DeletedUser
Guest
Do you believe that Global Warming is man made or natural?
Poll requested by theonlythomas
Poll requested by theonlythomas
DeletedUser18132
Guest
Man made.
DeletedUser
Guest
where's the option for "both of the above"? 
DeletedUser
Guest
If you look deep into Earths past when the planet was still forming it constantly heated up and cooled down. Just because we are in an age of burning fossil fuels doesn't mean we are the cause. I'm not saying we are helping it either, as burning fossil fuels does make the carbon stick to the oxygen to create CO2.
Deep within the Earth it is so hot that some rocks slowly melt and become a thick flowing substance called magma. Because it is lighter than the solid rock around it, magma rises and collects in magma chambers. Eventually some of the magma pushes through vents and fissures in the Earth's surface. A volcanic eruption occurs! This event also creates Carbon Dioxide and this has been happening since the Earth started forming.
Is humanity the sole cause of "Global Warning"? No. Now where is the both option?
Deep within the Earth it is so hot that some rocks slowly melt and become a thick flowing substance called magma. Because it is lighter than the solid rock around it, magma rises and collects in magma chambers. Eventually some of the magma pushes through vents and fissures in the Earth's surface. A volcanic eruption occurs! This event also creates Carbon Dioxide and this has been happening since the Earth started forming.
Is humanity the sole cause of "Global Warning"? No. Now where is the both option?
DeletedUser
Guest
This isn't an opinion you can have. It's a fact that global warming is an natural occurrence, and happens every so often. The human part in the current process of global warming is that we enhance its effect with our CO², CFCs etc that we emit.
So a both of the above kind of option is definitely needed
So a both of the above kind of option is definitely needed
DeletedUser
Guest
I won't vote untill that option is added
DeletedUser
Guest
I know it is technicaly natural, and man made. However anyone who -against most scientific evidence - still claims that it's compleatly natural and we should just ignore it is looking for excuses to justify they're own unwillingness to make a small change in they're lifestyle.
DeletedUser
Guest
we need a both
well read through this, it seems you guys have all ready said that
well read through this, it seems you guys have all ready said that
DeletedUser
Guest
Science is not about believing. Science is about facts and evidence.
What you believe doesn't have any impact on how reality is.
What you believe doesn't have any impact on how reality is.
DeletedUser
Guest
I just want to say that i requested a new option, but a new poll would have to be created in order for that to happen.
T
T
DeletedUser345
Guest
It has been scientifically proven that when glacier levels fall CO2 levels rise and its is fluctuatinily happened over the thousands of years. We just happen to be in one of the troughs.
DeletedUser
Guest
yes it is, but look at this:
CO2 levels naturally fluctuate, but since the Industrial Revolution they have drastically increased.
CO2 levels naturally fluctuate, but since the Industrial Revolution they have drastically increased.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
That graph actually doesn't say the parts per million have tripled
Anyways, recreation of data isn't my thing so i'll just link to the synthesis report from the IPCC (who pretty much represent the international scientific community.)
Of course Carbon Dioxide has naturally fluctuated over earth's climate history, yet with our data of the last 650,000 years, we're at the highest it has ever been. What we're facing isn't as simple as us taking CO2 out of a permanent CO2 repository and adding it to the atmospheric CO2 repository and messing with the Carbon Cycle; there are many complex positive/negative feedback loops that are stimulated by human made rises in CO2. A video (doesn't refer to carbon cycle or positive feedback loops in general, does focus on a project in the second half of the video of which its' observations imply a huge positive feedback loop.
We don't have to worry much about CFCs btw, the Montreal Protocol reduced the emission those by about 95% since 1970 (Not too confident about date), and they were mainly a problem in that they split O3 molecules (ozone).
But past the rambling, the Climate changing trend we see with the rise in CO2 in our modern era is largely a result of human activity. The parts per million increase of CO2 in our atmosphere would be unprecedented and inexplicable otherwise, it's not a coincidence that the trend started in stride with the industrial revolution!
Anyways, recreation of data isn't my thing so i'll just link to the synthesis report from the IPCC (who pretty much represent the international scientific community.)
Of course Carbon Dioxide has naturally fluctuated over earth's climate history, yet with our data of the last 650,000 years, we're at the highest it has ever been. What we're facing isn't as simple as us taking CO2 out of a permanent CO2 repository and adding it to the atmospheric CO2 repository and messing with the Carbon Cycle; there are many complex positive/negative feedback loops that are stimulated by human made rises in CO2. A video (doesn't refer to carbon cycle or positive feedback loops in general, does focus on a project in the second half of the video of which its' observations imply a huge positive feedback loop.
