Debate: Global Warming

[John_Galt]

YOu all need to go and find forums where escimos post stuff, ask them if ice is shrinking and its getting warmer.

The earth is getting warmer dude. And the ice has been shrinking for the last 18000 years. But that DOESNT MEAN IT'S HAPPENING BECAUSE OF MAN MADE ACTIVITY!!!

 

[DJDoomage]

They're called Eskimos.

Thats right. So you agree that they agree that its getting warmer. Wouldnt they be first once to notice anyway, I bet they would.

 

[Rata Blanca]

"One of the filmmaker's experts, paleontologist professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, says that global warming could be caused by increased activity on the sun, such as massive eruptions, and that ice-core samples from Antarctica show that, in fact, warmer periods in Earth's history have come about 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. "

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Wow, and look at those graphs, I bet you never thought for a second how they could produce it such accurate temperatures from 450,000 years ago, especially in such a small range of a few degrees. Hmmm! Call me skeptical.

They measure concentration of substances in the Ice Caps. They take core samples (some are hundreds of metres deep) of the Ice in Antarctica and then proceed to segment each cylinder of ice it into little slices and measure each one. Then they make a graph.

"In 1998, the Russian-French-American ice-coring team at the Vostok station in eastern Antarctica reached a depth of 3623 m in the ice. The technical feat of extracting ancient ice samples from the coldest spot in the world has been, in itself, an impressive accomplishment, providing a continuous ice core record spanning 420,000 years. More extraordinary, however, are the histories preserved in the ice cores from Vostok, other Antarctic stations, and Greenland. These records have contributed surprising information on long-term climatic phenomena, underlining the importance of looking beyond the snapshot provided by recent instrument-based monitoring."

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html


You know what else is cool? When they find ancient pollen and airbourne viruses frozen in the ice.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

"One of the filmmaker's experts, paleontologist professor Ian Clark of the University of Ottawa, says that global warming could be caused by increased activity on the sun, such as massive eruptions, and that ice-core samples from Antarctica show that, in fact, warmer periods in Earth's history have come about 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. "

So why would CO2 levels increase with temperature? CO2 doesn't just evaporate from the hydrocarbon state its found in whether solid or liquid.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Thats right. So you agree that they agree that its getting warmer. Wouldnt they be first once to notice anyway, I bet they would.

You're right. They are noticing.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200512\NAT20051209b.html

Excerpt:

"An Arctic Inuit representative said the lower 48 states have a mild climate, and therefore Americans should have no problem turning down their thermostats in the winter to stop Arctic ice from melting.

"I don't know what [Americans are] doing to create all of this [greenhouse] gas emissions," said Meeka Mike of the Inuit Tapirit Kanatami, the national organization representing the Inuit peoples of Canada at the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Montreal. "

Here's another good article about the same issue: http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/marine/story/8671446p-8565319c.html

 

[Rata Blanca]

So why would CO2 levels increase with temperature? CO2 doesn't just evaporate from the hydrocarbon state its found in whether solid or liquid.

Well that's the Greenhouse theory that aparently seems to be false. I would like opinions from that report.

 

[John_Galt]

They measure concentration of substances in the Ice Caps. They take core samples (some are hundreds of metres deep) of the Ice in Antarctica and then proceed to segment each cylinder of ice it into little slices and measure each one. Then they make a graph.

"In 1998, the Russian-French-American ice-coring team at the Vostok station in eastern Antarctica reached a depth of 3623 m in the ice. The technical feat of extracting ancient ice samples from the coldest spot in the world has been, in itself, an impressive accomplishment, providing a continuous ice core record spanning 420,000 years. More extraordinary, however, are the histories preserved in the ice cores from Vostok, other Antarctic stations, and Greenland. These records have contributed surprising information on long-term climatic phenomena, underlining the importance of looking beyond the snapshot provided by recent instrument-based monitoring."

http://pubs.acs.org/hotartcl/est/99/apr/learn.html

Interesting, except one thing. The degree of error. When we are talking over this 450000 years we are talking about 1-2 degrees at a time, and I'm plenty sure that falls into error range. As well, Antartica ice caps don't represent "GLOBAL" trends. Right?

You know what else is cool? When they find ancient pollen and airbourne viruses frozen in the ice.

Oh no, another emotional fact posted to make me feel bad. Still doesn't prove anything.

-------------
Why didn't you correlate the increase in child porn to global warming?!!!! WHY!!!??!?

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Well that's the Greenhouse theory that aparently seems to be false. I would like opinions from that report.

Yes, I would like to see results from that report too.

This could be very interesting though. This would explain why we have so many cars and burning so much oil, wood, gas, and coal.

How silly of me not to notice this before. Now I know why my car puts so much CO2 into the atmosphere and why it guzzles so much gas. It's the temperature's fault. Duh.

 

[John_Galt]

This could be very interesting though. This would explain why we have so many cars and burning so much oil, wood, gas, and coal.

lol. I can just tell you're a left winger, just by your attempts to change the issue from science to emotion.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

As well, Antartica ice caps don't represent "GLOBAL" trends. Right?

That's why they measured the Antarctic Ice Cap.

 

[John_Galt]

That's why they measured the Antarctic Ice Cap.

Well, good to know that the graphs mean absolutely jack ****.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

lol. I can just tell you're a left winger, just by your attempts to change the issue from science to emotion.

Your theory was based just as much on emotion. Did you post any supporting evidence? Even a small picture that was barely visible so you could at least cast doubt?

