The problem with the "Man causes global warming" is taking the data collected since weather data started being collected (I can't pull up an exact date, but it was toward the end of the 1800's) and saying it's absolute proof. Depending on what you believe, the Earth is, what 4.6 billion years old, and you want to draw a conclusion based of 100, maybe 150 years of data that man is the cause? Let's go with that Gore is right. What's a realistic solution? The whole Carbon Credits thing doesn't deal with it. That simply shifts the problem elsewhere. Stuff like recycling and using energy-efficient equipment is something I have no problem with. Recycling just has some of your trash go somewhere else than the trash dump. That's not a bad idea. Using efficient devices? Sure, people like saving money, and if the utility bills are cheaper in a trade-off for a little higher up-front cost, people are fine with it.
u gotta admit though that even if this is a natural ice age,our pollution is like giving it a bottle of steriods. No natural event is gonna wear away the atmosphere as fast as its being worn away
All you need is a graph plotting CO2 emmisions and increase in GMST. Its pretty easy to find out if there has ever been a natural similarity by checking samples from the arctic and antarctic. If there is anything similar it certainly wont be in a similar time frame. Its a proven fact that greenhouse gases exist, regardless of whether you think the sun is to blame or not.... so considering we belch out tens, if not hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 alone each year points the finger directly at us. Water is the most effective greenhouse gas and im sure co2 is close by in the rankings. For the sun to cause a significant increase in GMST it would need to source its greenhouse gases from the polar caps. I know that China released 6200m tons of co2 last year, the US 5800m tons and the UK 600m tons. I doubt there was 12,600m tons of co2 released from the polar caps last year. Or any figure close to that in any year you choose. One thing to add. Official co2 emmisions only include coal buring and cement production! Rediculous I know, but considering 10% of Chinas co2 emmisions is from cement production and China supplies 50% of the worlds cement I think they deserve a bit of slack. Also per capita the UK released twice as much co2 than China and the US four times as much. The ball is still firmly in our court. I personally dont think there is a realistic solution. tbh I dont know who pollutes the most anyway.... its probably industry and unless you know the details of producing galvanising steel, cement, petrochemical products etc it hard to comment. From our point of view recycling is easy, theres no reason why everyone cant do that but as a westerner thats easy to say. Cars have got to be our biggest contributer and I cant see the people of China and India ever deciding not to have a car over having one. They have envied our lifestyle for too long and now they can afford stuff we take for granted they are gonna jump on it. I do think though that if carbon credits are taken seriously by the entire world they might be onto something. The thing is its not addressing the problem of us requiring to emit co2 to live. We need to change the way we live.... and im not talking about recycling and walking to the shops for the sunday papers instead of driving. We consume too much power! and on top of that we are too wastefull. But like I said before, im just a mere westerner. I dont have the first clue as to how the majority of China or India or any other eastern country live. Our "solutions" wont be universal. Kyoto is nearly over, and whatever they replace that with will just go up in smoke, like everything else from humans!
But how much do, say, volcanoes put out? Didn't Mt. Saint Helens cover a pretty large area with ash and such into a few states? That's just one instance... Again, we're basing the Global Warming is mankind's fault on data over a very miniscule time. What about the theory on the dinosaurs being killed off by lack of sunlight from all the volcanic eruptions?
But we're not limited to only 150 years! There's temperature and greenhouse gas data for close to 500,000 years, using ice cores. Like this graph, for instance: The close temperature & carbon dioxide correlation in the past and the CO2 peak you can see at the very margin on the right, which is by far higher than any previous point, speak clearly for why there's reason to be concerned.
The years was in reference to weather. I'm not going to argue the validity of the data you presented. However, looking at only one bit of data over the length of time versus data that's been kept a very short amount of time does skew perspective. Obviously, weather is out, but we should be able to check the movement of plates, volcanic eruptions, other geologic signs to see if they indeed correspond with those spikes. I'm not sure if solar data would come into play, but that could be another factor, depending on how long specific records relating to temperature have been kept. Again, let's just assume Global Warming is true. What's a realistic, effective solution, or solutions? If man can reverse things, let's make sure to do it right, rather than attempt to coerce one country to abide by a certain environmental policy, like Kyoto.
