Is it really the great issue facing mankind that it is made out to be? Was it caused by humans and is it really having a noticeable effect on the planet?

Or is it a hoax?

While I am unsure as to the extent of the problem, I do believe it is an issue that we will have to face in the coming decades and centuries. Whether it was caused by humans or not, it is not something to be taken lightly or an issue which we can stick our heads into the sand on and hope it goes away.

What are your opinions, or the answers to the questions above?

Cris

Earth's climate naturally changes. If Earth stopped changing, everything would die. IF Global Warming is real, it's only because of what happened in the past. There was an ice age around 10,000 BC. Now while that may seem like a long time ago to our short lives, as far as Earth is concerned, 12,000 years is a very short time. IF Global Warming exists, it's because Earth is still recovering from that. There was also the Little Ice Age from about the 16th to the mid-19th centuries meaning, that it ended about 50-60 years ago.
Also, everyone thinks of Earth as being this weak, fragile thing, but Earth has survived far worse than a simple Global Warming or even the entire human race. Earth and life in general has survived 5 mass extinctions. I think that IF Global Warming is real, we have nothing to worry about.

Also, it's cold up here in Wisconsin, some heat would be nice.

I agree ninja lord, and I think Al Gore (the creator of An Inconvenient Truth) is a complete f**king b*stard and an utter moron to boot . I don't believe this so-called "global warming" crisis is as bad as people are led to believe. As a matter of fact, it was even hotter back during the "Dirty Thirties" (approx. from 1929 to the start of WWII in 1938) than it is today. Al Gore I believe is only seeking the presidency, to which he claims he isn't.

Now, here's what baffles me. Why release a documentary, backed up by what may not even be true, make people believe that you can make a difference and may even run for president, then turn around and say "Oh, I'm not seeking the presidency". It makes no sense to me. I think Al Gore is caught between a rock and hard place if you ask me.

If he decides to run for president, then the environmentalists will think he only released An Inconvenient Truth just so he could win the next presidential election - a sort of "publicity stunt", if you will. If Al decides not to run, he's gonna have his head handed to him on a silver plate.

The only "inconvenient truth" is Al Gore really doesn't support the environment, nor does he believe in saving it either. This whole thing about the environment is farce, concocted by a bunch of sado-masochists who think their g*ddamn "Kyoto Accord" will hurt the economy of every country whose goverments were fool enough to believe they could meet or beat its stringent protocols

(BTW, the "Kyoto Protocol", which was signed by the Canadian gov't under the leadership of the blasphemous and treacherous Liberal Party, is binding, and therefore the targets it sets for cutting back on green house gas emissions MUST be met. I know that if our Conservative Party, or Tories as we call 'em, uphold Canada's commitment to Kyoto, it can and WILL hurt our economy. NOT nearly as much as our gov't claims it might, but our economy will be crippled somewhat. That's NEVER good for any country. I'm not going against the environment, since EVERYONE must care about it, but the Kyoto Accord is total and utter BULLS**T, as is the so-called "scientific evidence" that apparently "proves" the current global warming "trend" is a crisis. And the same thing goes for the Live Earth concert a couple months ago, which BTW was also a g*ddamn farce, since more than 3/4 of the artists that performed never really cared, or will care, about the environment. And I never liked any of the artists ANYWAY.)

EDIT: I think racial slurs are best not said, yes? Edited out. Calm down.

- Switch

I think the center of the problem is really that all these environmentalist groups have gotten too involved in perpetuating this global warming scare in order to make people aware of their actions. As people realize that "global warming" is just part of a natural cycle (that we may or may not be accellerating), they may forget that there is still a real reason why we shouldn't let our planet go to waste. Global warming or not, massive flooding, severe storms, or not, we as a species still have to live on this rock for many years yet. If things can be done to improve the quality of the air, keep the land fertile, and the seas filled with life, shouldn't we be concerned about those things, for the sake of what they may actually help?

The second part of the problem is that some of the groups involved with "saving the planet" are more concerned about their publicity, and spreading the word (and getting donations to pay for their advertizments) than they are about actually doing anything. They should really stop copying PETA's business model (hey, good idea, just executed in the worst possible way) and think about how they can put their efforts into something other than publicity stunts, buying airtime, and hiring celebrities to speak on their behaf.