We don't have to worry much about CFCs btw, the Montreal Protocol reduced the emission those by about 95% since 1970 (Not too confident about date
), and they were mainly a problem in that they split O3 molecules (ozone). But past the rambling, the Climate changing trend we see with the rise in CO2 in our modern era is largely a result of human activity. The parts per million increase of CO2 in our atmosphere would be unprecedented and inexplicable otherwise, it's not a coincidence that the trend started in stride with the industrial revolution!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
Although relativity short in it's observed time compared to the inevitable longer term affects of CO2, this graph implies the notion that temperature increase is due to both human (anthropogenic) and natural causes. This graph was made from the data in the IPCCs Third Assessment Report from 2001.
DeletedUser
Guest
Thomas, nothing tripled on your graph, nothing even doubled.
and raurio, my dear friend whom I love, 150 years is nothing when you want to depict relevant graphs of average temperatures and CO² levels over the years.
and raurio, my dear friend whom I love, 150 years is nothing when you want to depict relevant graphs of average temperatures and CO² levels over the years.
DeletedUser
Guest
George Carlin pretty much sums up what I think about all this bull.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
So yeah, I think it's all natural.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
So yeah, I think it's all natural.
DeletedUser
Guest
A bit more explanation to that graph:
This graph simply implies Global Warming has anthropogenic and natural causes. A model is generated by CGCMs, which are Coupled General Circulation Models, where one took only anthropogenic (human caused) factors into account, one took only natural factors into account, and the other had both factors in place. The poor prediction of models in anthropogenic and natural factors exclusively imply that neither have solely determined the global temperature rise up until the year 2000. Which is what I believe a few of you were arguing but without the limitation to the year 2000.
It's 150 because 150 years ago a subset of the larger Industrial Revolution, the Technological Revolution began; before the Technological Revolution humanity had been emitting an insubstantial amount of Green House Gasses and overall had an inconsequential effect upon the Global Temperature. CO2 is not specifically referred to in the graph, but it is the most influential Green House Gas humans emit.
He's a funny guy but I don't think he mentions global warming at all in that entire video? He's also a bit uninformed on any kind of environmental science but has some interesting notions that I could agree with. One of them being the fact that we may destroy ourselves as a civilization and perhaps even species, but we probably won't be able to destroy our biosphere (the planet) without some kind of dramatic nuclear warfare- as well, we probably will never be able to save the planet before some kind of global unity; even his notion that all biodiversity can't be conserved as it's just a natural and almost inevitable process that species will die out, this doesn't mean that careless hunting and polluting is permissible.
I'm not even sure his graph was accurate lol. Typically the squiggly red line is more symmetric in it's ups and downs because they represent the seasons; as plants are more photosynthetically active and absorbing more CO2 as opposed to being less photosynthetically active. The beginning and ending concentrations of CO2 look about right though.
This graph simply implies Global Warming has anthropogenic and natural causes. A model is generated by CGCMs, which are Coupled General Circulation Models, where one took only anthropogenic (human caused) factors into account, one took only natural factors into account, and the other had both factors in place. The poor prediction of models in anthropogenic and natural factors exclusively imply that neither have solely determined the global temperature rise up until the year 2000. Which is what I believe a few of you were arguing but without the limitation to the year 2000.
It's 150 because 150 years ago a subset of the larger Industrial Revolution, the Technological Revolution began; before the Technological Revolution humanity had been emitting an insubstantial amount of Green House Gasses and overall had an inconsequential effect upon the Global Temperature. CO2 is not specifically referred to in the graph, but it is the most influential Green House Gas humans emit.
George Carlin pretty much sums up what I think about all this bull.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw
So yeah, I think it's all natural.
He's a funny guy but I don't think he mentions global warming at all in that entire video? He's also a bit uninformed on any kind of environmental science but has some interesting notions that I could agree with. One of them being the fact that we may destroy ourselves as a civilization and perhaps even species, but we probably won't be able to destroy our biosphere (the planet
) without some kind of dramatic nuclear warfare- as well, we probably will never be able to save the planet before some kind of global unity; even his notion that all biodiversity can't be conserved as it's just a natural and almost inevitable process that species will die out, this doesn't mean that careless hunting and polluting is permissible.Thomas, nothing tripled on your graph, nothing even doubled.
