Global warming (simplified) with a simple question.

I think a lot of people look at what people refer to as global warming (or climate change) with confusion because there is a lot of technical, confusing stuff behind it (rising co2 levels, ozone layers, greenhouse gases, ice caps from the other side of the world, etc.)

Lets forget all of that, and look at it from a simple perspective.

We have a lot of cars in the world today.
-We did not have them a thousand years ago
-Cars produce toxins

In Kindergarten I was taught that trees and plants purify our air of toxins.
-We have less trees in the world today.


Why do you think this has no negative effects on our planet?

The technical explanation was much better.

The planet is far to big for us to ever have an Impact IMO. Al Gore showed us photos of mountains 15 years ago and then again 10 years ago and there was a dramatic difference in snow. If that trend was till continuing wouldn't there by no snow left in the world? Clearly he was showing selective pictures to prove his argument. walkingdream

Thats not how global warming works :roll:.. It produces more extreme weather, meaning both winter and summer weather.. The mere fact you think that isn't the case means you don't even have a basic grasp on the concept.. That being said the tree issue is not a real issue in the United States at least.. The United States actually has more trees in it now then it did in the 1920's.. Due to federal laws that maintain that when a tree is cut down, two have to be planted in its place.

The planet is far to big for us to ever have an Impact IMO.walkingdream

[QUOTE="walkingdream"]The planet is far to big for us to ever have an Impact IMO. Al Gore showed us photos of mountains 15 years ago and then again 10 years ago and there was a dramatic difference in snow. If that trend was till continuing wouldn't there by no snow left in the world? Clearly he was showing selective pictures to prove his argument. sSubZerOo

Thats not how global warming works :roll:.. It produces more extreme weather, meaning both winter and summer weather.. The mere fact you think that isn't the case means you don't even have a basic grasp on the concept.. That being said the tree issue is not a real issue in the United States at least.. The United States actually has more trees in it now then it did in the 1920's.. Due to federal laws that maintain that when a tree is cut down, two have to be planted in its place.

Correct me if i'm wrong but doesn't that relate to us cutting down trees for production ect? Rather than actual our carbon footprint on the planet? AKA Climate Change?

Climatologists are very divided on this issue. I don't think anyone on this earth has a basic grasp on global warming at the moment.
They are the experts, i'm not.
There is no serious information about global warming distributed.
We don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing to have more CO2 in the air.
There is too little information, and there are bigger issues. Such as people starving while there is plenty of food left over in the supermarkets, but they have to throw it away.

[QUOTE="walkingdream"]The planet is far to big for us to ever have an Impact IMO.Baconbits2004

Thats not a good or accurate map.. We have more trees no in the United States than we did 100 years ago.. Because federal law dictates we grow them like a crop with the regulation of for every one tree cut down, two are planted.

B CUZ, libberulz jus wont mor atensh athen - ah, uh day wont mor peepl 2 luk at dem mor!!CRS98

Climatologists are very divided on this issue. I don't think anyone on this earth has a basic grasp on global warming at the moment. They are the experts, i'm not. There is no serious information about global warming distributed. We don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing to have more CO in the air. There is too little information, and there are bigger issues. Such as people starving while there is plenty of food left over in the supermarkets, but they have to throw it away.KungfuKitten

Very divided?http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]Climatologists are very divided on this issue. I don't think anyone on this earth has a basic grasp on global warming at the moment. They are the experts, i'm not. There is no serious information about global warming distributed. We don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing to have more CO in the air. There is too little information, and there are bigger issues. Such as people starving while there is plenty of food left over in the supermarkets, but they have to throw it away.sSubZerOo

Very divided?http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

[QUOTE="CRS98"] Because, liberals just want more attention. (Having trouble spelling attention) They want more people to look at them more.RAGEofSTUNTS

for every one tree cut down, two are planted.

sSubZerOo

B CUZ, libberulz jus wont mor atensh athen - ah, uh day wont mor peepl 2 luk at dem mor!!CRS98

Climatologists are very divided on this issue. I don't think anyone on this earth has a basic grasp on global warming at the moment.
They are the experts, i'm not.
There is no serious information about global warming distributed.
We don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing to have more CO2 in the air.
There is too little information, and there are bigger issues. Such as people starving while there is plenty of food left over in the supermarkets, but they have to throw it away.

KungfuKitten

*literal facepalm*

Most scientists who actually study the issue and don't just show up one day saying "I'm a scientist, don't pay any attention to the fact that I specialize in microbiology and have never studied global warming extensively, I have credibility and I think global warming is fake," actually have near unanimous consensus that man-made climate change is real.

There is plenty of serious information about global warming.

We absolutely do know that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses produce a greenhouse effect that will eventually cause cataclysmic events if it is not checked right now.

