PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming


FreakyLocz14
July 30th, 2011, 10:55 PM
Do you believe in it? I think it's a hoax; and these findings by NASA (http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/189649/20110730/global-warming-hoax-nasa-earth-releasing-heat-space.htm) seem to prove that.

Discuss.

Black Ice
July 30th, 2011, 11:38 PM
Other climate scientists disagreed with Dr. Spencer's recent findings spotting flaws and calling his model "unrealistic." The statistical information from the satellites are lacking as Spencer may not have accounted for fluctuations and other variables in the study.
This article doesn't really prove anything and Spencer's model wasn't given. It's hard to take this as serious evidence without peer approval, either. Even better, it's only a hypothesis.

Most (pretty much all) scientists would agree that the earth's climate is changing. I think the controversy is about whether humans are directly responsible. That is debatable, but the fact that the average temperatures are rising is not up for questioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

and because i like pictures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Myles
July 30th, 2011, 11:52 PM
Anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming is only debatable if you reject the scientific consensus that it is correct.

I find this article very irresponsible because even though it doesn't technically lie, it's acting like Spencer's hypothesis is at least close to the equivalent of a scientific consensus. It's misleading.

Ivysaur
July 31st, 2011, 12:16 AM
"Believe", you don't believe in science. Science relates to facts, and while the facts can be interpreted in different ways, the increase in Earth's temperature and its relation to certain gases is undeniable.

Of course, companies and politicians who want to keep the high-spending way of life instead of looking for less-toxic, cheaper, renewable energy sources (aka Oil companies, car companies, and their friends -only some of the most powerful lobbies in the world-) want to consider it a lie and something "you believe in", as if it were a religion or something, to have an excuse to ignore it and keep making money instead of investing on plans to improve their methods.

FreakyLocz14
July 31st, 2011, 01:12 AM
This article doesn't really prove anything and Spencer's model wasn't given. It's hard to take this as serious evidence without peer approval, either. Even better, it's only a hypothesis.

Most (pretty much all) scientists would agree that the earth's climate is changing. I think the controversy is about whether humans are directly responsible. That is debatable, but the fact that the average temperatures are rising is not up for questioning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

and because i like pictures:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png


The global warming hysteria isn't just about climate change. It also proposes the greenhouse effect. If it is true that the Earth releases heat into space instead of heat being trapped forever like a giant greenhouse, global warming is a hoax.

Anders
July 31st, 2011, 01:21 AM
Heat can still be released into space and negatively effect us, as long as the rate it escapes isn't as high as the rate we produce it. In my opinion it's fairly obvious that we're producing more and more heat and pollution now than we previously have, therefore speeding up the process of climate change dramatically.

Mr. X
July 31st, 2011, 07:35 AM
Finally something me and you agree on... Well, at least somewhat.

The entire climate change thing is a complete steaming load of crap.

Climate change has been occuring since this planet was created. You remember them ice ages? Yah. The planet cycles between cooling and warming periods.

Now, the real question is how are we effecting it? Although climate change IS something that occurs naturally we might be speeding up the process.

TL:DR

Climate change is natural. We can't stop it from occuring, but can speed it up.

Myles
July 31st, 2011, 07:57 AM
No one is arguing that there isn't natural climate change. The fact that there have been ice ages in the past is no secret. The important thing is that there is anthropogenic global warming due to the greenhouse effect too.

G.U.Y.
July 31st, 2011, 09:33 AM
The global warming hysteria isn't just about climate change. It also proposes the greenhouse effect. If it is true that the Earth releases heat into space instead of heat being trapped forever like a giant greenhouse, global warming is a hoax.

Uh, no one ever said that heat isn't escaping. If heat wasn't escaping, night wouldn't be colder than day. Obviously heat is escaping, it's just the rate that heat is escaping is less than that of heat building up. That's what has always been said - all that article is doing is exploiting a well-known fact, leaving out important details, and incorrectly explaining events.

Also, here is a website that lists all the evidence and causes of climate change. Wait..that's weird. It seems to be NASA's government website. (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Edit: Here is their "Causes" page where they clearly say that heat is still escaping, just more slowly. And that source is from 2007. (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

deoxys121
July 31st, 2011, 09:46 AM
I fully believe that global warming is true. Whether it's a direct cause of humans, a completely natural phenomenon, or a combination of both... well, there's evidence on both ends there. Whether we've caused it or not, I do think it's gone too far already to reverse it. I personally think it's most likely a natural phenomenon that's being rapidly accelerated by humans' impact on the planet. So, overall, yes, we are at least a contributory cause. *Raises flame shield*

donavannj
July 31st, 2011, 10:40 AM
Whether or not it's caused by our species, it doesn't change the fact that we're irresponsibly using limited resources such as oil and coal and are poisoning ourselves with the pollutants they put into the air. We get enough of such pollutants from the dominant meat sources for our species (large farm animals like pigs and cows).

