Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[Lasse]

Explain ice ages to me.

Its the opposite to global warming. I understand your question because in this thread you can see people argue against human caused global warming through saying that global warming is natural or that we are going into the oposite - sometimes in the same post

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Lasse]

When something is based on emotion and not science then what? Co2 is an essential element in the ecosystem of the planet. There is a carbon cycle just as much as there is a water cycle. Fresh water begins in the ocean evaporates from the sea and as clouds goes to land an falls as rain under the right circumstances. The amount of water on the planet hasn't changed and yet the cry of drought or flood is heard. What of carbon? Well I don't believe that quantity has changed much either. It has always been here in one form or another. The level of co2 in the atmosphere has increased, however not to the level for optimal plant growth. Those who grow in green houses actively pump co2 in to those green houses to improve plant growth. If you are really worried about it plant a tree. They are really great at storing carbon in the form of wood.

If the natural plants and algae of Earth really is carbon limited - you should not have seen the 25 % rise of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1950. It should have been stored in the biomass. Even if it has hapen because of natural sources

When something is based on emotion and not science then what?

That’s a good line - but still there is a little troubling question to ask – who is based on emotions and how is based on science.


Sincerely Lasse

 

[Barfly99]

Hard to write a reply on this without sounding political or offensive, but here goes. It’s not surprising that this is a subject of such debate in America when 40% of the population think the earth is less than 10,000 years old. How can you have any serious scientific debate in a country when that is your starting point?
Look at the countries that have opted out of the Paris Climate Accord and it will tell you all you need about where America is right now. You used to be the most admired and respected country on Earth amongst other free and democratic countries. Now you have Trump opening coal mines whist the rest of the world is developing solar.
The 75% that are voting global warming is real on here is encouraging but as in the real world you’ll find the 25% are the most vocal.

 

[ReeferBob]

I havent said that 3% is uneducated - there do you get that from? But you clearly say that 97 % oft them are brainwashed

You mean like this guy https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/29/climate-change-sceptics-change-mind And if you read the article - you can see who funded him.

Please give me data of a Global Goverment Plot that brainwash 97 % of the climate scientist of the World. and you can give some example of this also "A lot of them were in the 97% camp, saw the data, and decided to follow their conscience."

Sincerely Lasse

You missed the point on most of what I said. That's ok no biggie. Suffice it to say there are 2 main political ideologies. Those that want government control of everything and those that don't. The crowd that is backing the government funded climate interpretations that will result in more government control are in the first group. Case closed.

 

[Lasse]

No I did not missed it - not at all. I was waiting for you to come out from the closet. But this a discussion is about global warming/climate change and if it scientific research show that its manmade or not.

Discussion of the great dilemma of Libertarianism is not allowed to take place here. The dilemma is described in the following sentens. My bold

We think each person should be free to make their own choices so long as they do not infringe on others’ rights.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[GatorGuys]

Nature will always correct the cycles - whether it be the Carbon cycle, water, nitrogen, etc. Most of us has seen first-hand how nature corrects the cycles in our tanks. Even if we try to influence the cycle by speeding it up (dosing more) - it still corrects itself. Will humans survive the correction to the carbon-cycle? only time will tell.

What nature does not have a way of correcting is the all the man-made structures and trash that we are placing on the earth. I think we are so eager to blame the warming on a single substance (C02) that we are overlooking other causes of warming. Look at all the roads and rooflines (made from asphalt, tin, and other man-made substances). These man-made objects increase the temperature immediately. This can easily be proven by standing outside on a hot summers day in a grassy field and then move onto a rooftop or in the middle of a street. The heat is immediately felt.

Even the scientists and computer models show that the weather above big cities has been altered over the years - but I think they are wrong in believing it is C02 causing the change. I think the change is caused by something much more simple and immediate - the man-made structures. Most of the science studies claim to show that the increase in temperature corresponds with the 'industrial revolution' and the rise of our use of oil... however, we also started to pave our roads with asphalt (an oil-based product) instead of natural stone and we replaced our thatched roofs with shingles about the same time-period.

Consider this, most scientist agree that the majority of the temperature increase takes place in the so-called 'developed countries' of the world - yet what makes a country 'developed'? That country's use of oil? No. It is the country's roads and buildings. We are taking what used to be a natural setting (grassy fields, forests, etc) and turning them into black pavement, steel, tin, and other man-made substances that captures more heat.

The reason global-warming alarmists don't want to look at the much more obvious cause of global warming is because they can't make money off not-building roads or houses. They want to live in a house and drive on roads too (even an electric car still drives on a paved road).

I believe - even if we somehow made all industry 'carbon-neutral' and even if everyone drives electric cars and even if all electricity is created by renewable sources, the earth will still warm up. Why? Because the earth does not have a way of dealing with the man-made structures and changes we make to its landscape.