I agree that people starving is a problem, but I don't necessarily think that and global warming are mutually exclusive issues. I think if we as a society focused on ways to combat global warming without affixing hefty price tags to new technology then we'd be well on our way to a society that puts less of a premium on profits and more of a premium on doing the responsible thing. Besides, many impoverished nations are angry because our overconsumption has put the entire world in the same boat, global warming will affect the starving one day as well.

[QUOTE="CRS98"] B CUZ, libberulz jus wont mor atensh athen - ah, uh day wont mor peepl 2 luk at dem mor!!Genetic_Code

The way you make it look serious made me :lol:. Of course I don't believe they "write" like that. I was just making fun of the fact that, despite a fairly convincing amount of evidence, people will write it off as liberal "corruption". How could you possibly say that without saying scientists are "liberal" in the first place?

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Climatologists are very divided on this issue. I don't think anyone on this earth has a basic grasp on global warming at the moment.
They are the experts, i'm not.
There is no serious information about global warming distributed.
We don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing to have more CO2 in the air.
There is too little information, and there are bigger issues. Such as people starving while there is plenty of food left over in the supermarkets, but they have to throw it away.

theone86

*literal facepalm*

Most scientists who actually study the issue and don't just show up one day saying "I'm a scientist, don't pay any attention to the fact that I specialize in microbiology and have never studied global warming extensively, I have credibility and I think global warming is fake," actually have near unanimous consensus that man-made climate change is real.

There is plenty of serious information about global warming.

We absolutely do know that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses produce a greenhouse effect that will eventually cause cataclysmic events if it is not checked right now.

I agree that people starving is a problem, but I don't necessarily think that and global warming are mutually exclusive issues. I think if we as a society focused on ways to combat global warming without affixing hefty price tags to new technology then we'd be well on our way to a society that puts less of a premium on profits and more of a premium on doing the responsible thing. Besides, many impoverished nations are angry because our overconsumption has put the entire world in the same boat, global warming will affect the starving one day as well.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]

Climatologists are very divided on this issue. I don't think anyone on this earth has a basic grasp on global warming at the moment.
They are the experts, i'm not.
There is no serious information about global warming distributed.
We don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing to have more CO2 in the air.
There is too little information, and there are bigger issues. Such as people starving while there is plenty of food left over in the supermarkets, but they have to throw it away.

KungfuKitten

*literal facepalm*

Most scientists who actually study the issue and don't just show up one day saying "I'm a scientist, don't pay any attention to the fact that I specialize in microbiology and have never studied global warming extensively, I have credibility and I think global warming is fake," actually have near unanimous consensus that man-made climate change is real.

There is plenty of serious information about global warming.

We absolutely do know that CO2 and other greenhouse gasses produce a greenhouse effect that will eventually cause cataclysmic events if it is not checked right now.

I agree that people starving is a problem, but I don't necessarily think that and global warming are mutually exclusive issues. I think if we as a society focused on ways to combat global warming without affixing hefty price tags to new technology then we'd be well on our way to a society that puts less of a premium on profits and more of a premium on doing the responsible thing. Besides, many impoverished nations are angry because our overconsumption has put the entire world in the same boat, global warming will affect the starving one day as well.

Good, then don't pay attention, no skin off my back. It becomes a problem of interest to me, however, when you perpetuate agenda-driven lies that discourage others from viewing this issue as a problem. I've done plenty of independent research on my own, read many studies by credible scientists, and there is a clear consensus that anthromorphic climate change is a real problem. Believe me, when you start to know the signs beyond just, "oh, one day the ice caps will melt and half the world will be undwerwater," and you start to see the trends in real life it becomes a scarier issue.

Actually methane is more of a problem with global warming than CO2, however, the countries that are big producers of methane have made sure we focus on co2 emissions.

I was trying to keep the OP as simple as possible (kind of the point of the thread) but if anyone wants to read about the decreasing rate of our forest, here is one. It's linked with multiple citations on many of the facts covered, depending on how deep you want to delve into this... you could be reading for some time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Rates

trees have a minimal effect on co2 in atmosphere.

The ocean is responsible for it mostly

ice caps are melting = more sea

more sea = less co2

done.

trees have a minimal effect on co2 in atmosphere.

The ocean is responsible for it mostly

ice caps are melting = more sea

more sea = less co2

done.

Overlord93

I can understand this being a dubious case a couple of decades ago, but people still doubt global warming today? It's not the monster some ecologists make it to be, by saying that ridiculous portions of land will be engulfed by the sea, after it increases its level, that islands that are consistent mostly of ice are going to completely disappear, but it does exist -- and it's damaging life on Earth, not only human.

Check outhttp://www.globalwarming.org/, I know it's a website that advocates the existence of Global Warming, but its numbers are proven and true -- not random.

trees have a minimal effect on co2 in atmosphere.

The ocean is responsible for it mostly

ice caps are melting = more sea

more sea = less co2

done.