The whole greenhouse gas effect pertains to the decreasing rates of heat escaping, not preventing heat from escaping altogether, just so you're aware.

Esper
July 31st, 2011, 10:49 AM
The most dangerous aspect of climate change is the perception that just because there are people who agree with scientific findings which say that it is in fact happening and there are those who reject those findings that there's an even balance of these groups and that they both have some equivalent proof for their sides.

Calling it a hoax implies it is a deliberate attempt to mislead people for nefarious purposes. Even if you don't think the evidence supports the idea it's a little extreme to call it a hoax and it emboldens people to think uncritically and unscientifically since the basis of your message is that climate- and other scientists are big liars and can't be trusted and neither can anyone who supports their side since they're just being duped.

Bluerang1
July 31st, 2011, 11:12 AM
Hoax or not we need to take better care of our planet.

My answer to the question is no. London didn't have Winter snow for a while and it's restarted, something's changing in the atmosphere.

fango pango
July 31st, 2011, 11:19 AM
its just aa phase the earth is going through,we will eventually come to an ice age again
its all a hoax,dont worry :)

FreakyLocz14
July 31st, 2011, 11:30 AM
its just aa phase the earth is going through,we will eventually come to an ice age again
its all a hoax,dont worry :)

We're in one right now. As we come out of the ice age, the globe naturally gets warmer.

Myles
July 31st, 2011, 11:50 AM
We're in one right now. As we come out of the ice age, the globe naturally gets warmer.

And how does that explain this?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

"Reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures for the 2nd millennium according to various older articles (bluish lines), newer articles (reddish lines), and instrumental record (black line)" ~Temperature record of the past 1000 years, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record_of_the_past_1000_years)

Anders
July 31st, 2011, 12:29 PM
Um, I'm not taking sides or anything, but that chart shows us coming out of the "Little Ice Age" just like FreakyLocz14 said, lol.

Ivysaur
July 31st, 2011, 12:37 PM
Um, I'm not taking sides or anything, but that chart shows us coming out of the "Little Ice Age" just like FreakyLocz14 said, lol.

I'd add this image, also from Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

In other words, there was a "little warm period", then there was a "little ice age" and now there is another warm period that, in a single century, has got over anything the "little warm period" had. In other words, yes, we are coming off an ice age, that's true, but that the increase in temperature is unnaturally large and quick is also obvious.

Anders
July 31st, 2011, 12:47 PM
oh lol, my bad I didn't really notice the black line extending up that far. :P

Captain Fabio
July 31st, 2011, 01:09 PM
I'd add this image, also from Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

In other words, there was a "little warm period", then there was a "little ice age" and now there is another warm period that, in a single century, has got over anything the "little warm period" had. In other words, yes, we are coming off an ice age, that's true, but that the increase in temperature is unnaturally large and quick is also obvious.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts with the graph if I am honest.
If you believe it, then fair enough but I personally think the idea of it being a hoax is stupid.

Katalyst
July 31st, 2011, 01:45 PM
"Believe", you don't believe in science. Science relates to facts, and while the facts can be interpreted in different ways, the increase in Earth's temperature and its relation to certain gases is undeniable.

Of course, companies and politicians who want to keep the high-spending way of life instead of looking for less-toxic, cheaper, renewable energy sources (aka Oil companies, car companies, and their friends -only some of the most powerful lobbies in the world-) want to consider it a lie and something "you believe in", as if it were a religion or something, to have an excuse to ignore it and keep making money instead of investing on plans to improve their methods.



I'd add this image, also from Wikipedia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

In other words, there was a "little warm period", then there was a "little ice age" and now there is another warm period that, in a single century, has got over anything the "little warm period" had. In other words, yes, we are coming off an ice age, that's true, but that the increase in temperature is unnaturally large and quick is also obvious.

Whether or not it's caused by our species, it doesn't change the fact that we're irresponsibly using limited resources such as oil and coal and are poisoning ourselves with the pollutants they put into the air. We get enough of such pollutants from the dominant meat sources for our species (large farm animals like pigs and cows).