We can't do anything about Global Warming...the chart only confirms my earlier statements in another thread that we are still reverting back to the climate that existed before the last ' ice age '... the chart also shows that temperature hasn't risen dramatically with CO2 emissions...the blue clearly indicates that temperature has been relatively stable by comparison...the blue lines indicate that the temperature is not higher than other corresponding periods in our history...despite the spike in CO2 emissions... if anything...that chart shows is that CO2 is NOT causing abnormally high temperatures...what it does show is that it may be causing higher temperatures to linger over a longer period...so instead of experiencing 10,000-15,000 years of mild to hot temperatures we will experience 15,000-28,000 years of mild to hot temperatures... and if that's the case then we should be more concerned with population growth and air quality, etc... than Global Warming over the next 18,000 years. We are, for all intense purposes near the peak of temperature...temperatures will not rise significantly from this point on...the problem is not Global ' Warming ' but rather having warm temperatures linger over a greater span of time...we should be entering a cold spell soon...over the next 1000-5000 years...but if warm weather continues 12000-15000 years beyond that then it's like this: I have a block of ice that takes 10000 years to melt at 78-92 degrees... what happens when it's 78-92 degrees for 28000 years?... we are NOT responsible for ' warming '...we are responsible for the ' longevity ' of that warming. This is just another case of choosing the wrong term for something...like a ' near miss ' ( which means you actually hit something )...the word ' warming ' actually puts the wrong spin on what's really happening...and consequently the media focuses on an issue that has nothing to do with the problem.
Hey Climate change is a natural event whether it is global warming or global cooling it has always accured over the millions of years. What i don't understand is so many people campaign about cutting down green house emissions but they don't actually know why global warming is bad. We humans are speeding up the process of global warming. Now a lot of people don't actually know what is the consequence of this increase in temperature. The media are concentrating on the weather they say that if this rise in temperature increases then ice caps melt, sea levels rise, hurricanes become more violent etc. Well that might be true but they are missing the point. Global warming will have a dramatic affect not only on weather but there will be a MASS EXTINCTION of bio-diversity. So the next generation will not have the luxury of a beautiful and bio diverse world. Humans will survive this increase in temperature but what is scaring scientist (read this in newspaper) is that if there is a mass extinction towards insects then there will be a huge problem for us humans. Because insects play a big part in our world they are more important then any other group becuase without them there will be no pollination therefore no trees/plants which intern means no food, oxygen, practically every food chain is linked to an insect. Now if you look at life's history there has been several mass extinctions but i think only two are similar to the one that we face. the first mass extinction killed 95% of life because the earth warmed and the earliest mass extinction was the ice age that had a huge impact on bio diversity. So the answer is do we want to hand over the world to our kids which has an abundance of bio diversity or the opposite. And for selfish reasons do we want to live in a poorer world??????
i know this is a conflict, but worth it to prevnt it continuing. have you seen my links below, the sooner this world ends the better! - i cant help thinking of the dogs and amimals that are being torchered (right now!) in homes and basements, you'll be supprised the things that go on without mercy... and to think people pray on sundays!!! makes me sick!! .........
try tellin that to the tourchered animals, you obviously havent seen my videos or know whats happening out there
Unfortunately, not all of the world affords the luxury of avoiding meat. Much of the world is poor, and can't afford to be picky about what they eat. Secondly, the human being is an omnivore, and does depend both on meat and plants to have a healthy balance. There are those specialty protein shakes and eggs, not to mention dietary supplements, it's not the ideal way of intake. My youngest brother tried being vegetarian for awhile, but he had to start eating meat when he enlisted, not to mention he learned to eat anything they put in front of him. While I don't approve of just beating the crap out of an animal for fun, there is a need to eat. If animal cruelty is the pits here, you are in for a very rude awakening out in the real world. As for your sig, you may want to reacquaint yourself with the HWF rules regarding posting content. [ot]Now how the hell did we go from global warming to animal cruelty?[/ot]
If it wasn't for the war zone's rules I would post my real thoughts on Dwarfer. So world ends, and animals die too. Hmmm not sure what you're getting at there. You want us to help you with your PC problems, yet have no problem with all of us dying? Were you born evil, or did you just develop it?
By innocent, are you talking about animals? If so, which animals are innocent and why? Don't animals kill eachother at least as often as people kill animals, and for primarily the same reasons? Or are only prey animals innocent, and predator animals guilty along with us?
So if I don't watch your videos I'm ignorant and don't know what's going on in the world? No. Hehe. Perhaps... Very true. So very very true.
Hey Dwarfer, are you going to answer my questions about which animals are innocent? WARNING: Extremely graphic and disturbing.
animals kill animals coz they have no choice and they have little understanding of pain than humans do, they're carnivores. humans are smart enough to survive otherwise some might say we eat meat for the taste. i've seen the way humans kill cattle to eat and it is the most inhumane kind of killing i've seen. i was so upset for more than a week after seeing this video i didnt speak much to anyone ive seen abandoned puppies and dogs been put into a gas chamber and suffered untill they die, their screams are load and no one comes to their aid, they just keep pumping the toxic into the chamber. i've seen humans skin LIVING and conscience animals being stripped from their skin /fur to make coats for humans (in my signature) watch Kill It, Cook It, Eat it on BBC3 (tuesday evenings i think)
