Who believes in man-made global warming??

[ajnl]

Have you ever tried to see the stars in a big city and looked for the stars in the country? Smog makes a BIG difference in visibility. Think about it if you REALLY know what Im talkin about.

 

that's also due to the fact that there is a lot of light in the city.

[beedub]

Yes, I do find it rather strange that no matter what extreme the weather is at, it is due to global warming. I think the global warming theory is too profitable for some people to let go. Don't take this that I do not think it is important to take care of the environment either.

Edited June 1, 2012 by beedub

[Ghostwind]

Yes, I do find it rather strange that no matter what extreme the weather is at, it is due to global warming. I think the global warming theory is too profitable for some people to let go. Don't take this that I do not think it is important to take care of the environment either.

 

I am not really sure why people do not understand the difference between global warming and climate change. While they are similar, and related, they are not the same thing. Global warming was an early theory that was used to explain rising temperatures, before climate change came into the picture (due to better data being collected). Climate change is used to explain observations that weather in different parts of the world are varying significantly from regional norms,whether the temperature change is positive or negative. For example, here where I live, we have had two very harsh winters that no one really expected, and people are saying they are getting worse (given that we live in a very warm part of Germany)

 

Regarding climate science being profitable, I do agree with you. If someone can make money off of something, they will. However, the assumption that money is driving the topic on its own is blatantly false. The climate has changed significantly due to human activities. We saw this once already during the industrial revolution, and we are seeing it again, whether people want to deny it or not.

[Ghostwind]

that's also due to the fact that there is a lot of light in the city.

 

and that smog levels are usually lower or non-existant at night.

[beedub]

I am not really sure why people do not understand the difference between global warming and climate change. While they are similar, and related, they are not the same thing. Global warming was an early theory that was used to explain rising temperatures, before climate change came into the picture (due to better data being collected). Climate change is used to explain observations that weather in different parts of the world are varying significantly from regional norms,whether the temperature change is positive or negative. For example, here where I live, we have had two very harsh winters that no one really expected, and people are saying they are getting worse (given that we live in a very warm part of Germany)

 

Regarding climate science being profitable, I do agree with you. If someone can make money off of something, they will. However, the assumption that money is driving the topic on its own is blatantly false. The climate has changed significantly due to human activities. We saw this once already during the industrial revolution, and we are seeing it again, whether people want to deny it or not.

 

So if I come up with a theory and it doesn't work out, in fact the opposite happens, I change the name and basis of my theory; You don't see a problem with that?

 

I would be leary of information that comes from any group thats existance depends on the existance of "Climate Change." I would just think that there information may be a little biased. I am not saying we should totally discredit it, just not take it at face value. All I know is a lot of what I hear does not make sense, I don't see it happening. We can't accurately predict the weather 10 days in advance, what makes you think someone can predict what it will do years down the road?

 

What you need to do (I will when I get time too) is look at as much weather history as you can; avg. temps, rain/snow fall, etc. and see if what is going on now is different than any other time in weather history. My guess is you will find that weather is unpredictable and hot and cold extremes happen all of the time. Unfortunately we do not have a very long recorded of the weather to look at.

 

So are the two harsh winters that you had the worst ever recorded for you region? If the climate change theory is correct the winters will continue to get colder (remember we were initially told winters would get warmer and shorter). "Out of the norm" weather happens all of the time.

 

My hypothesis - ingesting water is dangerous. My research shows that millions of people die every year that have ingested water. My hyothesis graduates to a theory. Even though this is rediculous I could probably find some people to buy in and stop drinking water. Penn and Teller got a bunch of signatures from people on a petition to ban dihydroxide. They just told people that it was in almost everything we eat and drink. Most people didn't question it, they just signed a petition to ban it becuase it sounded bad. Very few people questioned it or even knew it was just H2O.

 

 

I am back to edit this post again because I have gathered further data and water causes both life and death, so I am modifying my original thoery and I will have to rename it.

 

BTW, I am not trying to be an a-hole, just making a point.

Edited June 4, 2012 by beedub

[Ghostwind]

I dont think you are trying to be an a-hole, and I do see the argument that you are trying to make here.

 

So if I come up with a theory and it doesn't work out, in fact the opposite happens, I change the name and basis of my theory; You don't see a problem with that?

I would be leary of information that comes from any group thats existance depends on the existance of "Climate Change." I would just think that there information may be a little biased. I am not saying we should totally discredit it, just not take it at face value. All I know is a lot of what I hear does not make sense, I don't see it happening. We can't accurately predict the weather 10 days in advance, what makes you think someone can predict what it will do years down the road?