The whole greenhouse gas effect pertains to the decreasing rates of heat escaping, not preventing heat from escaping altogether, just so you're aware.

Uh, no one ever said that heat isn't escaping. If heat wasn't escaping, night wouldn't be colder than day. Obviously heat is escaping, it's just the rate that heat is escaping is less than that of heat building up. That's what has always been said - all that article is doing is exploiting a well-known fact, leaving out important details, and incorrectly explaining events.

Also, here is a website that lists all the evidence and causes of climate change. Wait..that's weird. It seems to be NASA's government website. (http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

Edit: Here is their "Causes" page where they clearly say that heat is still escaping, just more slowly. And that source is from 2007. (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/)

Just focusing some points.

Most of what I wanted to say has been said already in these posts. The only thing I'd add to them is that the Earth itself releases infrared radiation to space all the time. The high concentration of greenhouse gases doesn't mean that there is like a 5 kilometers thick bubble made of concrete around the planet that lets nothing get out. Heat still escapes to space. But it's escaping at a slower rate.

So no, it's not a hoax. It's pretty damn real. Get over it.

FreakyLocz14
July 31st, 2011, 02:18 PM
All you have done is show that we are coming out of our current Ice Age, as evidenced by natural global warning. None of those fancy charts and graphs show a causation. Warming alone isn't inconclusive evidence unless it can be shown that said warming is man-made.

Myles
July 31st, 2011, 02:57 PM
There is evidence. That graph wasn't suppose to be evidence for anthropogenic global warming. I thought you were saying that there was no evidence of significant global warming, anthropogenic or not. That graph shows that there is significant global warming.

If you want more extensive evidence, I suggest you go no further than NASA's article here: http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

This article answers almost any denial response you can think of: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics

FreakyLocz14
July 31st, 2011, 03:06 PM
CO2 is not a harmful gas. It is a natural gas. CO2 is essential for life to occur on this planet. It's even in the air we breathe. Humans are carbon-based. We need CO2. It's natural and harmless.

Myles
July 31st, 2011, 03:09 PM
No one is denying that. If there were no greenhouse gases the planet would freeze us to death for a start. We need a balance. Water is good for us, but it can still kill us if mistreated. The same with CO2.

G.U.Y.
July 31st, 2011, 05:09 PM
CO2 is not a harmful gas. It is a natural gas. CO2 is essential for life to occur on this planet. It's even in the air we breathe. Humans are carbon-based. We need CO2. It's natural and harmless.

Seriously? I think you're just trolling now.

CO2, of course it's natural and harmless at natural levels. It's a natural greenhouse gas that helps regulate our temperature - without it we'd be a giant frozen rock.

But, too much of it is bad. Just like too much water is bad. Or too much sugar. Or too much fat. Or too much oxygen. Or too much methane. Or too much nitrogen. Seriously, the list is endless.

Just because something isn't bad all the time, that doesn't mean it's never bad.

Stormbringer
July 31st, 2011, 08:34 PM
but that chart shows us coming out of the "Little Ice Age" just like FreakyLocz14 said, lol.

....

Which means that the planet is warming up.



Of the 20 hottest years in the past millennium, 10 of them have happened since 2001. (2001-201) And every single year on the list has been from 1983 to the present. Hmmmmmm.

G.U.Y.
August 1st, 2011, 10:33 AM
HOAX, the summer in the UK is still crap, the winter is crap, nothing is warmer here :(

-____-

1. The UK is not the entire world. I'm pretty sure that it's just a small island off the coast of Europe (and a little bit of an even smaller island off the coast of it.)
2. Global warming does not mean "OMG THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING TO BE 40 DEGREES CELCIUS EVERYWHERE!!!1!!1!!" It's "The temperature of the entire planet as a whole will rise a few degrees, some places may not experience a noticeable rise, some may experience a huge rise (like the ice caps will).

Ignorance. The only way to rid the planet of it is to stab it in the face with facts. ^-^

deoxys121
August 1st, 2011, 11:03 AM
-____-

1. The UK is not the entire world. I'm pretty sure that it's just a small island off the coast of Europe (and a little bit of an even smaller island off the coast of it.)
2. Global warming does not mean "OMG THE TEMPERATURE IS GOING TO BE 40 DEGREES CELCIUS EVERYWHERE!!!1!!1!!" It's "The temperature of the entire planet as a whole will rise a few degrees, some places may not experience a noticeable rise, some may experience a huge rise (like the ice caps will).

