GLOBAL WARMING - Discussion

[QUOTE="flavort"]Global warming is such a crock. Humans cannot effect the the climate of the earth enough to do any harm to it that wont be fixed by the earth itself. It is like trying to say a ant can sufficate me by pooping in my nose and mouth. So if your really that scared get off your computer and stop wasting energy dont buy a car and dont drive yours if you have one, turn off your air condition and dont buy anything made anywhere but in the USA, dont buy plastics, do not buy wood, just stop living.yoshi-lnex

humans are moving towards cleaner sorces means of producing energy and industrial production, that doesn't mean cutting yourself off completely to solve the problem :| 

Sorry to inform you, but your charts do not show a clear relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and the temperature change.  The charts merely show what could easily be coincidence, so no, I have not ignored them.  You might want to take another look at the chart that I posted regarding solar wind, CO2, and temperature.  Likewise, that chart alone does not show a clear relationship, but merely posting a few charts that climb at approximately the same place does nothing to prove your point unless you can establish a solid correlation.

[QUOTE="flavort"]Global warming is such a crock. Humans cannot effect the the climate of the earth enough to do any harm to it that wont be fixed by the earth itself. It is like trying to say a ant can sufficate me by pooping in my nose and mouth. So if your really that scared get off your computer and stop wasting energy dont buy a car and dont drive yours if you have one, turn off your air condition and dont buy anything made anywhere but in the USA, dont buy plastics, do not buy wood, just stop living.yoshi-lnex

humans are moving towards cleaner sorces means of producing energy and industrial production, that doesn't mean cutting yourself off completely to solve the problem :| 

I dont ignore your charts. Your charts are junk that does not take all info into consideration.

Take the buss instead of driving and such. I mean, why try to justify overly using resources that other people would have had much greater use of?TheTerribleFish

 like what

I think it is funny when people say,

"Everything has a balance, that's how ecosystems and climates work!" "Think about the Ice Age!" "Global Warming is natural! It happens every (Insert number) years!"

...Now, this all might be true, but nobody seems to get the true term of Global Warming. It is being sped up due to increased CO2 charges being released into the O-Zone layer. The atmosphere traps the energy from the sun due to the CO2 and such blocking it, and heats up the Earth like a giant blanket being placed over us. This is natural, the thing is, it's being sped up INSANELY due to cars, factories, and other things such as the removal of forests.

THAT, is what Global Warming is.

TaintedEon

Thanks for the definition that is probably word for word what your 4th grade teacher told you!  I don't see how anyone posting in this forum has shown ignorance in the meaning of global warming (unless it was simply a sarcastic comment).  The issue is what factual evidence is there that "it's being sped up INSANELY due to cars, factories, and other things"?

[QUOTE="TheTerribleFish"] Take the buss instead of driving and such. I mean, why try to justify overly using resources that other people would have had much greater use of?flavort

 like what

Like developing countries that some liberals (sorry for the vague generalization) want to keep from developing... or like Al Gore using 221,000 kWh in 2006 in one of his houses and flying all over the place in a private jet...

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

[QUOTE="flavort"]

[QUOTE="TheTerribleFish"] Take the buss instead of driving and such. I mean, why try to justify overly using resources that other people would have had much greater use of?drgrady

 like what

Like developing countries that some liberals (sorry for the vague generalization) want to keep from developing... or like Al Gore using 221,000 kWh in 2006 in one of his houses and flying all over the place in a private jet...

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=367

exactly

  To completely blow aside data from Earth Computer.. (Look it up it IS THE MOST POWERFUL single computer in the world, with thousands of systems connected to one another to give it un-rivalable power.)..  Is ludicrious...  If your not aware this computer look it up, the National Geographics Science Channel tends to talk about this system extensively..  Maybe you will be lucky and see it when they are talking about it.

   Anyways the computer is capable of projecting the entire worlds weather upwards to 100 year sin the future with current trends in weather...  Apparently it IS very reliable if numerous top enviromental scientists cite it as a reliable source of information and being able to constantly create reliable possibilities that match what happened in the past.

  To completely blow aside data from Earth Computer.. (Look it up it IS THE MOST POWERFUL single computer in the world, with thousands of systems connected to one another to give it un-rivalable power.)..  Is ludicrious...  If your not aware this computer look it up, the National Geographics Science Channel tends to talk about this system extensively..  Maybe you will be lucky and see it when they are talking about it.

   Anyways the computer is capable of projecting the entire worlds weather upwards to 100 year sin the future with current trends in weather...  Apparently it IS very reliable if numerous top enviromental scientists cite it as a reliable source of information and being able to constantly create reliable possibilities that match what happened in the past.

sSubZerOo

I do not merely blow it aside.  The processing power has little to do with it's accuracy, so long as it can process whatever model is being run.  I simply point out that it is using a computer model based on our current understanding of various factors influencing climate, and our understanding is incomplete.  Thus, the model is incomplete.  Creating a model that correctly mimics the past is easy in comparison to creating a model that predicts the future.  It also needs to be understood that there can be several completely different models that all give correct "predictions" of the past while giving completely different predictions of the future.  That is where the uncertainty comes into the picture.  Yes, it is the most reliable source we currently have, but it is based on a lot of incomplete information just like everything else we currently have.