 

With regards to climate change, the opposite has not happened. The theory was updated to reflect new information, and the title was changed to more accurately reflect what is actually happening. The global climate is changing due to human activity. In some places that means the climate has gotten cooler, other places the climate has gotten warmer. The world does not contain a uniform climate, or we would see a uniform rise or fall in the temperature of the climate. The data collected by looking at historical weather markers, such as tree rings, soil samples, or taking ice samples (gas spectrometry). This data is the gathered, and modeled against what is expected if there was no human influence (such covarying and adjusting C02 emissions from humans). This data can then be modeled into the future for what can be expected. Sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong. But the general trend of temperatures is that they are not normal to what we would expect if there was no human activity, and that they vary significantly from the earth's natural biorhythm (this includes natural fluctuations in the earth's temperature).

 

What you need to do (I will when I get time too) is look at as much weather history as you can; avg. temps, rain/snow fall, etc. and see if what is going on now is different than any other time in weather history. My guess is you will find that weather is unpredictable and hot and cold extremes happen all of the time. Unfortunately we do not have a very long recorded of the weather to look at.

 

You are correct about not having that many years of historical weather recordings (If I remember correctly, in most countries, this started around the mid 1800s. But, as I mentioned above, there are other indicators of weather, and atmospheric composition.

 

So are the two harsh winters that you had the worst ever recorded for you region? If the climate change theory is correct the winters will continue to get colder (remember we were initially told winters would get warmer and shorter). "Out of the norm" weather happens all of the time.

 

Point taken. It was a bad example. The point I was trying to make is that people who have lived in this region for 30+ years have noticed it getting much colder here over this time period.

 

My hypothesis - ingesting water is dangerous. My research shows that millions of people die every year that have ingested water. My hyothesis graduates to a theory. Even though this is rediculous I could probably find some people to buy in and stop drinking water. Penn and Teller got a bunch of signatures from people on a petition to ban dihydroxide. They just told people that it was in almost everything we eat and drink. Most people didn't question it, they just signed a petition to ban it becuase it sounded bad. Very few people questioned it or even knew it was just H2O.

 

There is nothing wrong with this hypothesis. After all, it is only a hypothesis, and is subject to revision based on hypothesis testing. This is how science works. Heck if we look at the theory of relativity, we are seeing challenges to it, and principles that were thought to be unbreakable (such as the speed of light being the interstellar speed limit). I completely agree with you that you should never take any theory or law at face value. However, if there is a huge body of evidence that supports it, this should not be ignored either. The thing I love so very much about science is that it is a bastion of free speech, as long as you can back up your claims with credible evidence. Can I say that climate change is happening with 100% certainty? No. What I can say is that there is great probability that it is happening, based upon the science behind this research.

 

Finally, regarding water being toxic, it most certainly can be through, for example, hyponatraemia (an imbalance of electrolytes in the body). The Penn and Teller joke was just hillarious because they actually got people to sign this petition.

[Dak]

Have you ever tried to see the stars in a big city and looked for the stars in the country? Smog makes a BIG difference in visibility. Think about it if you REALLY know what Im talkin about.

 

Smog is caused by polllutants in the air. Greenhouse gasses are not pollutants, there is a big difference which a lot of people do not understand.

[Ghostwind]

Smog is caused by polllutants in the air. Greenhouse gasses are not pollutants, there is a big difference which a lot of people do not understand.

 

Wrong. Wiki puts it best:

 

Pollution is the introduction of contaminants into the natural environment that cause adverse change. Pollution can take the form of chemical substances or energy, such as noise, heat or light. Pollutants, the components of pollution, can be either foreign substances/energies or naturally occurring contaminants.

[Dak]

The following chart shows (copied from www.climatedata.info) the major greenhouse gas contributors. Although I suppose there are some that would call water vapor and clouds a pollutant, it seems ridiculous to me.

[Ghostwind]

The following chart shows (copied from www.climatedata.info) the major greenhouse gas contributors. Although I suppose there are some that would call water vapor and clouds a pollutant, it seems ridiculous to me.

 

I dont know that I would consider water vapour a pollutant per-se, but c02, O3, CH4, and N20 are all certainly are, if they are man-made, and in a large enough concentration to cause severe changes to the environment around them.

[Dak]

I dont know that I would consider water vapour a pollutant per-se, but c02, O3, CH4, and N20 are all certainly are, if they are man-made, and in a large enough concentration to cause severe changes to the environment around them.