Ignorance. The only way to rid the planet of it is to stab it in the face with facts. ^-^

About the Polar Ice Caps, I once saw on the show Brainiac (yes, they at least used to broadcast it in the US), that it would only take the global temperature rising by 3°C to completely melt the Greenland ice sheet, resulting in sea levels rising by 7 meters, which is almost 23 feet. I don't know about all of you, but this page (http://greencleanguide.com/2011/06/30/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-of-the-arctic-landmark/) on the melting Greenland ice sheet is rather convincing to me.

twocows
August 1st, 2011, 02:42 PM
Who cares? I'm not educated enough on the issue to say one way or the other and I don't think it really matters. Whether it manifests in this way or some other way, pollution is going to be harmful to the environment and we should encourage stronger controls on it.

Myles
August 1st, 2011, 03:38 PM
It matters because global warming is a bigger threat than just general un-environmentally friendliness. In 40 years it's predicted that 15-37% of our known animal and plant species will be extinct. In 90 years the temperature is predicted to be at temperatures that will have been unmatched for 3 million years. The sea level is also expected to rise by almost two metres in 90 years. So places that aren't two metres above beaches, will be underwater.

The damage to ecosystems is also likely to be irreversible, at least without an extensive amount of time (thousands of years) to build it back up. Especially for coral reefs.

Global warming requires a lot more action than usual environmentally friendliness. That's why it matters. :P

Anders
August 1st, 2011, 04:10 PM
....

Which means that the planet is warming up.


Hey there dewd, that's exactly what FreakyLocz14 said. But after Went pointed out that it was going higher than the last one, I made a post saying I didn't see that and said he was right. So I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

:P

Emolga
August 2nd, 2011, 02:35 AM
Hey there dewd, that's exactly what FreakyLocz14 said. But after Went pointed out that it was going higher than the last one, I made a post saying I didn't see that and said he was right. So I don't know what you're trying to tell me.

:P

This is rude; he probably didn't see the second post. You're acting like he's got something against you, or that he is making some arbitrary remark. Beyond that Global Warming has been denounced as a "hoax" in order for big corporations, that have ties with congressman, to protect their assets so that they can ignore their contribution to global warming and pollution, to make more money.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 11:06 AM
I firmly believe that global warming is a myth. Forget the Little Ice Age. We're in an ice age right now.

deoxys121
August 2nd, 2011, 11:13 AM
I firmly believe that global warming is a myth. Forget the Little Ice Age. We're in an ice age right now.

How can you say we're in an ice age? The global temperature is rising greatly and there is now way to deny it. Just look at the graph below:

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/GlobalTemp2008.gif

fire_man
August 2nd, 2011, 11:13 AM
I think its a Hoax. It keeps getting colder here. CO2 is a natural gas anyway.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 12:22 PM
How can you say we're in an ice age? The global temperature is rising greatly and there is now way to deny it. Just look at the graph below:

http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/images/GlobalTemp2008.gif

NASA recently announced global cooling coming up. We're in an ice age, and it's going to get even colder. This is all natural. We see periods of warming and cooling. Nothing to be alarmed about.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

G.U.Y.
August 2nd, 2011, 12:32 PM
NASA recently announced global cooling coming up. We're in an ice age, and it's going to get even colder. This is all natural. We see periods of warming and cooling. Nothing to be alarmed about.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

I find it funny how you link to a completely random source saying NASA said something, yet there is no mention of this on NASA's website (in fact the say the complete opposite) and no one else is reporting this.

Seems fishy, doesn't it?

pixiefroggy
August 2nd, 2011, 12:50 PM
I find it funny how you link to a completely random source saying NASA said something, yet there is no mention of this on NASA's website (in fact the say the complete opposite) and no one else is reporting this.

Seems fishy, doesn't it?


hmmm.... Seems kinda fishy to me.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 01:04 PM
I find it funny how you link to a completely random source saying NASA said something, yet there is no mention of this on NASA's website (in fact the say the complete opposite) and no one else is reporting this.

Seems fishy, doesn't it?

Wait! There's more.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2009/08/scientific-evidence-now-points-global-cooling-contrary-un-alarmism

This (http://jimboot.com/ice-age-coming-deleted-from-nasa) might explain why you couldn't find anything one NASA's site.

Sure does seem fishy.