People really need to accept that the world sucks, there is still a hell of alot that could be done to make it a better place. Global warming or not, seas becoming too acidic to support life or not, we still have to live with the results of our actions. Stop screwing over our future with your politics.

It's all completely fake. Some scientists see that as carbon dioxide levels rose, surface temperature rose too. So they go off and tell everyone that unless we stop driving cars we're all going to get flooded and die. A short while into this campaign, somebody actually bothers to look at a graph, and realises that the rise in temperature is slightly ahead of the rise in carbon dioxide. Therefore, the former is effecting the latter, not the other way round, which is what everyone else thought at first. Now, they're in a tricky situation. They can't tell the public the truth otherwise everyone will lose their trust in the people that were so sure what they were saying was the truth. Now, the public are taking it into their own hands, and with companies cashing in big time by making a product with a green label, government scientists can step back and hope they don't get noticed.

Like Ninja said, climate change is inevitable. A movie came out a few years ago called The day after tomorrow. People saw this film as an example of what will happen to us if we don't stop global warming. (Polar ice caps melting disrupting the salt flow in the trans-Atlantic current causing the whole world to be plunged into perpetual winter etc. etc.). What people didn't realise is that it is in fact showing exactly how an ice age starts. So be warned when you try to subtly tell people that climate change is, in fact, complete bollocks, they may interpret it the wrong way. So instead, put up a poster today saying: CLIMATE CHANGE IS COMPLETE BOLLOCKS. Do the world a favour.

That said, there are a few things that will make things worse for us. Cutting down trees is a good example. I don't eat MacDonald's or anything like that. Mainly it's the taste, but also because they cut down trees is the Brazilian rainforest just because the land is cheaper. (I would say they're exploiting the government, but they're actually helping them). Also, car pollution is still a problem, with newspapers recently urging people not to go the the Olympics if you have breathing difficulties.

All in all though, don't let yourself get carried away with all this climate change crap. Enjoy your life, and remember that your grandchildren will drown horiibly whether you drive a 4x4 or not.

I think the key thing to remember here is that yes, there have been extreme environmental changes in the past... but these changes were gradual, like over thousands of years. This change isn't gradual at all, it's literally transforming the climate in the course of a couple of hundred years. And at the same time, we just so happen to be pumping massive amounts of harmful vapour into the atmosphere? Doesn't seem like coincidence to me. People just don't want to believe it because it means we may actually have to make an effort to do something.

I'm not an environmentalist but really you just have to look at the facts and apply some common sense to see that something is going on here. I don't think it's all a load of hot wind (pardon the pun). The ice caps have melted more in the last 10 years than they have in centuries (I believe ice core records show this).

Scientist opinion on this except for a few naysayers is pretty much unanimous... most asked to do research say that this is happening.

An example of the correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature. Notice how change in temperature happens ahead of change in carbon dioxide.

Sorry but what the heck am I looking at? What does the blue/green/red stand for? What is that supposed to show? What's that scale along the bottom? 0-450,000 years? If the green is the gases and blue is the temperature levels then they look like they correlate to me.

Yes, but they correlate different than you think. If you look very closely at the right side of those large increases, you'll see that the temperature raises before the CO2 levels rise, meaning the amount of CO2 doesn't determine the ice core temperature.

Which direction are you reading the graph?

The date is "Thousands of Years Ago" meaning that the the further right you go, the earlier the time.

You didn't answer my question, though. Were you noticing the reverse correlation because you were reading the graph left-to-right?

If it helps, have a flipped version.

the release of co2 IS making a difference, but it isn't noticeable enough to say it really affects us.
However, it IS making the north pole melt a bit more and this might make a little difference in sea level.

Please demonstrate how changing a floating object's density alters the surface level of the liquid it is floating in.

[sarcasm]
Oh no! The sea level will rise an inch or two! We're doomed!!!
[/sarcasm]
The CO2 levels are making little, if any, difference. So what if a little more ice melts. We're not going to die. Also, you seem to be forgetting the first part of that very post you quoted:

QUOTE(n00biepl0x @ Sep 28 2007, 04:17 PM) *
<Nested quote removed>
the release of co2 IS making a difference, but it isn't noticeable enough to say it really affects us.
However, it IS making the north pole melt a bit more and this might make a little difference in sea level.