[QUOTE="flavort"]Global warming is such a crock. Humans cannot effect the the climate of the earth enough to do any harm to it that wont be fixed by the earth itself. It is like trying to say a ant can sufficate me by pooping in my nose and mouth. So if your really that scared get off your computer and stop wasting energy dont buy a car and dont drive yours if you have one, turn off your air condition and dont buy anything made anywhere but in the USA, dont buy plastics, do not buy wood, just stop living.yoshi-lnex

humans are moving towards cleaner sorces means of producing energy and industrial production, that doesn't mean cutting yourself off completely to solve the problem :|

[QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

[QUOTE="flavort"]Global warming is such a crock. Humans cannot effect the the climate of the earth enough to do any harm to it that wont be fixed by the earth itself. It is like trying to say a ant can sufficate me by pooping in my nose and mouth. So if your really that scared get off your computer and stop wasting energy dont buy a car and dont drive yours if you have one, turn off your air condition and dont buy anything made anywhere but in the USA, dont buy plastics, do not buy wood, just stop living.hair001

humans are moving towards cleaner sorces means of producing energy and industrial production, that doesn't mean cutting yourself off completely to solve the problem :|

   Wait what?  You do know the United States is the stingiest country when it comes to energy conservation sense the last enviromental agreement..  We chose liek a 10% reduction where places like Japan and countries in Europe chose a 20 to 30% reduction in their emissions..  IF the United States is suppose to be the super power we claim to be, shouldn't we be the easiest to switch over to cleaner energies?  The main problem with this is politicians are in bed with the bloody lobbyiests imo.

its just a big scam that librals made up

Here is an article that some might find interesting.  It may be a bit tedious to get through, but the abstract pertains to what I've been trying to say.

http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf

Here is the abstract:

The analysis of air bubbles from ice cores has yielded a precise record of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, but the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known because of uncertainty in the gas age-ice age difference. We have measured the isotopic composition of argon in air bubbles in the Vostok core during Termination III (~240,000 years before the present). This record most likely reflects the temperature and accumulation change, although the mechanism remains unclear. The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800±200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation.

The main point of this is "the timing of changes in these gases with respect to temperature is not accurately known" and "the mechanism remains unclear".  It also mentions the roughly 800 year lag between Antarctic warming and CO2 levels.  So basically, we have a lot of data, but there is still a lot of uncertainty.  That uncertainty leads to incomplete and/or incorrect models.

Also would like to add some one said that enviromentalists are trying to screw nations from becomign 1st world countries.. That is utter BS, why don't you guys actually read some times.. There is a HUGE movment in countries such as India to stop Globilization.. Why?  Because businesses are moving there for the cheaper labor as well as NO ENVIROMENTAL LAWS..  So they are basically allowed to ruin areas of the country that can indirectly kill people, then pull out when the natural resources of the region are gone to move on..  Coke got tehir asses busted on this recently..

   Lets not forget India also had one of the largest industrial accidents on earth where a deadly toxic chemical was accidentally released killing thousands, and blinding tens of thousands.. All because the country does not have no where near the enviromental laws that places such as the US have...

   Hell there are countries that have businesses all they do is RIP apart frieghters for the metal which is highly dangerous not to mention polute the sea. 

  Another thing I am more worried about though is soemthing smaller..  Abou tthe size of a coin.. Bees..  Bees the most numerous of polinators on the planet are dwindling in numbers recently, many hives are dieing out for unknown reasons.. Things sucha s cell phone towers is affecting their navagation from evidence shown there are other reasons..

[QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

[QUOTE="flavort"]Global warming is such a crock. Humans cannot effect the the climate of the earth enough to do any harm to it that wont be fixed by the earth itself. It is like trying to say a ant can sufficate me by pooping in my nose and mouth. So if your really that scared get off your computer and stop wasting energy dont buy a car and dont drive yours if you have one, turn off your air condition and dont buy anything made anywhere but in the USA, dont buy plastics, do not buy wood, just stop living.sSubZerOo

humans are moving towards cleaner sorces means of producing energy and industrial production, that doesn't mean cutting yourself off completely to solve the problem :|

Wait what? You do know the United States is the stingiest country when it comes to energy conservation sense the last enviromental agreement.. We chose liek a 10% reduction where places like Japan and countries in Europe chose a 20 to 30% reduction in their emissions.. IF the United States is suppose to be the super power we claim to be, shouldn't we be the easiest to switch over to cleaner energies? The main problem with this is politicians are in bed with the bloody lobbyiests imo.