G.U.Y.
August 2nd, 2011, 01:12 PM
Wait! There's more.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2009/08/scientific-evidence-now-points-global-cooling-contrary-un-alarmism

This (http://jimboot.com/ice-age-coming-deleted-from-nasa) might explain why you couldn't find anything one NASA's site.

Sure does seem fishy.

The Washington Examiner article has nothing to do with your last posted one besides the fact that it involves global cooling. And the only references it's using is from a professor with no credentials and 70 year old data.

That's Jimboot thing is fake.

That article was posted in 2011, that section of NASA's website hasn't been updated or changed in anyway since April 2010. And I highly doubt he took a print screen, then saved it for a year to post an article. :|

Also, stop posting blog posts as proof. They're not proof. They're opinions often based on false statements and lies.

Myles
August 2nd, 2011, 01:44 PM
This pretty clearly shows we're not in an ice age:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/EPICA_temperature_plot.svg/800px-EPICA_temperature_plot.svg.png

NASA recently announced global cooling coming up. We're in an ice age, and it's going to get even colder. This is all natural. We see periods of warming and cooling. Nothing to be alarmed about.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

NASA didn't say that. The article doesn't even say NASA said that. It attributes one quote to NASA that is both truth and in no way conflicts with global warming. None of the people they are quoting seem to suggest they think a small ice age is coming. It seems a bit like a non sequitur created by The Register. And as a satirical site, they're hardly the most credible source.

Either way, it doesn't matter because a 'little ice age' is only a decrease in 1°C, which doesn't compare to global warming.

That NASA page can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100527164214/http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/what-are-the-primary-causes-of-the-earth-system-variability/ It has nothing controversial in it and the information can be found in other places on the site. The page argues for global warming.

pixiefroggy
August 2nd, 2011, 02:06 PM
We're having the total opposite of an ice age here! Why on earth would anyone think we're in an ice age?

Little Ice Age? Little Ice Age!? *awkward silence* BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I'm sorry, I cannot imagine that stopping global warming.

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 02:11 PM
NASA recently announced global cooling coming up. We're in an ice age, and it's going to get even colder. This is all natural. We see periods of warming and cooling. Nothing to be alarmed about.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/14/ice_age/

I thought we were in the middle of two ice ages, you know, which would explain why the Earth is getting hotter and polar ice caps are melting.

Ultraviolence
August 2nd, 2011, 02:13 PM
Hoax? It's clear that the planet is warming up. Ice caps and glaciers are retreating and melting, there is alot of evidence for it!

And the main gas involved in global warming is methane, it's at least 10x worse then CO2, and it's produced naturally. The Earth goes through natural changes of warm and cold periods, even an idiot could tell you that, to be quite honest and blunt.

Myles
August 2nd, 2011, 03:02 PM
The amount of CO2 on Earth compared to methane is more than 10x the amount. :P And there's anthropogenic methane.

Besides, the problem is that the amount of CO2 is rapidly increasing. Unless methane is, it's irrelevant. We're not suggesting to have no greenhouse gases, that would result in a gigantic ice age and the extinction of all animals and plants. I think water vapour is suppose to be the biggest contributor to warming anyway.

Here's some more info on methane vs CO2: http://www.slate.com/id/2178595/

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 03:18 PM
The fact that there are polar ice caps is evidence that we are in an ice age.

Myles
August 2nd, 2011, 03:28 PM
If you go by that definition of ice age, but that doesn't mean:

We're in an ice age, and it's going to get even colder.

We're coming out of an ice age at worst and all evidence points towards continued global warming.

Ultraviolence
August 2nd, 2011, 03:49 PM
The fact that there are polar ice caps is evidence that we are in an ice age.

omg no. The Earth has always had some sort of ice cap, even in a warming period. If fact, taking readings from ice cores from the ice caps is one of the reasons we know of such periods.

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 04:58 PM
The fact that there are polar ice caps is evidence that we are in an ice age.

Actually, we had polar ice caps before the ice age that made mammals prominent. The cold just spread and therefore we had an ice age, and afterwards it warmed up and we went back to normal.

Your using bad evidence that has nothing to do with your argument.

/badargumentisbad

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 05:00 PM
omg no. The Earth has always had some sort of ice cap, even in a warming period. If fact, taking readings from ice cores from the ice caps is one of the reasons we know of such periods.

A glacial period is a period of warming within an ice age. We are currently in an glacial period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 05:04 PM
A glacial period is a period of warming within an ice age. We are currently in an glacial period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation


We are in an interglacial period, which means we are between two ice ages, the one before and the one that will most likely happen afterwards.

