Global Warming

ADK,

Here's a link I think you'll find that corroborates much of what I've suggested. It's pretty devastating to the whole Glbal Warming argument. Please know I'm not trying to play "Gotcha" or anything like that. You've been more than a good sport for engaging me in the discussion. However, this is a fascinating article and should at the very least quell the "settled science" aspect of those that insist it is settled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Be well,

PT

I know it didn't wipe out all species because we wouldn't be here if it had. I think our orbit is constant if gravity works the way it always has unless some outside force pushed us out. Yeah, but what would cause that altercation?

ADK

I skimmed over the article and this is what my summary is of it: the trend is the Earth is getting cooler and that common beliefs are wrong.

Well, this coooling trend was one of the things I was talking about earlier on how the Earth warms up then cools over and over again. Well, this is probably another cool period, but the catch is that it will be warmer than the last cool period we had, right? (correct me if I'm wrong) This cycle doesn't have to undermine the whole Global Warming scheme as we have seen on some planets around us.

ADK

ADK,

Then let's say, for the sake of argument, that you're right and the Earth goes through its cycles (we actually don't disagree). Is it worth the untold billions upon billions to cool the earth 1/10th of one degree? That's pretty much the consensus the scientific community has arrived at in terms of how effective all that spent money could be?

Again, the CO2 argument has been pretty well blown out of the water, too. CO2 levels climb and the temperature gets colder. That's been a big part of all this.

Bottom line: the horrific costs to developed countries doesn't justify the trifle, New York will not be underwater in 90 years, the Arctic sea Ice will make a comeback, polar bears are more plentiful now than 40 years ago, e-mails have been cooked, computer models aren't trustworthy... would you really want to spend a trillion dollars after knowing all that information?

I just mean dinosaurs in general, not all life. Some sort of solar event maybe?

Well, the sceintific community is very dead wrong in the fact that they propose to spend trillions of dollars to cool down the Earth. (I never wanted to spend that much anyways) Well, just because the whether is a little cooler than the trend we have been seeing doesn't mean that CO2 is out of the picture. It just means we are going through that cold cycle again. Well, New York underwater? I don't think so because global warming isn't that fast. It's a gradual thing... Arctic Sea Ice isn't making a comeback just yet or might not even make one. I thought the reason Polar Bears were growing was because of conservation efforts. No, trillions is too far outlandish. I'm thinking of just switching coal to solar. (yes, it can substite a large base-load coal plant) That would only cost a few millions and we are thinking not only of global warming but cost in general because solar is cheap.

ADK

Any kind of solar activity would've killed off everything and not just the dinosaurs so I'm still sticking with the asteroid theory.

ADK

 I'm not so sure, some lifeforms seem equipped for very cold, or very hot weather. I don't imagine everything would have died. Crocodiles are thought to have survived whatever happened because they spend a lot of time in the water.

As for gravity, it does fluctuate slightly depending where you are on the planet, just not enough to affect our daily lives. Different parts of the Earth are affected by the density and minerals in the Earth.  

I don't know what the fuss is all about, i think Global warming is the future.  Think about it, have you ever heard someone in florida or California say,"oh gee, i wish it wasn't so warm and beautiful here".  No you don't, i think it is only fair that the warmth is shared with all the world. 

Seriously, why should we only have it three months of the year...this was a light hearted comment. NO HATE MAIL!

Honestly, I had no idea that this post would continue for so long.  I am the original poster.

When I began this post, I had no idea what I was talking about; I have wizened up a little more now, though.  I have learned enough to realize that no matter how much one of us argues, none will ever truly be right, in the sense that for as long as there is another member of the opposition we can never release the continuous stream of arguments which stems from our mouths.

I do not expect anyone to heed my words, but I must admit that this argument is pretty pointless now.

Thank You,

ssnyder

 I hope it was light hearted because it's just silly.

LOL  - this "debate" is retarded.