Also would like to add some one said that enviromentalists are trying to screw nations from becomign 1st world countries.. That is utter BS, why don't you guys actually read some times.. There is a HUGE movment in countries such as India to stop Globilization.. Why? Because businesses are moving there for the cheaper labor as well as NO ENVIROMENTAL LAWS.. So they are basically allowed to ruin areas of the country that can indirectly kill people, then pull out when the natural resources of the region are gone to move on.. Coke got tehir asses busted on this recently..

Lets not forget India also had one of the largest industrial accidents on earth where a deadly toxic chemical was accidentally released killing thousands, and blinding tens of thousands.. All because the country does not have no where near the enviromental laws that places such as the US have...

Hell there are countries that have businesses all they do is RIP apart frieghters for the metal which is highly dangerous not to mention polute the sea.

Another thing I am more worried about though is soemthing smaller.. Abou tthe size of a coin.. Bees.. Bees the most numerous of polinators on the planet are dwindling in numbers recently, many hives are dieing out for unknown reasons.. Things sucha s cell phone towers is affecting their navagation from evidence shown there are other reasons..

sSubZerOo

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Also would like to add some one said that enviromentalists are trying to screw nations from becomign 1st world countries.. That is utter BS, why don't you guys actually read some times.. There is a HUGE movment in countries such as India to stop Globilization.. Why? Because businesses are moving there for the cheaper labor as well as NO ENVIROMENTAL LAWS.. So they are basically allowed to ruin areas of the country that can indirectly kill people, then pull out when the natural resources of the region are gone to move on.. Coke got tehir asses busted on this recently..

Lets not forget India also had one of the largest industrial accidents on earth where a deadly toxic chemical was accidentally released killing thousands, and blinding tens of thousands.. All because the country does not have no where near the enviromental laws that places such as the US have...

Hell there are countries that have businesses all they do is RIP apart frieghters for the metal which is highly dangerous not to mention polute the sea.

Another thing I am more worried about though is soemthing smaller.. Abou tthe size of a coin.. Bees.. Bees the most numerous of polinators on the planet are dwindling in numbers recently, many hives are dieing out for unknown reasons.. Things sucha s cell phone towers is affecting their navagation from evidence shown there are other reasons..

 

hair001

  BECAUSE globilization in areas like that move in tehre offer jobs, then pull the hell out when everything in that area is gone for the companies use..  So not only are they left what they began with economically, they are left in a toxic enviroment with no natural resources left.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

[QUOTE="flavort"]Global warming is such a crock. Humans cannot effect the the climate of the earth enough to do any harm to it that wont be fixed by the earth itself. It is like trying to say a ant can sufficate me by pooping in my nose and mouth. So if your really that scared get off your computer and stop wasting energy dont buy a car and dont drive yours if you have one, turn off your air condition and dont buy anything made anywhere but in the USA, dont buy plastics, do not buy wood, just stop living.hair001

humans are moving towards cleaner sorces means of producing energy and industrial production, that doesn't mean cutting yourself off completely to solve the problem :|

Wait what? You do know the United States is the stingiest country when it comes to energy conservation sense the last enviromental agreement.. We chose liek a 10% reduction where places like Japan and countries in Europe chose a 20 to 30% reduction in their emissions.. IF the United States is suppose to be the super power we claim to be, shouldn't we be the easiest to switch over to cleaner energies? The main problem with this is politicians are in bed with the bloody lobbyiests imo.

  My point is the fact our country in the past years have become very hypocritiical by shirking off policies on multiple problems/ideas and enforcing them on other countries.. 

Also would like to add some one said that enviromentalists are trying to screw nations from becomign 1st world countries.. That is utter BS, why don't you guys actually read some times.. There is a HUGE movment in countries such as India to stop Globilization.. Why?  Because businesses are moving there for the cheaper labor as well as NO ENVIROMENTAL LAWS..  So they are basically allowed to ruin areas of the country that can indirectly kill people, then pull out when the natural resources of the region are gone to move on..  Coke got tehir asses busted on this recently..

   Lets not forget India also had one of the largest industrial accidents on earth where a deadly toxic chemical was accidentally released killing thousands, and blinding tens of thousands.. All because the country does not have no where near the enviromental laws that places such as the US have...

   Hell there are countries that have businesses all they do is RIP apart frieghters for the metal which is highly dangerous not to mention polute the sea. 

  Another thing I am more worried about though is soemthing smaller..  Abou tthe size of a coin.. Bees..  Bees the most numerous of polinators on the planet are dwindling in numbers recently, many hives are dieing out for unknown reasons.. Things sucha s cell phone towers is affecting their navagation from evidence shown there are other reasons..sSubZerOo

I am the one that mentioned it, but I believe I also mentioned in that post that it was a vague generalization.  Some environmental activists are indirectly trying to keep third world countries from developing.  This is because those countries would require the cheapest forms of power first (namely coal).  Once an infrastructure was established with that, then they could move to cleaner forms of power.  This by no means suggests that all environmentalists are out to destroy third world countries.