The whole thing is referred to as an ice age (because we have permanent ice sheets), but we are in the interglacial period.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 05:07 PM
We are in an interglacial period, which means we are between two ice ages, the one before and the one that will most likely happen afterwards.

The whole thing is referred to as an ice age (because we have permanent ice sheets), but we are in the interglacial period.

Ah, so you see that the fact that there are permanent ice sheets means that we are technically in an ice age.

Also, an ice age coming up means that we are cooling, not warming.

Glacial periods, interglacial periods, and major ice ages are all parts or an overall ice age.

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 05:14 PM
We're always in an "ice age". It's just right now we are coming out of one and becoming warmer, not cold.

We are technically between two "ice ages", but what I mean is that we are between two world colding ice ages, not that we aren't in one right now.

pixiefroggy
August 2nd, 2011, 05:21 PM
So we started with NASA and now we're at what an ice age is... ok then... So to clear things up!

ice age
1. Any of several cold periods during which glaciers covered much of the Earth.
2. Ice Age. The most recent glacial period, which occurred during the Pleistocene Epoch and ended about 10,000 years ago. During the Pleistocene Ice Age, great sheets of ice up to two miles thick covered most of Greenland, Canada, and the northern United States as well as northern Europe and Russia.


The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 05:24 PM
We're always in an "ice age". It's just right now we are coming out of one and becoming warmer, not cold.

We are technically between two "ice ages", but what I mean is that we are between two world colding ice ages, not that we aren't in one right now.

Yes, as we come out an ice age, we naturally warm up. The warming won't be permanent. Another ice age is coming.

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 05:38 PM
Yes, I know. But at the moment we aren't cooling, we are warming.

G.U.Y.
August 2nd, 2011, 05:40 PM
A glacial period is a period of warming within an ice age. We are currently in an glacial period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
A glacial period is an ice age, it's just the end of one. In the very same link you used as a reference:

"In popular culture, there is often reference to "the next ice age."[25] Technically, since the earth is already in an ice age at present, this usually refers to the next glacial period (because the earth is currently in an interglacial period)."

I don't see how we can be going into an ice age when we're technically already in one. And I find it really hilarious how all your sources have been either proven wrong or just aren't credible.

In 50 years, I hope PC is active still and you're on it. We'll see what you say then. ^-^

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png

It gets cold, then hot. Cold, then hot. Not cold, then cold. :|

I still can't tell if you're trolling or serious.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 05:43 PM
Yes, I know. But at the moment we aren't cooling, we are warming.

The global climate naturally warms and cools. I'm not disputing that. What I am disputing is those that claim our climate change is man-made.

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 05:51 PM
I hope you realize ice ages and global warming have nothing to do with each other.

Ice Ages are a period in history when ice sheets spread across the earth more then average, and temperatures lower.

Global warming is the theory that the earth is warming because more greenhouse gasses are being trapped in our atmosphere.

One is obviously natural and the other is argued to be made be man.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 06:13 PM
I hope you realize ice ages and global warming have nothing to do with each other.

Ice Ages are a period in history when ice sheets spread across the earth more then average, and temperatures lower.

Global warming is the theory that the earth is warming because more greenhouse gasses are being trapped in our atmosphere.

One is obviously natural and the other is argued to be made be man.

That's the argument. I presented findings that most heat is released into space rather than stay trapped in the atmosphere.

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 06:26 PM
You cannot use the ice age as a valid example because we were not releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at that time.

FreakyLocz14
August 2nd, 2011, 06:31 PM
You cannot use the ice age as a valid example because we were not releasing greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere at that time.

CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere.

Myles
August 2nd, 2011, 06:40 PM
Are your referring to the first post? The article itself shows Spencer's hypothesis and then offers the refutations from the rest of the scientific community:


Other climate scientists disagreed with Dr. Spencer's recent findings spotting flaws and calling his model "unrealistic." The statistical information from the satellites are lacking as Spencer may not have accounted for fluctuations and other variables in the study.

Dr. Andrew Dessler, a Texas A&M University professor in atmospheric science, described Dr. Spencer's report as nothing new nor correct.

"He's taken an incorrect model, he's tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct," said Dessler.


What's worse is Spencer was against global warming way before these findings. Suggesting they're probably right about the bias.

G.U.Y.
August 2nd, 2011, 06:41 PM
CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere.

Now you're just completely messing with facts - CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere, but no where near the level as now. Unless if cars, factories, and basically all our technology has always existed.