 

[Lasse]

Yes - the man made structures and other things like large scale irrigation systems impact the Worlds climate. The Colorado river is one example, the Aral sea is another. But i´m think you are wrong according to the impact of CO2. For me - its the most important thing to solve in a global perspective. Not only for the reason of Global warming - for me its important to stop the Oceans acidification . But the one does not exclude the other.

Sincerely Lasse

 

[Waterjockey]

If the natural plants and algae of Earth really is carbon limited - you should not have seen the 25 % rise of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1950. It should have been stored in the biomass. Even if it has hapen because of natural sources



That’s a good line - but still there is a little troubling question to ask – who is based on emotions and how is based on science.


Sincerely Lasse

But one of the feedback responses has already started, the earth is getting much greener.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

[Lasse]

Yea its good that we get a greener planet but still - the rise in the atmosphere has been 25% during nearly the same time and continue to rise. This show the amount that not be depleted or taking up in the Ecossystem. But the uptake in the ocean affect the pH of the oceans. I think still that the whole system not is CO2 limeted - but its good with this type of discussions - it will always extend your knowledge. I can accept a greener planet if you accept the other things the researchers state. and accept that they use computer moddeling in order to isolate which part that was most important

Sincerely Lasse

 

[victorcan]

Nature will always correct the cycles - whether it be the Carbon cycle, water, nitrogen, etc. Most of us has seen first-hand how nature corrects the cycles in our tanks. Even if we try to influence the cycle by speeding it up (dosing more) - it still corrects itself. Will humans survive the correction to the carbon-cycle? only time will tell.

What nature does not have a way of correcting is the all the man-made structures and trash that we are placing on the earth. I think we are so eager to blame the warming on a single substance (C02) that we are overlooking other causes of warming. Look at all the roads and rooflines (made from asphalt, tin, and other man-made substances). These man-made objects increase the temperature immediately. This can easily be proven by standing outside on a hot summers day in a grassy field and then move onto a rooftop or in the middle of a street. The heat is immediately felt.

Even the scientists and computer models show that the weather above big cities has been altered over the years - but I think they are wrong in believing it is C02 causing the change. I think the change is caused by something much more simple and immediate - the man-made structures. Most of the science studies claim to show that the increase in temperature corresponds with the 'industrial revolution' and the rise of our use of oil... however, we also started to pave our roads with asphalt (an oil-based product) instead of natural stone and we replaced our thatched roofs with shingles about the same time-period.

Consider this, most scientist agree that the majority of the temperature increase takes place in the so-called 'developed countries' of the world - yet what makes a country 'developed'? That country's use of oil? No. It is the country's roads and buildings. We are taking what used to be a natural setting (grassy fields, forests, etc) and turning them into black pavement, steel, tin, and other man-made substances that captures more heat.

The reason global-warming alarmists don't want to look at the much more obvious cause of global warming is because they can't make money off not-building roads or houses. They want to live in a house and drive on roads too (even an electric car still drives on a paved road).

I believe - even if we somehow made all industry 'carbon-neutral' and even if everyone drives electric cars and even if all electricity is created by renewable sources, the earth will still warm up. Why? Because the earth does not have a way of dealing with the man-made structures and changes we make to its landscape.

I believe man may be even accelerating faster by trying to limit.. My reasoning is this, as stated in my previous post studies have been shown that the manufacturing of solar panels actually dwarfs the savings of the panels themselves over a lifetime, I guess if we never had to replace them it would be a 1 time hit to the system but we need to replace everything from the panels to the batteries and thus were not achieving anything but living the lie that were doing something. Another theory I have is hat the solar panels may even be causing more problems beyond the carbon foot print at the manufacturing process.. What happens when you start reflecting the sun back up at our atmosphere ? I mean We have seen low e glass windows are melting neighbors home siding and cars , if reflecting the sun can melt a houses siding what is the effect on our atmosphere ?

 

[hatfielj]

The fact that this is even a thread is ridiculous. You might as well start a thread titled "The Earth is round...Where do you stand?" Because scientists are just as certain that climate change is happening and that green house gases are the cause as they are about the fact that the Earth is round. This idea that it's some how up for debate is absurd. The good news is that there are enough intelligent people left in the world working on solutions that we might just be able to save ourselves and our beloved ecosystem from the worst effects of it over the next 20-30 years. Of course we have to make sure not to elect anymore orange idiots to the White House.

And for all the deniers out there that have a million and one insane theories as to why you think climate change is not a problem...what if there's a tiny chance you're wrong? Wouldn't that be terrible if we caused terrible harm to the planet and could have done something about it? What would be the harm in being more conservative with our finite natural resources and getting our energy from sources that are both renewable and pollution free? Let me guess, you're going to say something about the economy being harmed. That's as BS as your theories about climate change being "normal." All of this noise you're hearing about there being some sort of imaginary debate about climate change is coming from big oil, coal, automotive, and other industries who are afraid of losing money to renewables. Greed is driving the deniers.