Also, globalization is not the same as development.  By development, I am talking about countries being able to provide electricity, plumbing, and education to the majority of their citizens.  That has nothing to do with US companies establishing facilities in other countries.

Now instead of telling me I need to read sometime, why don't you try reading what I actually posted before calling it BS.

[QUOTE="kcpp2b"][QUOTE="BranKetra"]

I don't think it's just a Global Warming. I think it's more towards the "climate change" idea.

Days of months generally warm for most of my life have lately been experiencing cold cycles for weeks at a time. It was hot in December for a good while as well, yet it's generally been cold. Really cold.

As for it being man-made, I really think that we humans and our creations are a major player in this situation. We've done quite a bit to our planet over the past couple hundred years on continental scales. There are only 7, after all. We've industrialized North America a great deal, South somewhat, Asia's Russia has already gone through its phase and now China is starting its...Those are big areas of land and with that land is all of the water in it that we've contaminated with filtering chemicals. That stuff gets into the air, too.

If we can make a whole in the ozone the size of Antarctica in a century, imagine what can be done in two.

drgrady

Global Warming isn't man made though. It's man...influenced I guess. Global Warming has happened before ice ages many times it's the natural cycle of the earth but the point is this cycle is not happening naturally it's being pushed by human influence and the levels in the air are higher then ever before and will get even higher and higher. We're pushing the fast forward button on the timeline for the next ice age

So at any point, are you planning on contributing factual evidence to the discussion, or are you content to simply say that it is obvious and agree with anyone taking your side? It is insufficient to claim that our technology (and for some reason you particularly mentioned cell phones) is responsible for pushing global warming at a faster rate simply because the two might coincide. There are many other developments that coincide with these temperature changes, so to claim that technology or CO2 emissions is causing temperature change without providing some evidence doesn't get anyone anywhere.

How can you honestly think all the stuff we are doing to the earth from the many forrests being destroyed and not filled somewhere else at least, to he amount of pollution alone...just those things alone... you think that isn't affecting the earth in a big way?

You don't need a freaking degree to see this. It is Common Sense. Just like whiping out a small tiny creature and their race in a jungle and destory the entire jungle. Seems like it would mean nothing but in return the loss of a very little insect or animal can end the entir jungle or forrest. Just like in this case.

Has earth went through many decades of pollution and all this crap through it's existence? 

Obviously we are helping global warming and speeding it up... only people who want to keep things as status quo with their oil and billions would say otherwise or people who blindly support these kinds of people like Bush.

And my god the vast majority of Scientists are all saying the same freaking thing just like they all said certain things about Katrina that bush ignored just like many people said things about 9/11 happening that Bush and his people ignored.

We are affecting and destroying the earth in a big way. Anyone who thinks what we are doing and have done is doing very little or next to nothing to the climate and earth as a whole has wishful thinking or has something to gain from thinking this way 

[QUOTE="drgrady"][QUOTE="kcpp2b"]Global Warming isn't man made though. It's man...influenced I guess. Global Warming has happened before ice ages many times it's the natural cycle of the earth but the point is this cycle is not happening naturally it's being pushed by human influence and the levels in the air are higher then ever before and will get even higher and higher. We're pushing the fast forward button on the timeline for the next ice age

kcpp2b

So at any point, are you planning on contributing factual evidence to the discussion, or are you content to simply say that it is obvious and agree with anyone taking your side? It is insufficient to claim that our technology (and for some reason you particularly mentioned cell phones) is responsible for pushing global warming at a faster rate simply because the two might coincide. There are many other developments that coincide with these temperature changes, so to claim that technology or CO2 emissions is causing temperature change without providing some evidence doesn't get anyone anywhere.

How can you honestly think all the stuff we are doing to the earth from the many forrests being destroyed and not filled somewhere else at least, to he amount of pollution alone...just those things alone... you think that isn't affecting the earth in a big way?

You don't need a freaking degree to see this. It is Common Sense. Just like whiping out a small tiny creature and their race in a jungle and destory the entire jungle. Seems like it would mean nothing but in return the loss of a very little insect or animal can end the entir jungle or forrest. Just like in this case.

Has earth went through many decades of pollution and all this crap through it's existence? 

Obviously we are helping global warming and speeding it up... only people who want to keep things as status quo with their oil and billions would say otherwise or people who blindly support these kinds of people like Bush.

And my god the vast majority of Scientists are all saying the same freaking thing just like they all said certain things about Katrina that bush ignored just like many people said things about 9/11 happening that Bush and his people ignored.

