[hurley_108]

ridenrain ridenrain:

Sorry, that was in responce to Hurley's

$1:

People said Y2K was a problem, and scared people into believeing it.

Y2K wasn't actually a problem. Therefore if you scare someone into believing something, it isn't true.

People are saiying global warming is a problem, and are scaring people into believing it. But scaring people into believing something means it's not true, as per the Y2K lemma. Therefore, global warming isn't true.

Sort of like the "a proof is a proof". Every problem or scam needs to look legit. at the time. It's only later that we see it's all bunk.
Global cooling was also a looming doom, not as big as this but then Gore was busy.

And all I'm saying is that just because other (completely unrelated) fears were, after the fact, proven false doesn't mean that this one is.

If you want to convince me that global warming is bunk, it does no good to say that Y2K was bunk, that clobal cooling was bunk, that trickle down was bunk, that piltdown man was bunk, that cold fusion was bunk, that WMDs in Iraq was bunk.

You've got to produce some demonstrable evidence. As it is, here is what is known:

1: CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere.

2: Human activities are releasing vast quantities of CO2.

3: CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, far too steadily to be volcanic.

4: Global average temeprature is rising, and is presently hotter than it has been for a thousand years or more.

5: The post-industrialization period has seen more rapid changes in temperatuer and CO2 levels than the 1000 or more years previous.

As such, the evidence points to the conclusion that, in at least some part, human activities are warming the planet.

Give me evidence that my evidence is wrong, and that some other process is driving things.

[hurley_108]

Clogeroo Clogeroo:

$1:

Sure, we can't control where rain falls, how the earth rotates, how the sun flares, but we can control our actions.

It remains to be seen wheter or not our actions will stop the next ice age. If we push the earth past a tipping point, we might.

The question is this: If not curtailing our GHG emissions today means that our grand children and great-grandchildren starve instead of thrive, then isn't that irresponsible? Don't we have an obligation to our decendents to do the best we can to ensure that they have the best opportunities they can? If we get wiped out by something beyond our control then that's one thing, but it's another thing to be warned about consequences, ignore the warning, and kill billions of our brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters.

So your saying we cannot control the climate yet you say we may "tip the scale"? So basically we may or not do anything which means any effort would probably be just in vain. Ignore the warning what warning? You would just like to believe we could save the world when we can’t.

Why should I care if a billion people die half the problem seems to be there is too many people anyway. Humans will eventually die out our extinction is most likely eminent. That is the beauty of our species is we know that we will probably die. It is almost a waste of time to try and save the world in some ways you would be better just trying to enjoy your life before it ends.

Human activities alone are probably not enough to radically alter the climate, but we may push things just far enough for previously unseen processes to occur and take over and then those processes might cause extreme outcomes.

For example, the permafrost in the arctic regions is thawing. Enormous stores of methane are trapped in the ice and frozen ground of the permafrost. If the permafrost melts, this methane will be released. Methane, as has been stated in other threads, has a warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO2. This will drive the earth even warmer, in a manner that is natural, if triggered by human action.

Also, as snowfall decreases, the amount of shortwave radiation reflected by the earth will be reduced, and instead absorbed, heating the earth further.

I'm not sure if we can save the world. All I know is that if we're responsible, we'll heed the warning that our actions may be warming the earth, and do whatever we can to reduce our impact so that our children are protected as much as we can protect them.

Perhaps this is a hard concept for a 19 year old father-of-none (if I'm wrong, please forgive me) to understand, but I honestly worry every day about the world my kid is growing up in.

[tritium]

Personally - quote me; "I don't care about Global Warming, Let me rephrase that. I’m in favor of global warming.

[BartSimpson]

sandorski sandorski:

So often I just bypass these kinds of discussions and those who continue to bring up their nonsense about "natural cycles" or even "Global Cooling"(a real doozer). Let them babble, the rest of us will move forward and just get it done.

I am so glad that the natural climate cycles documented by many of the same people who promote the anthropomorphic global warming theory are "nonsense" to you.

I do not recall anyone disputing the data these people are compiling - the dispute is over the conclusions they are making based on that data.

Please do bear in mind that in 1970 the consensus of climatologists was that by 1980 a new ice age would begin based on the continued cooling that had occured from 1947 until 1979.

They said we had to stop polluting or the world would be encased in ice as pollution blocked the suns rays and brought on an ice age.

And then it didn't happen.

Now the world is warming and we're being told we have to stop polluting or we'll bring on a climate that still isn't as warm as it was from 700-1300AD.

Nothing to fret about.

Even if this is 100% human caused it still isn't anything as bad as what nature herself can dish out.

[ridenrain]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

...For example, the permafrost in the arctic regions is thawing. Enormous stores of methane are trapped in the ice and frozen ground of the permafrost. If the permafrost melts, this methane will be released. Methane, as has been stated in other threads, has a warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO2. This will drive the earth even warmer, in a manner that is natural, if triggered by human action.

