longer than it otherwise would. Also, there have been points in history when there have been NO polar ice caps (in fact, it's perfectly normal, it happens all of the time; If I'm not mistaken we're technically in an ice age as long as we have ice caps) and the Earth's been just fine. Given that, for the most part, the volume of water on Earth is constant (we're not gonna pick up significant quantities from meteorites or anything, and we probably don't lose too much to space) I think it's probably safe to assume that if we ever come to a point again whereby the polar ice caps melt again life will probably continue pretty uninterrupted.[/QUOTE] the difference is that nowadays we have hundreds of millions of people living in coastal areas that are going to get flooded if the icecaps melt. Hell, the Maldives government is basically just preparing for the day they literally won't have a country anymore because it'll have sunk beneath the waves like Atlantis.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32438089]*sigh* How many times do I have to explain this. Over time, since life developed, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have trended downwards. Quite sharply so, in fact. For example, during the Triassic Period CO2 levels were 1700ppm in the atmosphere. Now they're at about 390ppm. If this overall, long term downwards trend continues, then in about 500 million to a billion years time the CO2 levels will be so low that no plant life on the planet will be able to facilitate photosynthesis which will result in the death of all life on Earth. Hence, in the EXTREME long run having more CO2 in the atmosphere benefits Earth as a whole more so than having less CO2 in the atmosphere as it'll allow life to exist for longer.[/QUOTE] You forget that the rate of photosynthesis also depends on CO2. [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC509230/?tool=pmcentrez"]It has been shown that increased CO2 (720 ppm) is harmful[/URL] to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation"]95%[/URL] of all plants. C4 plants, wich are unaffected by photorespiration, [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16553316"]would use up the CO2 much faster than C3 plants[/URL]. Plants can't use up too much CO2 anyway because the carbon that they bind is eventually [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle"]released into the athmosphere by volcanoes and animals[/URL]. Both processes speed up as their source storages are increased.
[QUOTE=Tamschi;32446428]You forget that the rate of photosynthesis also depends on CO2. [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC509230/?tool=pmcentrez"]It has been shown that increased CO2 (720 ppm) is harmful[/URL] to [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C3_carbon_fixation"]95%[/URL] of all plants. C4 plants, wich are unaffected by photorespiration, [URL="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16553316"]would use up the CO2 much faster than C3 plants[/URL]. Plants can't use up too much CO2 anyway because the carbon that they bind is eventually [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle"]released into the athmosphere by volcanoes and animals[/URL]. Both processes speed up as their source storages are increased.[/QUOTE] Good points. I wasn't aware of that. However, as a counter point: the rate at which CO2 is getting trapped as things like carbonate on the ocean floor MUST be higher compared to the rate at which it's being released or else you wouldn't see the negative trend of atmospheric CO2 over time that we've been seeing. If CO2 was trapped and released in equal proportions over the course of hundreds of millions of years you'd expect the CO2 levels to stay fairly consistent, or maybe just fluctuate around a central point. If it was released in higher proportions than it was trapped (lots of volcanic activity for example) you'd expect to see a gradual upwards trend. What we have seen though is a very large downwards trend since life began so obviously the rate at which CO2 is being trapped as things like carbonate is higher than the rate at which it's released. Which makes sense because as Earth ages it becomes less geologically active; less volcanoes go off and such. Also, considering, like I said, that CO2 levels were 1700ppm during the Triassic Period I'm sure that plants could evolve to cope with higher levels (become more like the plants of the Triassic Period). But you have to remember that, just due to the nature of physics and chemistry, there is a lower limit to how much CO2 is required for photosynthesis. Having excess isn't too bad because plants can evolve to cope with, having too little will, because of the nature of the universe, prevent photosynthesis from physically taking place.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32451292]Good points. I wasn't aware of that. However, as a counter point: the rate at which CO2 is getting trapped as things like carbonate on the ocean floor MUST be higher compared to the rate at which it's being released or else you wouldn't see the negative trend of atmospheric CO2 over time that we've been seeing. If CO2 was trapped and released in equal proportions over the course of hundreds of millions of years you'd expect the CO2 levels to stay fairly consistent, or maybe just fluctuate around a central point. If it was released in higher proportions than it was trapped (lots of volcanic activity for example) you'd expect to see a gradual upwards trend. What we have seen though is a very large downwards trend since life began so obviously the rate at which CO2 is being trapped as things like carbonate is higher than the rate at which it's released. Which makes sense because as Earth ages it becomes less geologically active; less volcanoes go off and such. Also, considering, like I said, that CO2 levels were 1700ppm during the Triassic Period I'm sure that plants could evolve to cope with higher levels (become more like the plants of the Triassic Period). But you have to remember that, just due to the nature of physics and chemistry, there is a lower limit to how much CO2 is required for photosynthesis. Having excess isn't too bad because plants can evolve to cope with, having too little will, because of the nature of the universe, prevent photosynthesis from physically taking place.[/QUOTE] you do realize that evolution(especially with plants) takes something called "time", a concept you apparently have no grasp of your solution to a problem that doesn't even exist yet is the equivalent of filling a house with fire retardant foam because it contains a box of matches