I'm not even sure his graph was accurate lol. Typically the squiggly red line is more symmetric in it's ups and downs because they represent the seasons; as plants are more photosynthetically active and absorbing more CO2 as opposed to being less photosynthetically active. The beginning and ending concentrations of CO2 look about right though.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
just to play devil's advocate, if the graph for CO2 levels is on a scale of millions of years rather than something much smaller the picture looks quite different.
or, again
these graphs show atmoshperic CO2 at just about record lows taking CO2 levels for for the last 150 years and comparing it to something so long-term could be compared like me not eating for a few hours and seeing a share price go up and then concluding that my not eating has caused that price increase.
in the history of the earth the existence of ice-caps at the poles is not a standard feature, so we're actually living in a mini ice-age to some extent...
i'm not saying that CO2 emissions are ok, it's pretty obvious that humans are releasing an unnatural amount of greenhouse gases, just playing devils advocate :3
or, again
these graphs show atmoshperic CO2 at just about record lows
taking CO2 levels for for the last 150 years and comparing it to something so long-term could be compared like me not eating for a few hours and seeing a share price go up and then concluding that my not eating has caused that price increase.in the history of the earth the existence of ice-caps at the poles is not a standard feature, so we're actually living in a mini ice-age to some extent...
i'm not saying that CO2 emissions are ok, it's pretty obvious that humans are releasing an unnatural amount of greenhouse gases, just playing devils advocate :3
DeletedUser
Guest
Nobody has presented any data of CO2 over only the last 150 years.......?
Anyways, I get the point you're trying to make. However, it's of no use to talk of relevancy when you give me crappy graphs that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand! You're giving graphs about different biospheres who really have no relevancy in understanding how CO2 could not impact our modern systems of life..
Maybe some better graphs?
Maybe nobody liked my link to the synthesis report? (This one specifically addresses global warming in the intention of increasing awareness among those people that run your lives.)
And because I cbf to find the direct source of it, the information at the bottom of this page above the References is very relevant to your graphs...
Sorry If you were playing the Devils Mummy with tommy, I just felt like you were responding to me because my graph had 150 years on it >.>.... It'd also do you some good to get information from semi-questionable-reliable sources if you'd like to play with me...Faux has plenty, and they make them pretty too!
Anyways, I get the point you're trying to make. However, it's of no use to talk of relevancy when you give me crappy graphs that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand! You're giving graphs about different biospheres who really have no relevancy in understanding how CO2 could not impact our modern systems of life..
Maybe some better graphs?
Maybe nobody liked my link to the synthesis report? (This one specifically addresses global warming in the intention of increasing awareness among those people that run your lives.)
And because I cbf to find the direct source of it, the information at the bottom of this page above the References is very relevant to your graphs...
Sorry If you were playing the Devils Mummy with tommy, I just felt like you were responding to me because my graph had 150 years on it >.>.... It'd also do you some good to get information from semi-questionable-reliable sources if you'd like to play with me...Faux has plenty, and they make them pretty too!
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
yeah, i was kinda combining your graphs and thomas' ones, since 150 years ago is about things went uphill
correct in that it says nothing about modern life as humans weren't around for most of that time, but i wouldn't say they're irrelevant. humans do live on earth, so the behaviour of CO2 levels and temperatures in earth's history is pretty relevant to our long-term future imo.
you're actually 100% right that i was only responding coz of the time-frame of your graphsMaybe some better graphs?
i liked those ones better too
Maybe nobody liked my link to the synthesis report? (This one specifically addresses global warming in the intention of increasing awareness among those people that run your lives.)
all of the graphs in that report are over a couple of hundred years, so i don't like them
And because I cbf to find the direct source of it, the information at the bottom of this page above the References is very relevant to your graphs...
didn't look
Sorry If you were playing the Devils Mummy with tommy, I just felt like you were responding to me because my graph had 150 years on it >.>.... It'd also do you some good to get information from semi-questionable-reliable sources if you'd like to play with me...Faux has plenty, and they make them pretty too!
the reliability of the graphs i used wasn't really my point, and i'm no great debater at all really (in case you didn't notice ), but all i wanted to get across was the way the stats are presented. and that when you take a step back (or a few million steps) the picture looks quite different. the situation of rising temperatures and CO2 levels may not be good for us as a species, but for the earth it's just another day in the life, so to speak.