Thanks for reminding me of this one..

[font=Comic Sans MS]Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 [/font]Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm
Compiled by John Stokes

original

[ziggy]

Hurley

$1:

For example, the permafrost in the arctic regions is thawing. Enormous stores of methane are trapped in the ice and frozen ground of the permafrost. If the permafrost melts, this methane will be released. Methane, as has been stated in other threads, has a warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO2. This will drive the earth even warmer, in a manner that is natural, if triggered by human action.

Do you have a link that shows where this permafrost is melting?
Thanks.

Just north of the Arctic circle it's 27 feet deep and the top 3 inches might melt during the whole summer which is good or nothing would grow,you can grab handfulls of ice at any time by digging under the moss and grasses any time of the year,the tundra is a very good insulator.

I hear it all the time and just wanted to look at the data on this melting and where it is.

[BartSimpson]

hurley_108 hurley_108:

You've got to produce some demonstrable evidence. As it is, here is what is known:

1: CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the atmosphere.

And without it the planet would be an iceball.

2: Human activities are releasing vast quantities of CO2.

Not really. Human activity is but a fraction of the CO2 produced annually by volcanic activity around the globe.

3: CO2 levels in the atmosphere are rising, far too steadily to be volcanic.

And CO2 levels have risen with past warming cycles, as well. CO2 increases in ages past are an effect of warming and not a cause.

4: Global average temeprature is rising, and is presently hotter than it has been for a thousand years or more.

Untrue. It was warmer in the period 700-1300AD than it is now.

5: The post-industrialization period has seen more rapid changes in temperatuer and CO2 levels than the 1000 or more years previous.

Again, untrue. The decline in temperatures from 1200-1300 was calamitous for many societies and the decline in that period was about six degrees Fahrenheit as opposed to the half degree increase observed over the past 100 years or so.

As such, the evidence points to the conclusion that, in at least some part, human activities are warming the planet.

Human activity may contribute to a natural process, but the general assertion being made is that humanity is solely responsible for the process and that some change in our habits may delay an otherwise inevitable change. Here I do agree that the eventual change is inevitable no matter what we do.

Give me evidence that my evidence is wrong, and that some other process is driving things.

Again, the evidence is not disputed (at least the evidence that is accurate) it is the conclusions we're disputing.

[ridenrain]

Avro Avro:

ridenrain ridenrain:

hurley_108 hurley_108:

...For example, the permafrost in the arctic regions is thawing. Enormous stores of methane are trapped in the ice and frozen ground of the permafrost. If the permafrost melts, this methane will be released. Methane, as has been stated in other threads, has a warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO2. This will drive the earth even warmer, in a manner that is natural, if triggered by human action.

Thanks for reminding me of this one..

[font=Comic Sans MS]Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 [/font]Hydrate hypothesis illuminates growing climate change alarm
Compiled by John Stokes

original

This is what you keep holding on to, to prove your flat earth theories?

Please, some people thought Kennedy's assination was a conspiracy as well tin foil boy.

I believe this is teh permafrost one

It's not proof of anything except of how desperate and frantic this is getting.

[hurley_108]

ziggy ziggy:

Hurley

$1:

For example, the permafrost in the arctic regions is thawing. Enormous stores of methane are trapped in the ice and frozen ground of the permafrost. If the permafrost melts, this methane will be released. Methane, as has been stated in other threads, has a warming potential 21 times greater than that of CO2. This will drive the earth even warmer, in a manner that is natural, if triggered by human action.

Do you have a link that shows where this permafrost is melting?
Thanks.

Just north of the Arctic circle it's 27 feet deep and the top 3 inches might melt during the whole summer which is good or nothing would grow,you can grab handfulls of ice at any time by digging under the moss and grasses any time of the year,the tundra is a very good insulator.

I hear it all the time and just wanted to look at the data on this melting and where it is.

ridenrain did for me. Thanks 'rain!

Here's another.

I guess this isn't data, but I was merely presenting examples of feedback mechanisms that might spur on further warming.

Certainly there is a demonstrable cycle of glacial / interglacial periods, as shown in the CO2 chart I posted on the first page. The question is are we triggering feedbacks which were not triggered in the last interglacial. This I do not know, but it is obvious that there was not industry like there is now in the last interglacial, 24000 years ago.

[Clogeroo]

$1:

Perhaps this is a hard concept for a 19 year old father-of-none (if I'm wrong, please forgive me) to understand, but I honestly worry every day about the world my kid is growing up in.

I'm sure your children will have as many if not more problems to deal with regardless of any effort of trying to stop the climate from changing. Like those thousands before you had to deal with as long as there are men there will be problems.