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32453008]you do realize that evolution(especially with plants) takes something called "time", a concept you apparently have no grasp of your solution to a problem that doesn't even exist yet is the equivalent of filling a house with fire retardant foam because it contains a box of matches[/QUOTE] Uhh, if you'd bothered to read the links that Tamschi posted you'd see that plants are still sort of suited to living in an environment with MORE CO2. They have kind of 'vestigial functions' left over from when the Earth DID have more CO2. Some would die (the ones that find higher CO2 levels bad), but that'd only happen if we DOUBLED our CO2 concentrations (which I'm sure we wouldn't). Others would survive though.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32453077]Uhh, if you'd bothered to read the links that Tamschi posted you'd see that plants are still sort of suited to living in an environment with MORE CO2. They have kind of 'vestigial functions' left over from when the Earth DID have more CO2. Some would die (the ones that find higher CO2 levels bad), but that'd only happen if we DOUBLED our CO2 concentrations (which I'm sure we wouldn't). Others would survive though.[/QUOTE] So your plan is "Okay guys keep pumping out CO2 it's okay only a few species will die out because of it and I don't really care about the other ecological damage okay the CO2 levels are now fine for a few more million years you can stop now guys guys hey I said stop FUCK THE PLANTS ARE DYING FUCK FUCK" see the problem in that plan
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;32453108]So your plan is "Okay guys keep pumping out CO2 it's okay only a few species will die out because of it and I don't really care about the other ecological damage okay the CO2 levels are now fine for a few more million years you can stop now guys guys hey I said stop FUCK THE PLANTS ARE DYING FUCK FUCK" see the problem in that plan[/QUOTE] And your argument is a completely unfounded, hypothetical situation with absolutely no grounding in reality or any references as to why that'd happen.
I believe climate change is happening, it happens everyday. I believe that the real bad part of this is corporations making "green" products to sell so they can profit off of this scare.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32451292]Good points. I wasn't aware of that. However, as a counter point: the rate at which CO2 is getting trapped as things like carbonate on the ocean floor MUST be higher compared to the rate at which it's being released or else you wouldn't see the negative trend of atmospheric CO2 over time that we've been seeing. If CO2 was trapped and released in equal proportions over the course of hundreds of millions of years you'd expect the CO2 levels to stay fairly consistent, or maybe just fluctuate around a central point. If it was released in higher proportions than it was trapped (lots of volcanic activity for example) you'd expect to see a gradual upwards trend. What we have seen though is a very large downwards trend since life began so obviously the rate at which CO2 is being trapped as things like carbonate is higher than the rate at which it's released. Which makes sense because as Earth ages it becomes less geologically active; less volcanoes go off and such. Also, considering, like I said, that CO2 levels were 1700ppm during the Triassic Period I'm sure that plants could evolve to cope with higher levels (become more like the plants of the Triassic Period). But you have to remember that, just due to the nature of physics and chemistry, there is a lower limit to how much CO2 is required for photosynthesis. Having excess isn't too bad because plants can evolve to cope with, having too little will, because of the nature of the universe, prevent photosynthesis from physically taking place.[/QUOTE] The lower bounds of CO2 are at or lower than 100ppm for most plants, C4 plants don't depend on a certain level of CO2: [IMG]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/imgbio/c3c4.gif[/IMG] (Source: [URL]http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/phoc.html[/URL]; The 38000 ppm are wrong (at least if these are ppmv), the correct figure is around 380 ppm.) CO2 in the atmosphere has been fluctuating a lot in the last 400000 years, always above 150 ppm: [IMG]http://cdn.greenoptions.com/c/c7/c7836bfb_Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr_Rev.png[/IMG] (Source: [URL]http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing[/URL]) The equilibrium seems to be somewhere in this range. There were relatively low atmospheric CO2 levels before the Triassic Period, so the negative trend isn't constant on a large scale either: [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png[/IMG] ([URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png[/URL]) The extremely high CO2 to the right was the result of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth#Breaking_out_of_global_glaciation"]several global ice ages[/URL] where CO2 could not decrease. In found another interesting graph on [URL]http://www.greenoptions.com/wiki/how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing[/URL]: [IMG]http://cdn.greenoptions.com/c/cd/cd93fd65_6e45b560_ipcc2007_radforc.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]We can also calculate the most conservative possible temperature change in response to the CO2 increase. Some climate scientists who are touted as 'skeptics' have suggested the actual climate sensitivity could be closer to 1°C for a doubling of CO2, or 0.27°C/(W/m2). Although numerous studies have ruled out climate sensitivity values this low, as discussed in the Climate Sensitivity Wiki, we can calculate how much of a temperature change this low value would generate. Using the same formulas as above, ΔT = 1.8 * λ = 1.8 * 0.27 = 0.5°C. Therefore, even under this ultra-conservative unrealistic low climate sensitivity scenario, the increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years would account for over half of the observed 0.8°C increase in surface temperature.[/QUOTE] The site also explains the science behind this and why global temperature reacts with a delay to changes in forcing. The graphs on [URL="http://cawcr.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf"]page 2 and 3 of a paper published in 2004[/URL] show exactly how much warming was caused by humans over the last century.