Overlord93

You're wrong. To attain full-growth, Trees store indefinitely (until decomposed, brought down or burned) immense amounts of CO2 -- they aren't, as some people claim, responsible for the oxygen we breathe (they are, but 10%, against 90% of the algae), but that's unrelated to Global Warming.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

trees have a minimal effect on co2 in atmosphere.

The ocean is responsible for it mostly

ice caps are melting = more sea

more sea = less co2

done.

iAtrocious

You're wrong. To attain full-growth, Trees store indefinitely (until decomposed, brought down or burned) immense amounts of CO2 -- they aren't, as some people claim, responsible for the oxygen we breathe (they are, but 10%, against 90% of the algae), but that's unrelated to Global Warming.

[QUOTE="iAtrocious"]

[QUOTE="Overlord93"]

trees have a minimal effect on co2 in atmosphere.

The ocean is responsible for it mostly

ice caps are melting = more sea

more sea = less co2

done.

Overlord93

You're wrong. To attain full-growth, Trees store indefinitely (until decomposed, brought down or burned) immense amounts of CO2 -- they aren't, as some people claim, responsible for the oxygen we breathe (they are, but 10%, against 90% of the algae), but that's unrelated to Global Warming.

... and then absorb CO2 and convert it to O2 during the day. Point?

The truth is if you take all the hybrid cars and their amount of pollution for one year and get a number, Iran or Venezuela can put that much pollution in the air in one day. I would not be surprised there are people paid to release feron into the air.

The truth is if you take all the hybrid cars and their amount of pollution for one year and get a number, Iran or Venezuela can put that much pollution in the air in one day. I would not be surprised there are people paid to release feron into the air.

ehhwhatever

The planet is far to big for us to ever have an Impact IMO. Al Gore showed us photos of mountains 15 years ago and then again 10 years ago and there was a dramatic difference in snow. If that trend was till continuing wouldn't there by no snow left in the world? Clearly he was showing selective pictures to prove his argument. walkingdream

This is way more simplified that I thought .......... we are grown ups, you know.

[QUOTE="Overlord93"][QUOTE="iAtrocious"]

You're wrong. To attain full-growth, Trees store indefinitely (until decomposed, brought down or burned) immense amounts of CO2 -- they aren't, as some people claim, responsible for the oxygen we breathe (they are, but 10%, against 90% of the algae), but that's unrelated to Global Warming.

iAtrocious

... and then absorb CO2 and convert it to O2 during the day. Point?

I'm all for reducing our carbon emissions, but the fact is that we contribute around 1.5% of the co2 in the atmosphere.

Even if you don't believe in Global Warming, what is the worse thing that can happen on cutting down on greenhouse gas emmsissions? Clearer air, better life, less respitatory problems? Oh wait, the rich won't be AS rich.

Actually methane is more of a problem with global warming than CO2, however, the countries that are big producers of methane have made sure we focus on co2 emissions.

sonicare

Climatologists are very divided on this issue.KungfuKitten

I think even if we were causing global warming, nothing people have proposed could stop it. We would have to go back to living like pre-Industrial peoples if we wanted to stop global warming.

And what about precipitation? If temperatures rise, then doesn't that mean more precipitation? Wouldn't that also mean more precipitation in the polar regions? If a place like Antarctica is already well below freezing, a few degrees shouldn't melt anything. In fact, wouldn't there be more ice due to increased precipitation?

I also don't understand the terminology of the phenomenon. For two decades, it had been called global warming, now it is called climate change. Well, yes the climate does change. We've also had colder periods and warmer periods throughout human history.

Everyone who complains about global warming in this forum but still heats their house, cools their house, cooks, eats (EVERYTHING) and especially drives are hypocrites. They are doing just as much harm to the enviornment as the rest of us "ignorantright wing" people. Sitting here and complaining about it will get us nowhere. I drove a muscle car and now drive a truck. I realize they aren't necessarily good for the envoirnment. I eat, live, etc. in a world that is supported (and COULDN'T otherwise be supported) by trucks and other things that may harm the enviornment. Guess what? So do you. Whether you believe in global warming or not, living in a world that would use less fossil fuels and use resources more efficiently is better off for all of us, but it is unrealistic to expect this type of change to happen over night. We lack the recources and capital to just cut off from these habbits. It will be a very slow transition. One day I hope we can though. Let's stop blaming everyone, huh? Am I a bad person for being in school and thus not having the captial (or desire) to pay a ridiculous amount for a hybrid car? No.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="KungfuKitten"]Climatologists are very divided on this issue. I don't think anyone on this earth has a basic grasp on global warming at the moment. They are the experts, i'm not. There is no serious information about global warming distributed. We don't know whether it's a good or a bad thing to have more CO in the air. There is too little information, and there are bigger issues. Such as people starving while there is plenty of food left over in the supermarkets, but they have to throw it away.KungfuKitten

Very divided?http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/

Eh?

97% of climatologists who are actively involved in research agree that anthropogenic global warming is real.

Ninety-seven percent.

That is... not exactly fifty-fifty. :P