We are affecting and destroying the earth in a big way. Anyone who thinks what we are doing and have done is doing very little or next to nothing to the climate and earth as a whole has wishful thinking or has something to gain from thinking this way 

And yet you still add nothing but an opinion...  And this comment about "the vast majority of scientists" is vague and unsubstantiated.  In fact, you can find current articles expressing the lack of certainty in CO2 driving global warming.  Even scientists that believe CO2 is a major cause of global warming acknowledge that there is about an 800 year lag between arctic warming and a rise in CO2 levels.  They reconcile this by saying that the initial warming is caused by unknown forces, and then CO2 causes sustained warming.  Now how can we get a clear picture of what is going on if even the supporters of this theory don't know what causes the first 800 years of warming after an ice age?

[QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Also would like to add some one said that enviromentalists are trying to screw nations from becomign 1st world countries.. That is utter BS, why don't you guys actually read some times.. There is a HUGE movment in countries such as India to stop Globilization.. Why? Because businesses are moving there for the cheaper labor as well as NO ENVIROMENTAL LAWS.. So they are basically allowed to ruin areas of the country that can indirectly kill people, then pull out when the natural resources of the region are gone to move on.. Coke got tehir asses busted on this recently..

Lets not forget India also had one of the largest industrial accidents on earth where a deadly toxic chemical was accidentally released killing thousands, and blinding tens of thousands.. All because the country does not have no where near the enviromental laws that places such as the US have...

Hell there are countries that have businesses all they do is RIP apart frieghters for the metal which is highly dangerous not to mention polute the sea.

Another thing I am more worried about though is soemthing smaller.. Abou tthe size of a coin.. Bees.. Bees the most numerous of polinators on the planet are dwindling in numbers recently, many hives are dieing out for unknown reasons.. Things sucha s cell phone towers is affecting their navagation from evidence shown there are other reasons..

sSubZerOo

BECAUSE globilization in areas like that move in tehre offer jobs, then pull the hell out when everything in that area is gone for the companies use.. So not only are they left what they began with economically, they are left in a toxic enviroment with no natural resources left.

[QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="yoshi-lnex"]

[QUOTE="flavort"]Global warming is such a crock. Humans cannot effect the the climate of the earth enough to do any harm to it that wont be fixed by the earth itself. It is like trying to say a ant can sufficate me by pooping in my nose and mouth. So if your really that scared get off your computer and stop wasting energy dont buy a car and dont drive yours if you have one, turn off your air condition and dont buy anything made anywhere but in the USA, dont buy plastics, do not buy wood, just stop living.sSubZerOo

humans are moving towards cleaner sorces means of producing energy and industrial production, that doesn't mean cutting yourself off completely to solve the problem :|

Wait what? You do know the United States is the stingiest country when it comes to energy conservation sense the last enviromental agreement.. We chose liek a 10% reduction where places like Japan and countries in Europe chose a 20 to 30% reduction in their emissions.. IF the United States is suppose to be the super power we claim to be, shouldn't we be the easiest to switch over to cleaner energies? The main problem with this is politicians are in bed with the bloody lobbyiests imo.

My point is the fact our country in the past years have become very hypocritiical by shirking off policies on multiple problems/ideas and enforcing them on other countries..

Jeff Severinghaus (Professor of Geosciences at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego) is a supporter of this theory that CO2 causes global warming to a large extent.  However, he made the following statements in an article written in 2004:

"It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate."

"Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later."

"In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings..."

"So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms."

 Naturally, if you read the whole article, he gives his opinion of how this CO2 based global warming happens in light of the fact that there is an 800 year lag.  The point is that even supporters of the theory that CO2 causes global warming acknowledge that they don't know what causes the first 800 years of warming, but we can be certain that not all global warming is due to CO2.  He further states that all greenhouse gases contribute only about 50% of the global warming in this model, but that model doesn't even include the unknown factors that cause the initial warming to occur.

Here's a link to the article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

Quit talking and do something about it then.

 The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=great+global+warming+swindle+duration%3Along

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="hair001"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Also would like to add some one said that enviromentalists are trying to screw nations from becomign 1st world countries.. That is utter BS, why don't you guys actually read some times.. There is a HUGE movment in countries such as India to stop Globilization.. Why? Because businesses are moving there for the cheaper labor as well as NO ENVIROMENTAL LAWS.. So they are basically allowed to ruin areas of the country that can indirectly kill people, then pull out when the natural resources of the region are gone to move on.. Coke got tehir asses busted on this recently..

Lets not forget India also had one of the largest industrial accidents on earth where a deadly toxic chemical was accidentally released killing thousands, and blinding tens of thousands.. All because the country does not have no where near the enviromental laws that places such as the US have...

Hell there are countries that have businesses all they do is RIP apart frieghters for the metal which is highly dangerous not to mention polute the sea.

Another thing I am more worried about though is soemthing smaller.. Abou tthe size of a coin.. Bees.. Bees the most numerous of polinators on the planet are dwindling in numbers recently, many hives are dieing out for unknown reasons.. Things sucha s cell phone towers is affecting their navagation from evidence shown there are other reasons..

 

hair001

BECAUSE globilization in areas like that move in tehre offer jobs, then pull the hell out when everything in that area is gone for the companies use.. So not only are they left what they began with economically, they are left in a toxic enviroment with no natural resources left.