I think global warming is true, to a certain extent. When I see stuff like "OMFGGG TEH WRLDS R MELLT1NG" then it turns bullshit
[QUOTE=Sourcegamer8;32463381]I think global warming is true, to a certain extent. When I see stuff like "OMFGGG TEH WRLDS R MELLT1NG" then it turns bullshit[/QUOTE] I see posts like this a lot. Why do you make such a distinction?
[QUOTE=sltungle;32438185]Basically. More CO2 means the plants will be able to live for longer, and life as a whole will continue longer than it otherwise would. Also, there have been points in history when there have been NO polar ice caps (in fact, it's perfectly normal, it happens all of the time; If I'm not mistaken we're technically in an ice age as long as we have ice caps) and the Earth's been just fine. Given that, for the most part, the volume of water on Earth is constant (we're not gonna pick up significant quantities from meteorites or anything, and we probably don't lose too much to space) I think it's probably safe to assume that if we ever come to a point again whereby the polar ice caps melt again life will probably continue pretty uninterrupted.[/QUOTE] The other huge contribution to global warming which you fail to analyze is deforestation, aka, the destruction of the Earth's flora and ecosystems. The reason why CO2 levels were so high is because the entire global ecosystem was entirely different, there was a higher concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere, and every single sessile and non-sessile form of life on earth was huge (see: megafauna, AKA, dinosaurs). However, this is not the Triassic period, this is the Holocene, we're in an inter-glacial period (By the way there was always ice caps on the south and north poles, at least for the last 900,000 years there were, there's only small variations of volume as the axial tilt changes. The destruction of OUR CURRENT ice caps, one of which is continental, would imply the release of 61% of the world's supply of fresh water into the ocean, the destruction of two of the largest ecosystems still relatively untouched by mankind, the total displacement of several currents resulting in weather changes, I could go on and on and on. Are you really suggesting that mankind's complete disregard for how it disposes of it waste for nearly all of it's existance is actually beneficial for the Earth as a whole? The Earth doesn't exactly "learn", it simply changes, and by a general rule, most living things don't generally survive those changes.
[QUOTE=ShadoWxAssassiN;32461862]I believe climate change is happening, it happens everyday. I believe that the real bad part of this is corporations making "green" products to sell so they can profit off of this scare.[/QUOTE] Except that these products [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121425785415998071.html"]aren't necessarily worse or more costly than conventional ones[/URL]. [URL="http://www.buildings.com/ArticleDetails/tabid/3321/ArticleID/3029/Default.aspx"]Green buildings don't cost more than those conventionally built and have large benefits in operating costs.[/URL] Here in Germany, every new or changed building must have an "[URL="http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Datei:E-Pass.jpg&filetimestamp=20070815081135"]Energieausweis[/URL]" that shows how much energy is needed for heating. My former school had one that was over 250 and apparently they pay three times as much as planned. The hard drive in my computer is an energy efficient (the vendor says up to 40% less) model that is cheaper and quieter (I don't hear it usually) than others with the same capacity. It's also noticeably faster than the last one I had, but that's probably just because the data density is higher. Considering the difference between climate research and reporting in US media, don't you think it's more likely that corporations are trying to cause confusion in order to keep their products in the competition?
I highly recommend that the people in this thread watch Potholer54's excellent video series on climate change. [url]http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8/0/52KLGqDSAjo[/url]
it's a hoax if you watch fox news and/or believe the 10 percent of scientists who either disagree or are paid to do say shit.
[QUOTE=sltungle;32453077]Uhh, if you'd bothered to read the links that Tamschi posted you'd see that plants are still sort of suited to living in an environment with MORE CO2. They have kind of 'vestigial functions' left over from when the Earth DID have more CO2. Some would die (the ones that find higher CO2 levels bad), but that'd only happen if we DOUBLED our CO2 concentrations (which I'm sure we wouldn't). Others would survive though.[/QUOTE] Studies show that it makes the plants less healthy to eat though. Sorry but cant remember source.
I agree with the poster above: Global warming is real but not mainly caused by Co2 produced by us. It is a repeating cycle as can be seen here: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/800px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png[/img] (Data from Vostok ice core)
[QUOTE=taipan;32487812]I agree with the poster above: Global warming is real but not mainly caused by Co2 produced by us. It is a repeating cycle as can be seen here: [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/800px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png[/img] (Data from Vostok ice core)[/QUOTE] Seeing as there is a clear correlation between CO2 and Temperature, would you not agree that if humans pump millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere a year over the course of a few centuries, that we could effect it enough to where life as we know it cannot adapt fast enough?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.