Who's warming?

nomadicus · 2003-08-17, 00:02

Someone mentioned in one of other forums that global warming was the cause for, in essence, one day not being able to use the artic as way of walking across some continents.

Well, I agree that day may come, but I disagree that this is because of global warming specifically the claim that humans can do anything about it.

Good thing we didn't live at the tail end of last mini ice-age (when was that about 600 years ago?). Then we'd have more of a panic on our hands.

Glad we have free speech or else this forum would be pretty dry. :)
What am I saying??? This forum is one of the most fun around

-=- john

E_tron · 2003-08-17, 03:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadicus

What am I saying??? This forum is one of the most fun around

It's my home page :D .
Is it anyone else’s :D ?

What ever would i do without this :arrow: :D emotion :D ?

nomadicus · 2003-08-18, 14:52

This is great. Geez! No one comments on this.

One final stab at this thread before it goes into obscurity:

To me, global warming science is on very shaky grounds and manipulated by politicians. Their premise is that global warming is caused by humans. This is not true.

For example, the combined output of the world's active volcanos far exceeds the energy and polution (sulfur for example) expended by humans. Underwater volcanos are heating up the earth's water and in turn shrinking the polar ice caps. I have not seen a discussion of this from global warming proponents. I am not a geologist, but this makes more sense then yesterday's news that global warming's next big thing is being concerned about cows farting methane.

Another point is that the warming condition we are seeing has nothing to do with humans heating up the earth but everything to do with the natural ebb and flow of climatic conditions.

Or is this another dry drab topic destined for the bit bucket? :D

Kevin · 2003-08-18, 16:13

I'll put in a quick comment to give this thread another shot.....

What I personally think is happening is that we have some global warming from pollution and damaged ozone layer, some natural shift in temperature, and no way to distinguish between the 2. I say if they use it as an excuse to regulate pollution of big companies, it's for the good of nature anyways.

Xyzzy · 2003-08-18, 17:18

I think it is natural for us to overestimate our importance... We are pretty insignificant to the entire earth as a whole... I doubt we could do much to permanently destroy it... Even nuclear weapons are trivial...

It is like the large forest fires we see on the news... Everyone thinks they are just terrible, but in reality they are a part of the natural cycle of things...

http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/geotime.html

If you compare the time humans have been around to the earth's overall age it is very sobering...

garo · 2003-08-18, 17:48

I'm afraid nuclear weapons are not trivial. A full nuclear war will release radioactive pollutants with half-lives in tens of millions of years. Even in the "natural" scheme of things, it would be a significant altering of the earth's state.

In general, i do not think that the we are insignificant argument holds up against pollution and other man made effects. The planet's biodiversity has decreased drastically in the last century - and no it was not natural selection - and it is only getting worse. And that is NOT a "good thing".

Fusion_power · 2003-08-18, 17:58

Regardless of what is causing it, global warming is occurring. We have records that go back into the 1800's that clearly indicate a warming trend.

The question to be asked is "How much of the warming trend is caused by human byproducts?"

There is mounting evidence that human activity is not the original cause of warming but that humans are making things worse. From that perspective, reducing the human origin greenhouse gas emissions makes sense. It also makes sense to plant millions of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide that is already in the air.

Xyzzy · 2003-08-18, 19:17

What if this warming trend is just part of a 10,000 year cycle? Recording stuff for the last 200 years isn't going to give us a view from the real perspective...

nomadicus · 2003-08-19, 02:54

Quote:

The question to be asked is "How much of the warming trend is caused by human byproducts?"

I think the more interesting question is "compared to what?"

Quote:

It also makes sense to plant millions of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide that is already in the air.

We have since the 1900's, at least in the US.

I think we are irrelavant. When I look at the amount of energy coming from the sun and energy beneath earth's surface (such as volvanos and tectonic friction), the energy we generate is insanely small. This has lead me to conclude all the global warming hand wringing is based on junk science. Very sad.

dswanson · 2003-08-19, 03:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by nomadicus

When I look at the amount of energy coming from the sun and energy beneath earth's surface (such as volvanos and tectonic friction), the energy we generate is insanely small. This has lead me to conclude all the global warming hand wringing is based on junk science. Very sad.

The major source of the heat involved in global warming is not "energy we generate". It is energy from the sun. Man is simply the enabling element - we generate carbon dioxide, which blocks infrared light (heat). The sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface as visible light, but is reradiated from the surface as infrared light. The more carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere, the less of this infrared light can pass through the atmosphere and escape into space. Result: temperature rises using energy provided only by the sun, not by man.

eepiccolo · 2003-08-19, 14:19

No, I don't think we can say that because we've been warming up recently, that it is due to our new technology and its by-products. As Xyzzy said, we've only been recording temperatures over the past 200 year, and I suspect only recently with transportation technology have there been accurate global records.