  No I am not implying that what so ever.. But there needs to be INTERNATIONAL laws to stop teh abuse of these systems.. And no it is not a minor case, there are hundreds if not thousands of cases like that.  INfact in New Deli India, one of the larger new corporations bought out a massive build to act as a pretend head quaters so protesters protest THERE and not at the real building.

   Because as it stands if you read the multiple stories, books and testimonies on this, globilization is hurting just as many people as it is helping due to the fact that alot of these comapnies like Wallmart, Coke etc etc have these tactics.

Coincidental that you made this topic today, I just got down watching An Inconvenient Truth.white_sox

 To completely blow aside data from Earth Computer.. (Look it up it IS THE MOST POWERFUL single computer in the world, with thousands of systems connected to one another to give it un-rivalable power.)..  Is ludicrious...  If your not aware this computer look it up, the National Geographics Science Channel tends to talk about this system extensively..  Maybe you will be lucky and see it when they are talking about it.sSubZerOo

I could be wrong, but I think that was surpassed as the world's fastest computer back in September of 2004.  Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether or not it is the absolute fastest...

[QUOTE="Varese_basic"]Ok to the people who say there is no global warming a question: Do you know what impact humans are having on the plantet? Your only answer is no.drgrady

My answer is that you do not have sufficient evidence to support this theory of human-induced global warming.  Yet we are continually told horror stories of what will happen if we do nothing.  In short, we are being told that global warming is a huge human-induced problem that is going to have dire consequences when there is no proof.  NONE!  We do not need to create extra government regulation to prevent a problem that can not be proven to exist.

I will repeat that I in no way mean that we should not conserve energy and cut pollution.  However, I strongly oppose any government measure that would severely disrupt the economy and the infrastructure until we have proof.  I am even more strongly opposed to measures to keep third world countries from developing.  We now have environmental activists who want to stop third world countries from developing when their hospitals don't even have enough electricity to power both the refigerators and the lights.

Well you people saying it's a joke or hoax or saying Humans have nothing to do with global warming will eat your words if you're still alive in a couple of decades.kcpp2b

Well you people saying it's a joke or hoax or saying Humans have nothing to do with global warming will eat your words if you're still alive in a couple of decades.kcpp2b

Your logic is infallible and you have just proven human produced CO2 is causing global warming!  How could I have ever doubted you?!?!?

[QUOTE="drgrady"]

[QUOTE="Varese_basic"]Ok to the people who say there is no global warming a question: Do you know what impact humans are having on the plantet? Your only answer is no.Varese_basic

My answer is that you do not have sufficient evidence to support this theory of human-induced global warming.  Yet we are continually told horror stories of what will happen if we do nothing.  In short, we are being told that global warming is a huge human-induced problem that is going to have dire consequences when there is no proof.  NONE!  We do not need to create extra government regulation to prevent a problem that can not be proven to exist.

I will repeat that I in no way mean that we should not conserve energy and cut pollution.  However, I strongly oppose any government measure that would severely disrupt the economy and the infrastructure until we have proof.  I am even more strongly opposed to measures to keep third world countries from developing.  We now have environmental activists who want to stop third world countries from developing when their hospitals don't even have enough electricity to power both the refigerators and the lights.

What is wrong with either admitting that there are inconsistencies (or at least uncertainties) with the idea that anthropogenic CO2 is causing global warming or providing clear evidence that such inconsistencies are simply a lack of understanding on my part?  What's wrong with that?

Here are some excerpts from the IPCC's guidance papers concerning the Third Assessment Report.  While you should be careful about taking things like this out of their original context, I hope that this will show that I'm not completely crazy when I say that the Earth Simulator models and their results are flawed. 

"Attempts to achieve more consistency in assessing and reporting on uncertainties have not received much attention. Some researchers have expressed concern that it is difficult to even know how to assign a distribution of probabilities for outcomes or processes that are laced with different types of uncertainties."

"The term "uncertainty" can range in implication from a lack of absolute sureness to such vagueness as to preclude anything more than informed guesses or speculation. Sometimes uncertainty results from a lack of information, and on other occasions it is caused by disagreement about what is known or even knowable. Some categories of uncertainty are amenable to quantification, while other kinds cannot be sensibly expressed in terms of probabilities."

"It is certainly true that "science" itself strives for objective empirical information to test theory and models. But at the same time "science for policy" must be recognized as a different enterprise than "science" itself..."