Myles
August 2nd, 2011, 06:47 PM
A graphical representation for the CO2 level thing:

http://i51.tinypic.com/25oxhrt.png

Notice the giant jump on the left?

Sire
August 2nd, 2011, 07:33 PM
CO2 has always been released into the atmosphere.

I meant that because of us, there is a much bigger increase, which makes the two periods have different climates, which therefore means you can't compare the two.

Black Ice
August 3rd, 2011, 07:00 PM
http://www.politicususa.com/en/move-over-jon-stewart-fox-news-declares-war-on-spongebob

I felt this was somewhat relevant. I guess Fox News finally figured out their real competition.

Scientists aren’t divided on whether or global warming is manmade. A 2009 poll of earth scientists found that 82% of them believe that human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. 97% of climatologists agreed that human activity is a significant factor in global temperatures, but only 47% of petroleum geologists believed that human activity was a large factor.

It is not too surprising that those scientists who are employed by the oil industry would doubt the validity of global warming. The petroleum industry, business groups, and conservative think tanks, all of which have a financial interest in denying global warming has been churning out their propaganda for almost 20 years.

Stormbringer
August 3rd, 2011, 08:43 PM
Gonna drop this off from the last Global warming thread.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/160658main2_OZONE_large_350.png
What a nice, large, man-made hole in the Ozone layer that is!

FreakyLocz14
August 3rd, 2011, 09:49 PM
Gonn drop this off from the last Global warming thread.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/160658main2_OZONE_large_350.png
What a nice, large, man-made hole in the Ozone layer that is!


Nice hole? Yes.

Man-made? That's disputable.

deoxys121
August 3rd, 2011, 09:56 PM
Nice hole? Yes.

Man-made? That's disputable.

I believe it's man-made because, simply, so many CFCs have found their way into the ozone layer and depleted it since they have been used so much. Though there are natural events that can cause this, they only do so in the presence of CFCs. This page (http://www.epa.gov/ozone/science/sc_fact.html#fact2) says that aerosols produced by things like volcanoes "only increased depletion because of the presence of CFC."

Stormbringer
August 3rd, 2011, 10:44 PM
Nice hole? Yes.

Man-made? That's disputable.

Because continent-sized holes in the Ozone layer really just appear out of nowhere. 3rd Science is calling, you may want to brush up.

FreakyLocz14
August 4th, 2011, 12:33 AM
Because continent-sized holes in the Ozone layer really just appear out of nowhere. 3rd Science is calling, you may want to brush up.

It's man-made, yet the hole just happens to be over the one continent without any permanent human settlements. Right...

Oryx
August 4th, 2011, 12:43 AM
It's man-made, yet the hole just happens to be over the one continent without any permanent human settlements. Right...

"Polar regions get a much larger variation in sunlight than anywhere else, and during the 3 months of winter spend most of time in the dark without solar radiation. Temperatures hover around or below -80'C for much of the winter and the extremely low antarctic temperatures cause cloud formation in the relatively ''dry''stratosphere. These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules." -NASA (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/antarctic.html)

I highly doubt gases are confined to directly above human settlements once they get into the atmosphere.

Anders
August 4th, 2011, 01:35 AM
It's man-made, yet the hole just happens to be over the one continent without any permanent human settlements. Right...

I doubt anything released into the atmosphere is obligated to stay in a specific place once it's there. :shocked:

This is rude; he probably didn't see the second post. You're acting like he's got something against you, or that he is making some arbitrary remark. Beyond that Global Warming has been denounced as a "hoax" in order for big corporations, that have ties with congressman, to protect their assets so that they can ignore their contribution to global warming and pollution, to make more money.

W-what? o_o I don't think it was rude to point it out to him, and I know he didn't attack me at all. I added the smilie to be as non confrontational as possible. But Live, if you're somehow offended, that's not what I was aiming to do!

And I never said global warming wasn't real, I've said just the opposite in this thread. xD

Oryx
August 4th, 2011, 01:55 AM
So the hole was created by too much sunlight.

"These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules."

"These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules."

"These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules."

You honestly sound like you're trying not to read, or trying not to understand what's being said. What it was saying is that the gases spread across the atmosphere no matter where they're released, but affect Antarctica the most because of the cloud formations there causing more reactions that degrade the ozone layer. Deoxys121 explained earlier that this happens because of reactions in the atmosphere between what we produce and what is already there, which supports the fact that Antarctica had cloud formations that increase reactions which is why the ozone layer is thinnest there.