A gas tax would be great! We need to stop depending on gas to fuel us, 'cause we will eventually run out. That's not even including global warming, which may or may not be happening. The thing is, man is definitely affecting the world; we dump so much CO2 and other things into the atmosphere, there's no way it's not affecting some things. And even if global warming isn't happening now, what if it happens in a hundred years? If we aren't ready for it, then we will be in huge trouble. We might as well do what we can to insure not only that it is not happening, but also that it won't happen. Unless you don't care, princetrumpet, 'cause you're gonna be dead by then, but what about those of us who will be around? And why spend money and environment on gas, when we could, without much trouble, get fuel for much cheaper and cleaner? There's no reason not to work against Global Warming, even if it's not happening now. (you've probably noticed that I think global warming is happening) If it becomes global cooling, we can deal with that easily. But if it's global warming (or global weirding), there's no way for us to stop it now. 

We could just use hydrogen fuel? It seems practical. I mean hydrogen is all around us if we put water through electrolysis to get it. And it's only by-products are heat and water.

ADK

Hydrogen fuel might be a good solution, but it seems a little bit more difficult if you ask me. Solar panels on houses could drastically change conditions, but they are too expensive. Nuclear power plants seem to be a great thing, excepting the risk involved. Also reducing car emissions would help, and public transportation in the US could really help.

The hydrogen fuel idea works, it's the storing of hydrogen for use that is the problem.  I believe liquid nitrogen is involved in the storage somehow.  Hydrogen is odourless and colourless but also very explosive.

It works fine in cars but the potential extra issues raised by everyday car accidents could be catastrophic. 

1.The planet has been cooling, not warming for the last 14 years. Look at ANY graph. All this has occurred while CO2 levels have been supposedly rising.

2. The people behind the science are not in agreement. This is not even debatable anymore. It's fact. The so-called consensus is no longer.

3. As of this spring the Arctic ice is going to be back to normal. That's right, normal. There will be melting in the summer but there ALWAYS is.

4.There are 5 times the number of polar bears there were in the 1970s.

5. The cap and tax policies being proposed would put many businesses out of business.

6. The Himalayan glaciers are here to stay. The numbers were wrong.

7. Hansen of NASA got his numbers wrong about what the hottest year in the last century was. He blew it big time.

Enough with the Global Warming alarmist nonsense. There is absolutely no reason to continue the panic that has made Al Gore and others multi-millionaires. You want alternative energy sources? good. So do I. Should we recycle? Yes, probably. Should we befoul the earth and waters unnecessarily? No, of course not. Keep businesses feet to the fire in a reasonable way but don't put nature above humanity.

 The Earth has, and always will be, going into periods of warm and cool. Although it is entering the cool period, which explains the cooling, the temperature won't get as low as the previous cooling period. The cool period won't even last as long as before and the warm period will continue to increase.

3. A result of the cooling period? Maybe

4. More ice (explained by cooling period) and probably less hunting/poaching?

5. I'm not one of those people making dumb policies. I'm just debating with you whether global warming is real or not. (You can just look at other planets and see the global warming effect for yourself so it is real)

6. I'm not saying the glaciers are going anywhere. But, the climate is definitely heating up.

7. Yes, he probably blew it big time, but that is no way effect what we see around us.

NO panic here. I simply said the Earth is heating up. It will be a long time before we see any BIG changes. Yes, protect the environment. I'm not saying we put it above humanity and besides, without nature, where will we live? How would we support ourselves. Remember, we derive all our resources from nature and if we don't protect it or put it at a higher place than it is, there will be some consequences.

ADK

You're a reasonable person, ADK. Now, how do we keep our politicians and decion makers as reasonable as you? By the way, the things I said weren't necessarily aimed at you. They were general statements that were more about how the media portray the current situation.

An aside: any theories about how the recent major volcanic activity in celand will affect all of this. I've been wondering and am surprised there hasn't been any speculation in the media about it. Thoughts? 

 There is not much we can do to affect politicians & medias' views on this. In a volcanic eruptuion, the volcano spews out sulfuric gases/aerosols into the atmosphere which is known to reflect the sun's rays back into outerspace causing the global temperature to cool if it continues. I think they have recrods of incedents where major volcanoes have erupted and caused that to happen. I think the media is more focused in on flight delays rather than environmental impacts of it.

ADK