Please demonstrate how changing a floating object's density alters the surface level of the liquid it is floating in.


I will demonstrate:

If temperature rises liquid expands (not only liquid) this makes the sea level rise.

QUOTE(n00biepl0x @ Sep 28 2007, 11:17 AM) *
the release of co2 IS making a difference, but it isn't noticeable enough to say it really affects us.
However, it IS making the north pole melt a bit more and this might make a little difference in sea level.

[sarcasm]
Oh no! The sea level will rise an inch or two! We're doomed!!!
[/sarcasm]
The CO2 levels are making little, if any, difference. So what if a little more ice melts. We're not going to die. Also, you seem to be forgetting the first part of that very post you quoted:
QUOTE
Earth's climate naturally changes.



I didn't forget, and I know earth's climate is naturally changing, that's why I don't believe co2 release is actually making a noticeable difference. But it IS measurable.

And if earth's temperature rises 3 degrees centigrade sea level will not rise 2 inches but about 7 yards if i read right

You're evading the question. You stated that "...it IS making the north pole melt a bit more and this might make a little difference in sea level." You did NOT say or imply that the increase was due to a change in the density of the ocean.

P.S. Please try not to break quotes. It hinders readability.

You know, I've boiled a lot of water, and I've never seen it expand as the temperature rises. There's some first hand empirical evidence. Temperature doesn't change density*, now pressure on the other hand, that'll change the density.
One more thing, that's not demonstrating, that's just saying a fact, a fact which happens to be lying. Demonstrating would be like taking a video of water expanding as temperature rises, putting on the internet, and posting a link to it. However, since temperature doesn't change density, that first step is impossible.
If you think I'm lying and still believe water expands wen heated, go ask your science teacher. In fact, go ask every science teacher in your school. They'll all laugh at your stupidity...well maybe not since they're teachers, but you can be sure they'll be laughing in their head. They may even laugh about it later when talking to the other teachers. Face it, what you said was completely ignorant.

*That's of course ignoring the temperature levels that change an object's physical state (solid, liquid, gas).




And where did you read that?

Water covers about 75% of Earth's surface area.
Earth's surface area: 510,065,600 km²
Area*.75
> 382,549,200 km²
1 mile = 1.609344 km
> 237,705,052 mi²
1 mile = 1760 yds
> 148,360,891,520 yds²
Area*7yds
> 2,928,526,240,640 yds³
1 yard = 36 inches
> 105,426,944,663,040 in³
1 in³ = 2.54³ cm³
> 1,727,638,089,517,695 cm³
1 cm³ = 1 mL
> 1,727,638,089,517,695 mL
1 kL = 1,000,000 mL
> 1,727,638,090 kL

In short, it would take 1,727,638,090 kL of water for the ocean's water level to rise seven yards. I seriously doubt the temperature rising three degrees could produce that much water.

ok, now thing expanding as temperature rises IS a law of nature. and it would take about 10.000 years of co2 release to rise earth's temerature 10 degrees centigrade.

Gases 'expand', but not liquids or solids, and it's not because of the temperature, it's because of the energy. When you heat gases, the molecules become more energized and fly around faster, thus, if inside of an enclosed space, will seem to be expanding as the molecules smash into the sides. Liquids and solids don't work that way. The extent of molecular movement in solids is a very, very, very slight vibration. If energized more, solids will vibrate a little more. The movement of molecules in liquids is a sloshing thing with the molecules sliding around, over, and under other molecules. If energized, liquids will do the same thing but faster.
There is no way to expand a liquid. Period.


And where did you read this? I'm sure you're just pulling those numbers out of your ass. If you did find them somewhere, they pulled the numbers out of their asses.

Ninja, stop. You are not Peregrine. Stop trying to be Peregrine. Everything you've said regarding density, temperature, and pressure is wrong. Much of what you've said in the evolution thread also has an obvious disconnect with reality.