No.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

Well, good to know that the graphs mean absolutely jack ****.

No I meant, they measured it BECAUSE it represent GLOBAL trends.

Read it again.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

What? Is that all Mr. Galt?

You're just going to let some science and 'facts' stand in the way of your personal opinion? Have you no supposition left to blow away my supporting proofs?

 

[John_Galt]

No I meant, they measured it BECAUSE it represent GLOBAL trends.

Read it again

How does the antarctic represent the globe exactly? Last time I checked, there's a north and south pole?

Your theory was based just as much on emotion. Did you post any supporting evidence? Even a small picture that was barely visible so you could at least cast doubt?

No.

You can't disprove the non-existent, right? Like, let's say you made the claim that Aliens on Mars get hardons from Fords. I can't disprove that because it hasn't been proved in the first place. Do you need the philosophical approach of that? To disprove the non-existent, you have to check everything in existence against the hypothesis and conclude them false. Get it? Or like our legal systems work, innocent until proven guilty. Right? You prove the claim is true, because it's next to impossible to prove without an alibi that I didn't kill john with a sawed off shotgun in denver.

I hope you get that. It's what separates logic from religious nut jobs.

 

[John_Galt]

What? Is that all Mr. Galt?

You're just going to let some science and 'facts' stand in the way of your personal opinion? Have you no supposition left to blow away my supporting proofs?

My personal opinion is that what is happening is natural. The earth gets hot, it's gets cold. Animals survive, animals die. Sun goes up, sun goes down. Diseases come, diseases go.

What's great though, in 1970, scientists were saying, that our evil greenhouse gases are going to cause another ice age. Oh my. :crazy:

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

How does the antarctic represent the globe exactly? Last time I checked, there's a north and south pole?.

The Antarctic is used because its been around for hundreds of thousands of years. It has the most stable temperature of any part of the earth because of its sheer size, and also because there is no settlement of any kind from animals and people (save a few penguins).

Its basically untouched. And its far better to measure it than something like aglacier that can very in size and temperature from year to year.

You can't disprove the non-existent, right?.

No. You cannot. How is this related. Are we going to shift this topic do discussing the existence of God?

Like, let's say you made the claim that Aliens on Mars get hardons from Fords.

That's just stupid. At least make it something more believable.

I can't disprove that because it hasn't been proved in the first place. Do you need the philosophical approach of that? To disprove the non-existent, you have to check everything in existence against the hypothesis and conclude them false. Get it? Or like our legal systems work, innocent until proven guilty. Right? You prove the claim is true, because it's next to impossible to prove without an alibi that I didn't kill john with a sawed off shotgun in denver.

Excellent argument. Now if you could relate this to what you are arguing... you could actually have a valid point. Until then you are talking about maiming people and shotguns.

It's what separates logic from religious nut jobs.

Let's not bring in Religion and God into this. We can make another thread if you like.

 

[Call_Me_Daddy]

What's great though, in 1970, scientists were saying, that our evil greenhouse gases are going to cause another ice age. Oh my. :crazy:

In the early 70s they also believed it was good to smoke, but that has been refuted by studies.

Did you know that there is no correlation between smoking and lung cancer?

http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-4.htm

"Yes, it is true, smoking does not cause lung cancer. It is only one of many risk factors for lung cancer." -James P. Siepmann, MD


But we all know what's going to happen if you smoke 5 packs a day for the next few years. Even if statistically there is no correlation based on current models.

 

[John_Galt]

The Antarctic is used because its been around for hundreds of thousands of years. It has the most stable temperature of any part of the earth because of its sheer size, and also because there is no settlement of any kind from animals and people (save a few penguins).

Its basically untouched. And its far better to measure it than something like aglacier that can very in size and temperature from year to year.

That isn't fair. If you're looking for stability than you're screwing with the results. The Earth is not stable, and usually one poll has more of an impact. The earths degree of rotation changes, and each poll isn't favored equally. The last ice age we had was mainly a north pole ice age. The advances of glaciers were a Northern Hemisphere issue, but not a big deal in the Southern hemisphere.

No. You cannot. How is this related. Are we going to shift this topic do discussing the existence of God?

YOU HAVE TO PROVE THE EXISTENCE THAT GREENHOUSE GASES CAUSE INFRARED LIGHT TO SOME HOW PASS THROUGH IT ON THE WAY IN, REFLECT OFF THE EARTH, THAN GET TRAPPED IN THE ATMOSPHERE CAUSING THE EARTH TO GET WARMER. Until you prove it, it's just a claim. You asked for my proof, I don't have to prove the non-existent.

That's just stupid. At least make it something more believable.

It illustrates the point.

Excellent argument. Now if you could relate this to what you are arguing... you could actually have a valid point. Until then you are talking about maiming people and shotguns.

You asked me to show my proof. I'm trying to show you why I don't have proof and don't show proof, because it's not my job to prove wrong a non-existent thing. It's your job to prove that greenhouse gases are causing warming trends on earth. You can dance around all the points you want, talk about SUV's, oil companies, correlations, and anything else you want too, but until the prove that greenhouse gases are causing warmth, than all you're blowing is your own hot air.

Let's not bring in Religion and God into this. We can make another thread if you like.

Start thinking like a man of science, not a person that is trying to emotionally bully people into believing them like a religion. There's no need to talk about the sins of driving a car or the punishments of released air born diseases from ice caps because it's irrelevant.