"Problems with data

1. Missing components or errors in the data

2. "Noise" in the data associated with biased or incomplete observations

3. Random sampling error and biases (non-representativeness) in a sample

Problems with models

4. Known processes but unknown functional relationships or errors in the structure of the model

5. Known structure but unknown or erroneous values of some important parameters

6. Known historical data and model structure, but reasons to believe parameters or model structure will change over time

7. Uncertainty regarding the predictability (e.g., chaotic or stochastic behavior) of the system or effect

8. Uncertainties introduced by approximation techniques used to solve a set of equations that characterize the model.

Other sources of uncertainty

9. Ambiguously defined concepts and terminology

10. Inappropriate spatial/temporal units

11. Inappropriateness of/lack of confidence in underlying assumptions

12. Uncertainty due to projections of human behavior"

"Thus, poorly managed projected ranges in impact assessment may inadvertently propagate uncertainty. The process whereby uncertainty accumulates throughout the process of climate change prediction and impact assessment has been variously described as a "cascade of uncertainty" or the "uncertainty explosion". When an assessment progresses from the biogeochemical cycle to radiative forcing and climate sensitivity calculations through to economic and social outcomes, including valuations of climate damages, considerable uncertainty can be accumulated."

"Thus many estimates or outcomes will be affected not only by uncertainties in their immediate substantive domain, but also by uncertainties in the scenarios or parameters generated in other areas of research."

"Strictly speaking, a surprise is an unanticipated outcome. However, in the IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR), "surprises" were defined as rapid, non-linear responses of the climatic system to anthropogenic forcing... Strictly speaking, it would be better to define these as imaginable abrupt events."

"Overconfidence is a cognitive illusion that has been reported to bias experts' judgments. A considerable amount of evidence has been amassed for the view that people suffer from an overconfidence bias. The common finding is that respondents are correct less often than their confidence assessments imply."

Guidance Papers for the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC

The full document may be found here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/xcutting.pdf.

Here are some excerpts from "An Introduction to Simple Climate Models Used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report.

"The quality of the existing data sets is currently low due to classification problems, data availability and poor temporal and spatial coverage."

"Nevertheless, the available data on spatial heterogeneity in the biosphere limits the use of spatially-explicit models and adds to their uncertainty in both input variables, parameter settings and results."

"These models have been calibrated against global scale observations but cannot simulate the detailed response of the biosphere."

An Introduction to Simple Climate Models Used in the IPCC Second Assessment Report

The full document may be found here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

I really like this quote since it is coming from a guy that claims that the global warming due to CO2 has been well understood for over 100 years.

"The exact causes of past climate changes between ice ages and interglacials are complex and not fully understood, however changes in solar input are thought to play an important part."

NERC Chief Executive, Professor Alan Thorpe

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climatechange/summary.asp#greenhouse

for all the experts and alarmist that "know" we are a problem to the environment and mocked me about the volcano problems read this.

http://caribjournal.com/2007/04/26/global-warming-volcanoes-connection-confirmed-by-scientists/

Even in the most recent reporting from IPCC, there is evidence that the Earth Simulation models are incomplete.  Some models are up to 50% over the observed global temperature increase for the last few decades (the period where we have the most complete and most accurate data, and the period upon which the models are primarily based).  If they are that far off of the known data points, how much further off might they be when predicting future events for which we obviously have no observational data?

"Understanding of [dynamical processes related to ice flow not included in current models] is limited and there is no consensus on their magnitude."

"Current global model studies project that the Antarctic ice sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall. However, net loss of ice mass could occur if dynamical ice discharge dominates the ice sheet mass balance."

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (February 2007)

Sorry, forgot to add the link to the full document.

http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Summary for Policymakers, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (February 2007)

Now let us consider these incomplete models of the Earth Simulator...  If we do not know what causes the first 800 years of a warming cycle (since CO2 levels trail temperature rise for approximately the first 800 years), how can we presume to have accurate models?  That 800 years represents the first 1/6 of the warming cycles (looking at recurring 5000 year warming cycles according to Geoscience Professor Jeff Severinghaus).  That is a significant contribution to the overall warming cycle, and we don't know the cause.  It is also very likely that this cause does not merely disappear after the first 800 years (however, since the source is unknown, it theoretically could disappear).  So how does this affect the models?

If the models accurately and precisely recreate the collected data from the past with the exception of the 800 year period beginning each warming cycle, then we might have a fairly accurate portrayal of future conditions.  However, with a major factor missing, the impact of the other factors will be overestimated.  Just for an example, if this unknown factor contributed to 50% of the warming effect in the climate, the other factors would be modeled with twice their actual impact to compensate for the unknown factor being absent from the model.

If the models accurately and precisely recreate the collected data from the past including the 800 year period beginning each warming cycle, then we might have a fairly accurate portrayal of future conditions.  However, the impact of the factors included in the model would not only be overestimated, but would also be estimated in the wrong proportions to compensate for the unknown factor being absent from the model.  Thus, the models might show that factor A has the greatest impact on climate change when in actuality, factor D has the greatest impact.

Unfortunately, these are the best case scenarios until we understand what causes a warming cycle to begin and are able to properly model it.

These excerpts are a bit older, but I find that the document as a whole is well written and should be kept in mind when examining even more recent work.