As much as I disagreed with Peregrine sometimes, I respect him in that he knew the science, and never misrepresented it to support his side of an argument. He could (and, in fact, did) argue with some degree of scientific accuracy that the Sun revolves around the Earth. You, however, aren't even keeping the most basic theories straight. Do you know why? Peregrine was an aeronautical engineer. You are not. From what you've demonstrated here, you never can be.

Peregrine was obstinate and trollish. If you take his intelligence away --- as you have in your crude imitation of him --- you get someone who is just pigheaded and annoying. With that said, let's work through your backlog here, shall we?


...Which is less than worthless in science.


Yes, it does. Solids, liquids, and gases all expand or contract in response to heat changes in temperature. Since the mass stays the same, that constitutes a change in density.


Density only changes appreciably in response to pressure in gases. Water is particularly resistant to pressure, and is in fact one of relatively few substances that will be a liquid as opposed to a solid at extreme pressures --- this is how hydraulic lifts work. The volume of the water changes so astoundingly little when pressure is applied to it that one can press down on one end of a water-filled tube, and have the other end rise by the same amount.


Square-cube. I'll take your number for the surface area of the oceans as-is, assume minimal change as the sea level rises (so that I can avoid a really nasty integral and do all this in Google calculator), and add in that the total volume of Earth's oceans is about 1.3 billion cubic kilometers:

75% of 510065600 square kilometers * 7 yards = 2.44862092 × 10^15 m^3
2.44862092 × 10^15 m^3 / 1.3 billion cubic kilometers in percent = 0.188355455 percent

Thus, it would take a change of less than one-fifth of one percent in the oceans' volume to effect a sea level rise of seven yards. For comparison, if your pot had six inches of water in it, it would rise perhaps one-third the width of an average human hair in response to the same temperature change that would cause the sea level to rise by the amount n00biepl0x is talking about.

Dear god... this is just painful to read. Risking a little necromancy here, but I think this qualifies under the "adds constructive material to the thread", and some misconceptions here really need to be corrected.

*dusts off thermodynamics textbooks*




This is completely wrong. Gases can expand for various reasons, temperature is just one of them. Gases are governed (within a reasonable approximation) by the ideal gas law: pressure * volume = gas constant * moles of gas * temperature. If temperature increases, volume increases. If volume is held constant (due to a fixed container), pressure will increase instead. To give an obvious example, your car's engine depends on this fact.... you burn fuel, increasing temperature. To keep a constant pressure, the gas has to expand, driving the cylinders up and producing work. If temperature increases didn't cause a gas to expand, you'd be walking everywhere.

By the way, non-ideal gases follow a similar principle, it just isn't a perfectly linear relationship, the basic point of increasing temperature = increasing volume is still true. You just have to include an extra factor accounting for this (or in the practical real world, you look it up on a table).

And your attempt to draw a line between temperature and energy is completely wrong as well. "Temperature" is just a measure of the average kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules of a substance.



This is, big surprise, completely wrong. If you heat a solid or liquid, it does expand. The only difference is the forces between the atoms/molecules are higher and the expansion is smaller than with gases. It still exists, it's just small enough that for most everyday purposes we ignore it. Just to name a very obvious example, look at the expansion joints in the closest sidewalk. If solids don't ever change volume based on temperature, why is there a joint specifically designed to avoid cracking from temperature-produced volume changes?



The reason is, as I said above, the change is small enough that you don't notice it just looking at it by eye. There's a very good reason scientists use more precise instruments instead of just looking at a pot of water and guessing if the volume changed. Not only that, but when you boil water, the volume will decrease... because there's less of it in the pot. I assume you've seen steam coming off a boiling pot, now guess where that comes from.





And to expand on what Marxist ßastard was saying, there are two reasons these small changes are so important:

1) Coastal areas, as a whole, tend to be very flat. I live near the eastern US coast, and hurricanes are a real problem here. A few yards of extra water can produce pretty serious flooding, far more than you would expect. In some places, even a couple feet of sea level increase could bring the coastline miles inland.. And not only that, but all of the tides/hurricanes/etc will go even farther inland, so your useful area is even smaller. Imagine something like New York City, or even better, New Orleans, then add 20' of water. It doesn't take all that much, proportional to the oceans as a whole, to cause problems for a lot of people. Sure, people can move, but consider the places where we already have overpopulation problems... where do you put all of them?