FreakyLocz14
August 4th, 2011, 01:59 AM
"These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules."

"These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules."

"These Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSC's) are composed of ice crystals that provide the surface for a multitude of reactions, many of which speed the degredation of ozone molecules."

You honestly sound like you're trying not to read, or trying not to understand what's being said. What it was saying is that the gases spread across the atmosphere no matter where they're released, but affect Antarctica the most because of the cloud formations there causing more reactions that degrade the ozone layer. Deoxys121 explained earlier that this happens because of reactions in the atmosphere between what we produce and what is already there, which supports the fact that Antarctica had cloud formations that increase reactions which is why the ozone layer is thinnest there.

Be it the sun or the clouds, those are all natural causes.

Oryx
August 4th, 2011, 02:06 AM
Be it the sun or the clouds, those are all natural causes.

No, you don't understand. Let's try this again, and try thinking really hard because you're obviously not understanding it, and it doesn't seem like a very hard concept tbh.

The clouds do not cause the hole. The sun does not cause the hole. What causes the hole are the reactions. The reactions are caused by what we release into the air. The reason it affects Antarctica particularly strongly is because of the clouds. The clouds do not cause anything; they only amplify what we have done. It happens all over the world as well, it's just much stronger in Antarctica because of the clouds. If we continue the way we are and ignore the hole and don't change our habits, the entire world will be thinned out the same way.

Think of the clouds as a catalyst to a reaction. The reaction happens anyway, with or without the catalyst, the catalyst just makes it happen faster. We are adding the ingredients to this reaction; the reaction is caused by us.

If the reaction was solely the clouds or sun, the hole wouldn't have rapidly appeared just now; the sun and clouds have been there since the beginning of time. Now that you've reached the end of this post (at least I hope you read the entire thing, but I can't guarantee you did before hitting reply), go back to the top and re-read it. Make sure you understand what I'm saying before you reply, because it's frustrating having to post the same thing 3 different ways because you keep replying without a full grasp of what's being said.

G.U.Y.
August 4th, 2011, 11:14 PM
So the hole was created by too much sunlight.

Wait, so let me get this straight. The hole was created by too much sunlight in a place where the sun doesn't shine for a fourth of the year and for another fourth where it is significantly less intense? I see nothing wrong with that logic. Also, in regards to your post where you said it can't be human causes because there are no human settlements there - I don't know if you know this but the atmospheric gases do move. And there are settlements

Think about it like this. If you fart, does the fart stay right next to your butt and no one can smell it unless their nose is right next to your butt? You're saying that's the case.

Also if it were caused by too much sunlight, the ozone layer would be thinned out everywhere except the poles - especially at the equator which it's not (well, it is significantly thinner across the entire planet but not to the degree as the southern pole).

Stormbringer
August 9th, 2011, 08:27 AM
The problem here is the misnomer of the 'Global Warming' title. It's Climate change. Places that normally don't get very hot, get suddenly scorching. And likewise, areas that normally don't experience extreme cold, will suddenly be buried under feet of snow and subzero temperatures.

Myles
August 9th, 2011, 01:33 PM
Global warming is suppose to refer to the overall planet warmth (which does happen). That's why it's global. Climate change is suppose to be a political neutral term and it's also very vague.

G.U.Y.
August 9th, 2011, 03:52 PM
Global warming is suppose to refer to the overall planet warmth (which does happen). That's why it's global. Climate change is suppose to be a political neutral term and it's also very vague.

Being vague is the only way to be accurate in this case though. Global warming is accurate if you know what it really means, which most people don't so it's more misleading than just Climate Change.

Global warming, it's when the entire planet on average experiences a rise in temperature. But, there will be places that experience a huge rise, but there will also be places that experience a huge fall. Such as northern Europe - if the ice caps melt northern Europe will no longer be a temperate climate. Since the ocean current is what delivers the heat up north that far and it will shut down with all the access sea water. It would be more like northern Canada. It'd be extremely cold for most the year and warm in the summer months.

It won't be cold like the tundra or ice caps though. Just cold.

Myles
August 9th, 2011, 05:32 PM
Being vague is the only way to be accurate in this case though. Global warming is accurate if you know what it really means, which most people don't so it's more misleading than just Climate Change.

But it is accurate and it is the commonly excepted term for it. Climate change just refers to a change in the climate and is often used to refer to things other then global warming. That's why it's politically neutral.