"Against my expressed wishes, even my name was included. I can assure the committee that I (and the vast majority of contributors and reviewers) were never asked whether we even agreed with the small sections we commented on. Nevertheless, the usual comment is that 2500 scientists all agree with whatever it is that the environmental advocates are claiming."

"The document was deeply biased insofar as it took as its task the finding of global warming rather than the more objective approach of determining whether it is indeed a significant problem."

"Moreover, the main greenhouse gas is water vapor which is both natural in origin and highly variable in its distribution. In the absence of good records of water vapor we aren't even in a position to say how much total greenhouse gases have increased.  If this weren't bad enough, it isn't even the total amount of greenhouse gas which matters; for example, a molecule of water vapor at 12 km altitude is more effective than a thousand molecules near the surface. All of this might not be relevant if models were trustworthy, but satellite measurements of upper level water vapor show profound discrepancies in model results. Under the circumstances, it is surprising that there is any agreement among scientists..."

"The specific feature which led Santer (the lead author of Chapter 8 of IPCC 95) to claim discovery of the discernible impact of anthropogenic forcing fails the most elementary test of statistical robustness: namely, it disappears when additional data is considered."

"We see that for high climate sensitivity we will get pronounced warming regardless of emission scenario, while for low sensitivity, emission scenarios will not matter. It is important to note that emission caps proposed for Kyoto, as difficult and expensive as they may prove, will not prevent global warming if the climate should prove sensitive. The impact of any proposed policy, currently reckoned as even marginally feasible, will likely be impossible to ascertain regardless of what the climate sensitivity is."

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Presented to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

for all the experts and alarmist that "know" we are a problem to the environment and mocked me about the volcano problems read this.

http://caribjournal.com/2007/04/26/global-warming-volcanoes-connection-confirmed-by-scientists/

 

flavort

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Also would like to add some one said that enviromentalists are trying to screw nations from becomign 1st world countries.. That is utter BS, why don't you guys actually read some times.. There is a HUGE movment in countries such as India to stop Globilization.. Why?  Because businesses are moving there for the cheaper labor as well as NO ENVIROMENTAL LAWS..  So they are basically allowed to ruin areas of the country that can indirectly kill people, then pull out when the natural resources of the region are gone to move on..  Coke got tehir asses busted on this recently..

   Lets not forget India also had one of the largest industrial accidents on earth where a deadly toxic chemical was accidentally released killing thousands, and blinding tens of thousands.. All because the country does not have no where near the enviromental laws that places such as the US have...

   Hell there are countries that have businesses all they do is RIP apart frieghters for the metal which is highly dangerous not to mention polute the sea. 

  Another thing I am more worried about though is soemthing smaller..  Abou tthe size of a coin.. Bees..  Bees the most numerous of polinators on the planet are dwindling in numbers recently, many hives are dieing out for unknown reasons.. Things sucha s cell phone towers is affecting their navagation from evidence shown there are other reasons..drgrady

I am the one that mentioned it, but I believe I also mentioned in that post that it was a vague generalization.  Some environmental activists are indirectly trying to keep third world countries from developing.  This is because those countries would require the cheapest forms of power first (namely coal).  Once an infrastructure was established with that, then they could move to cleaner forms of power.  This by no means suggests that all environmentalists are out to destroy third world countries.

Also, globalization is not the same as development.  By development, I am talking about countries being able to provide electricity, plumbing, and education to the majority of their citizens.  That has nothing to do with US companies establishing facilities in other countries.

Now instead of telling me I need to read sometime, why don't you try reading what I actually posted before calling it BS.

The following excepts are from an IPCC report on global warming effects and mitigation in Africa.  While it looks fine on paper, the large shortcoming of this report is where the African nations will get funding for such changes.  The only mention of that problem can be seen in the fourth quote: "with external support".  This whole mitigation report is basically a nice way of saying that these African nations that are trying to develop should be made to either develop with cleaner energy sources or not develop at all.  However, the only way such development could happen is if other nations pay for their development because these nations can not afford the cleaner energy sources that the IPCC recommends.  So now, sSubZerOo, do you still believe that this is "utter BS" and I still need to read more?

"It may be reasonably expected, therefore, that exploitation of the continent's massive coal reserves in areas with such resources would be inhibited by both the anti-coal lobby..."

"The most serious impacts of climate change on this sector would be related to loss of competitiveness associated with increased costs of production resulting from changes or retrofitting of plants for cleaner production."

"For African countries-which have yet to develop their infrastructure significantly and their basic industries-the need for centralized energy systems will continue for some time, although it may coexist with advances in solar installations. Besides this general transition, Africa's centralized energy systems-including hydroelectric, coal, and oil thermal systems-will need to benefit from cleaner, more efficient energy-conversion technologies."

"...this benefit may remain limited in Africa because the continent lags other regions in the development of new technologies such as windmills, solar photovoltaics (PVs), and biogas digesters...African countries should take immediate steps, with external support, to rectify this deficiency."