2) A lot of our weather depends on very subtle changes. You don't need to have catastrophic disasters appropriate for a movie and a billion-dollar effects budget to really hurt a lot of people. Right now, where I live, we have major problems with water shortages. We're talking 30 days of water left, because it's been an especially dry year... otherwise, things are pretty much normal, we aren't talking about 150* heat in the middle of winter. Guess what happens when stuff like this starts happening everywhere, and "import it from the state next door" disappears as an option. Yep, that's right, people start dying.



Now, you can protest all you want about "what if we're wrong", but it comes down to a simple bet. Even if the evidence is 50/50, to be very generous to the skeptics, consider your options:

If we try to slow/stop global warming and we're wrong and it's a natural thing, the worst that happens is we've wasted some money. But really, since most of the proposals (switching to renewable fuels, etc) have beneficial effects besides stopping global warming, it's not like that money is a complete waste.

If we say "it's all natural, we don't need to do anything" and we're wrong, we're screwed. In the best-case scenario, life really sucks for a lot of people, and a lot of people die. In the worst-case scenario (accompanied by the other consequences of refusing to make the needed changes, such as running out of oil), say goodbye to civilization. I hope you like a return to the dark ages, because that's what you're going to get?


Now, do you really have to drive that SUV and stubbornly say "it's not my problem"? Do you really want to take that risk?

"Was it caused by humans and is it really having a noticeable effect on the planet?"

Yes and yes.

Al Gore is right, he knows what he is talking about and is not crazy. We are letting WAY too much Carbon Dioxide into our atmosphere.

Nature balances itself. If there were too many rabbits, for example, nature would adapt some other animal to eat more rabbits. Now, we have to help balance nature, because we are more powerful than it. We have to be responsible for our planet.

People like Ralph Nader are responsible and understand our planet needs saving and save it.

God Bless Nader and Gore.
They know what's going on.

We are more powerful than nature? Than why do earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, hurricanes, etc. still cause massive destruction? If we were more powerful than nature, then we'd be able to stop the destructive side. Obviously, those things are still a problem. You say Gore is right? If Gore is a reliable source, then Hitler was a good man.

On the solids don't expand, they do. Take your car (*or motorcycle, ATV, or any other Internal combustion engine*). When it is operating, the engine expands slightly. That is why, when you shut it off, especially in colder weather, you'll hear a slight crackling or "tinking" sound. The engine is contracting as it cools. This is also why, when adding coolant, they say do not add cold liquid to a running or recently run engine. It will cause rapid contraction of the various metals, and have a chance to crack components. Same thing with spraying cold water on the outside of the engine, a large enough amount will cause similar damage to the block.
If you doubt this, try it an an engine you don't particularly care about, and see what happens. You might luck out the first few times you do it, but it WILL weaken the structural stability of the engine, and eventually cause failure, or massive degradation.
My 2 cents input for the day.
On the global warming part of this...I do think most of it is foolishness. A lot of things that have been mandated to 'prevent' emissions to harm the atmosphere have been proven wrong. The top one is the forced swith from R-12 A/C liquid to R-134a, because it was supposedly less harmful. Lo and behold, a few years later, more complete studies are done, and the new refrigerant is worse than the original. Yet we are stuck having to switch, or pay extravagantly to obtain R-12. Illogical in my opinion.
Now other aspects of environmentalism are strong points; tree conservation, recycling are the two most important things I agree with.

(Looks at Ninja_lord666, shakes his head and posts his sign: Don't feed the Trolls)
(bows respectfully)

I will advise anyone to take Envoronmental Science and do a minor in global envoronments atop any Major you are taking for college.
I did, and it broadens my understanding about x100.

It is very clear that some here have no concept of Thermal Stree Limits or any understanding of heat transfer and fluid flow; advice in situations that one knows nothing about - do not speak. And the old "Plato" teachings that one must think about things and come to a logical conclusion rather than do experiemnts and trail and error are fully ridiculous.
They weren't at that time, but in the modern era they are extremely dated and not laudable in any way.