 

CO2 is plant food and makes up a significant part of our atmosphere, how can you call it pollution? Check out the info below from http://www.plantsnee...CookieSupport=1

 

CO2 is Green... and Green is Good!

More CO2 in the air means more plant growth.

Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow (see table below).

 

 

Adding more CO2 to the air also benefits plants in other ways:

They generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores as wide as they do at lower CO2 concentrations, and they tend to produce fewer such pores per unit area of leaf surface. Both of these changes tend to reduce plant transpiration or water loss; and the amount of growth they experience per unit of water lost (water-use efficiency) therefore rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. And with fewer and smaller stomatal openings, plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are also less susceptible to damage by noxious air pollutants, including ozone and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, that gain entry into plants via these portals. Higher CO2 concentrations also help plants by reducing the negative effects of a number of other environmental stresses, such as high soil salinity, high air temperature, low air temperature, low light intensity, low levels of soil fertility, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory.

A visual example of the benefits described above is portrayed in the figure below, where the results of growing a common house plant (Devil's Ivy or Golden Pothos) at about 200 ppm below (left) or 350 ppm above (right) the atmosphere's current CO2 concentration is shown. As you examine this figure, ask yourself in which direction would you like to be heading if you were a plant: toward higher or lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Yes, CO2 is green;

and a wealth of research has shown that more of it in the air is a very good thing.

To learn additional facts about why we need more CO2 in our atmosphere -- and definitely not less --Read More About Benefits to Plants >>

[Helmut the soldier]

I think that we all are responsible for the safety of our planet.... if we produce tons of carbon dioxide it is our fault

then that the environment will be polluted, you have to think about your actions so it's like when someone makes a fire: you have to expect that a person may cough from the smoke

[Ghostwind]

CO2 is plant food and makes up a significant part of our atmosphere, how can you call it pollution? Check out the info below from http://www.plantsnee...CookieSupport=1

 

CO2 is Green... and Green is Good!

More CO2 in the air means more plant growth.

Earth's current atmospheric CO2 concentration is almost 390 parts per million (ppm). Adding another 300 ppm of CO2 to the air has been shown by literally thousands of experiments to greatly increase the growth or biomass production of nearly all plants. This growth stimulation occurs because CO2 is one of the two raw materials (the other being water) that are required for photosynthesis. Hence, CO2 is actually the "food" that sustains essentially all plants on the face of the earth, as well as those in the sea. And the more CO2 they "eat" (absorb from the air or water), the bigger and better they grow (see table below).

 

 

Adding more CO2 to the air also benefits plants in other ways:

They generally do not open their leaf stomatal pores as wide as they do at lower CO2 concentrations, and they tend to produce fewer such pores per unit area of leaf surface. Both of these changes tend to reduce plant transpiration or water loss; and the amount of growth they experience per unit of water lost (water-use efficiency) therefore rises, greatly increasing their ability to withstand drought. And with fewer and smaller stomatal openings, plants exposed to elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are also less susceptible to damage by noxious air pollutants, including ozone and oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, that gain entry into plants via these portals. Higher CO2 concentrations also help plants by reducing the negative effects of a number of other environmental stresses, such as high soil salinity, high air temperature, low air temperature, low light intensity, low levels of soil fertility, oxidative stress, and the stress of herbivory.

A visual example of the benefits described above is portrayed in the figure below, where the results of growing a common house plant (Devil's Ivy or Golden Pothos) at about 200 ppm below (left) or 350 ppm above (right) the atmosphere's current CO2 concentration is shown. As you examine this figure, ask yourself in which direction would you like to be heading if you were a plant: toward higher or lower atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

Yes, CO2 is green;

and a wealth of research has shown that more of it in the air is a very good thing.

To learn additional facts about why we need more CO2 in our atmosphere -- and definitely not less --Read More About Benefits to Plants >>

 

 

I never said that C02 in the atmosphere was a bad thing; however, as the old saying goes, too much of a good thing can be bad. Carbon dioxide is fine in the atmosphere as long as it can be recycled by plants. When there is too much C02 in the atmosphere, plants can no longer process it, and turn it back in to oxygen and use the carbon from the molocules, as you pointed out above.

 

my point to your comment, is that just because something is considered organic, doesn't mean that it is safe or green.

[Levi]

I have a different theory.

[Dak]

I have a different theory.

en-Lighten us, what's your theory?