And perhaps something catastrophic happened thousands of years ago that really changed the earth, and the earth is still recovering from it. I think that's just as feasible as the hypothesizes of humans directly or indirectly causing global warming.

2003-08-17, 00:02	#1
nomadicus Jan 2003 North Carolina F6₁₆ Posts	Who's warming? Someone mentioned in one of other forums that global warming was the cause for, in essence, one day not being able to use the artic as way of walking across some continents. Well, I agree that day may come, but I disagree that this is because of global warming specifically the claim that humans can do anything about it. Good thing we didn't live at the tail end of last mini ice-age (when was that about 600 years ago?). Then we'd have more of a panic on our hands. Glad we have free speech or else this forum would be pretty dry. :) What am I saying??? This forum is one of the most fun around -=- john

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
heart warming season (slightly violent vid)	firejuggler	Lounge	0	2016-02-10 13:09
Warming cold ∞	xilman	Lounge	7	2013-01-21 20:38
Terrorism or Global Warming	Pablo the Duck	Soap Box	17	2004-04-29 14:19

2003-08-18, 14:52	#3
nomadicus Jan 2003 North Carolina 2·3·41 Posts	This is great. Geez! No one comments on this. One final stab at this thread before it goes into obscurity: To me, global warming science is on very shaky grounds and manipulated by politicians. Their premise is that global warming is caused by humans. This is not true. For example, the combined output of the world's active volcanos far exceeds the energy and polution (sulfur for example) expended by humans. Underwater volcanos are heating up the earth's water and in turn shrinking the polar ice caps. I have not seen a discussion of this from global warming proponents. I am not a geologist, but this makes more sense then yesterday's news that global warming's next big thing is being concerned about cows farting methane. Another point is that the warming condition we are seeing has nothing to do with humans heating up the earth but everything to do with the natural ebb and flow of climatic conditions. Or is this another dry drab topic destined for the bit bucket? :D

2003-08-18, 16:13	#4
Kevin Aug 2002 Ann Arbor, MI 110110001₂ Posts	I'll put in a quick comment to give this thread another shot..... What I personally think is happening is that we have some global warming from pollution and damaged ozone layer, some natural shift in temperature, and no way to distinguish between the 2. I say if they use it as an excuse to regulate pollution of big companies, it's for the good of nature anyways.

2003-08-18, 17:18	#5
Xyzzy "Mike" Aug 2002 201F₁₆ Posts	I think it is natural for us to overestimate our importance... We are pretty insignificant to the entire earth as a whole... I doubt we could do much to permanently destroy it... Even nuclear weapons are trivial... It is like the large forest fires we see on the news... Everyone thinks they are just terrible, but in reality they are a part of the natural cycle of things... http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/geotime.html If you compare the time humans have been around to the earth's overall age it is very sobering...

2003-08-18, 17:48	#6
garo Aug 2002 Termonfeckin, IE 5314₈ Posts	I'm afraid nuclear weapons are not trivial. A full nuclear war will release radioactive pollutants with half-lives in tens of millions of years. Even in the "natural" scheme of things, it would be a significant altering of the earth's state. In general, i do not think that the we are insignificant argument holds up against pollution and other man made effects. The planet's biodiversity has decreased drastically in the last century - and no it was not natural selection - and it is only getting worse. And that is NOT a "good thing".

2003-08-18, 17:58	#7
Fusion_power Aug 2003 Snicker, AL 3BF₁₆ Posts	Regardless of what is causing it, global warming is occurring. We have records that go back into the 1800's that clearly indicate a warming trend. The question to be asked is "How much of the warming trend is caused by human byproducts?" There is mounting evidence that human activity is not the original cause of warming but that humans are making things worse. From that perspective, reducing the human origin greenhouse gas emissions makes sense. It also makes sense to plant millions of trees to absorb the carbon dioxide that is already in the air.

2003-08-18, 19:17	#8
Xyzzy "Mike" Aug 2002 201F₁₆ Posts	What if this warming trend is just part of a 10,000 year cycle? Recording stuff for the last 200 years isn't going to give us a view from the real perspective...

2003-08-19, 14:19	#11
eepiccolo Dec 2002 Frederick County, MD 2·5·37 Posts	No, I don't think we can say that because we've been warming up recently, that it is due to our new technology and its by-products. As Xyzzy said, we've only been recording temperatures over the past 200 year, and I suspect only recently with transportation technology have there been accurate global records. And perhaps something catastrophic happened thousands of years ago that really changed the earth, and the earth is still recovering from it. I think that's just as feasible as the hypothesizes of humans directly or indirectly causing global warming.