As for rises in sea levels due to a shift in global tempreatures of 3 degrees? That is very real. 3 degrees is an extreme climate change. Understand this means GLOBAL TEMPREATURES, not "oh god it's -4 instead of -7!" as many uneducated <censored> would like to spectate.

CO2 levels have never been this thick in our atmosphere even when studying mud and ice cores. The burning of fossil fuels due to heavy industry releases hundreds of times more carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide than any natural shift would have done. When you top this with deforestation (one of the main carbon sinks on our planet, not to mention oxygen recyclers) you remove natures natural defence against abrupt shifts.

Plate techtonics and geothermal energy are extreem forces man is not capable of removing - only dealing with. Changes in weather (and thus climate) man can change.

We have a real problem with too many undereducated people breeding and producing too many undereducated children. Education isn't the problem, people are the problem. The world's population is exceeding the freshwater capacity of the planet and still people continue to pump out babies.
I appologize, this is a tangent (just one I can get passionate about).

I was talking about humans being more powerful than nature in controlling our climate. Those other things are beyond our control.

Hitler was a horrible person. The Jewish people did nothing to him. He was a fool to challenge the Soviet Union.

Nazi.

And how can you compare Gore to Hitler?

Wow are you dim witted. I wasn't comparing Gore to Hitler; I was rebuking Gore's statements saying he was a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about. I was proving this by stating another impossibility. It's as likely for Gore to be right as it is for Hitler to be a positive influence on the world. In other words, Gore is wrong! Gore is stupid! You are st--*muffled noises* (Stupid no flaming rules)...

That is not a proof. All it is is a statement of the degree to which you consider your opinion to be correct, which isn't necessarily correlated with whether it is or not.

So if we were comparing Gore to Hitler like that, you would still be wrong. Al Gore knows what he's talking about, and he is right about almost everything he says on that matter. Al Gore is right, and Hitler is a horrible man.

Moderator edit:

Personal attacks are not allowed on these forums, name calling is flaming and will not be tolerated.

Consider this a warning.

Buddah


sorry.

Going to stick my neck out, here but...

Buddah, I don't get the feeling that 'just...' was referring to ninja as a Nazi. I think it was part of a list about Hitler, who, I am sure, can be anybody's target for name calling. More a case of faulty juxtaposition. Don't hurt me!
EDIT ADDED - OMG! have just realized, only 11 hours later, that 'just...' may well have been naughty under all that yellow print, and that it had nothing to do with.... B'bye.

No the term Moron was directed pointedly. That was what was edited.

Buddah

Apologies, Buddah. Neck well and truly withdrawn.

Hitler is a member of this forum, and you are obligated by the TOS to respect him and his views.

Who knew!? Though, as his tag, as of 2006, was Adolph Hitler, I think this may be a case of being 'busted on a technicality'. 'just...' should probably have been done for necrophilia... if anything.

Global warming or not, overpopulation is the real problem. ( says he, rapidly covering his backside.)

Agreed. If there weren't so many of us, we wouldn't have these sort of issues. We wouldn't have enough of an impact on the environment to cause anything.

I can't believe one man and his movie has scared so many people into believing that the myth of global warming actually exists... I direct you to these

Here
and
Here

If you'll notice, the average temperatures in 1934 were hotter, actually, the hottest, in US history.
I'm trying to find a map of the US in 78 but it still eludes me, suffice it to say, in the 70s, human pollution was causing the next ice age.

I ask you, what happened? How is it, in 1934, having the highest recorded temperatures in US history, and then 40 years later, we were causing the next ice age, and miraculously, we're coming up on another 40 year period and Al Gore start spouting "Global warming!!1one!!eleven111!!!" And people,becoming so terrified at the data he presents as facts, have decided that he should be the one to do something about it.

A man who lost the presidential election suddenly has global influence. Mere happenstance? I beg to differ. I can offer up all kinds of charts and numbers, but it boils down to one thing. Global warming is just another tool for tools to use to scare people into giving them power.

This is just one example on one side of the spectrum. There are countless others, but power and control is the name of the game. NEVER forget that.

-T-