 

[hatfielj]

I believe man may be even accelerating faster by trying to limit.. My reasoning is this, as stated in my previous post studies have been shown that the manufacturing of solar panels actually dwarfs the savings of the panels themselves over a lifetime, I guess if we never had to replace them it would be a 1 time hit to the system but we need to replace everything from the panels to the batteries and thus were not achieving anything but living the lie that were doing something. Another theory I have is hat the solar panels may even be causing more problems beyond the carbon foot print at the manufacturing process.. What happens when you start reflecting the sun back up at our atmosphere ? I mean We have seen low e glass windows are melting neighbors home siding and cars , if reflecting the sun can melt a houses siding what is the effect on our atmosphere ?

Can you please provide links to these "studies" that claim solar panel manufacturing is somehow worse than continuing to burn coal and natural gas for electricity? I'm sorry but your theory is laughably ridiculous.

 

[Bob Bennett]

Here is my 2 cents, GW is a political dream come true; control, money and no results needed. What ever happened to the discussion of good old fashion pollution caused by humans, don't hear a word about it. Watched Chasing Coral, and just knew the only cause I would see was GW. How convenient, only one thing killing coral, the reefs in the Florida Keys! Yep, only GW causing it, can't be anything else. Have been to the Keys many times over last 35 years, and will never go back, just can't be all the people with there houses, septic tanks, waste water treatment, strip malls, and all the other crap that mass population needs. But nope, just GW, our political class sure would have a hard time getting re-elected if they had to make some hard choices to really save the Florida Keys. Watched a shark week program located around Cuba, sure looked like the Keys used too. Love to see a Triton water test from both places!

 

[Tristren]

Ok, I had been pleasantly surprised by how on topic and generally civil this thread has been. That's no longer the case.

I suspect that either it gets back on track or it will get shut down per the ToS.

The aggression on both sides is unnecessary here, completely counter productive, and very distasteful.

 

[Mattrg02]

Ok, I had been pleasantly surprised by how on topic and generally civil this thread has been. That's no longer the case.

I suspect that either it gets back on track or it will get shut down per the ToS.

The aggression on both sides is unnecessary here, completely counter productive, and very distasteful.

Here's what I think gets these type discussions detailed: Non religious people assume, right off the bat, that religious people are stupid.

The religious people tend to remember, throughout history, how many times scientists have been wrong.

I'm religious but can assure you that I am not stupid, racist, or bigoted. I've probably got one of the nicer degrees here and am probably more successful than most here, yet, I don't feel that the global warming side has made a good enough argument to convince me.

For the record, I'm Christian, even after spending a decade in a liberal university, and still don't agree with global warming to its full extent. I do believe the earth is very very old, millions of years old, believe there is some truth to global warming, but don't believe the scientists have finished their studying yet.

Because of the way I feel, I am strictly opposed to the aggressive policy changes being proposed by environmentalists and politicians.

Edit: I see some pretty obviously political crap in here regarding our legally elected President. I had a post deleted for much less. I expect the same response from the moderator.

Matt

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

The religious people tend to remember, throughout history, how many times scientists have been wrong.

lol

FWIW, the only examples that come to my (admittedly scientific) mind where religion and scientists conflicted on a science issue were the reverse.

Can you name a single issue where religions got a science issue correct and scientific consensus was wrong?

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Here is my 2 cents, GW is a political dream come true; control, money and no results needed. What ever happened to the discussion of good old fashion pollution caused by humans, don't hear a word about it.

It is still a serious problem, but regulations have been helping.

 

[Mattrg02]

lol

FWIW, the only examples that come to my (admittedly scientific) mind where religion and scientists conflicted on a science issue were the reverse.

Can you name a single issue where religions got a science issue correct and scientific consensus was wrong?

Why? Youve already decided that it hasn't happened, ever, so what would the point be? You are, in a way, proving my point.

You are scientist therefore right.

That is no way to sway anyone towards your opinion.

Matt

 

[Lasse]

Please admin - delet every ofending post whatever and let the thread go on.

Sincerly Lasse

 

[Waterjockey]

Yea its good that we get a greener planet but still - the rise in the atmosphere has been 25% during nearly the same time and continue to rise. This show the amount that not be depleted or taking up in the Ecossystem. But the uptake in the ocean affect the pH of the oceans. I think still that the whole system not is CO2 limeted - but its good with this type of discussions - it will always extend your knowledge. I can accept a greener planet if you accept the other things the researchers state. and accept that they use computer moddeling in order to isolate which part that was most important

Sincerely Lasse

Computer modeling? No. The models continue to be horribly, horribly wrong...not even close.
Real world data, yes.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamest...hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/#56822a9c5f23