global warming.....not our fault not a problem

im a noob i have no idea what a turnament is on ATC

you correct it is the braudent plateau ever but take a look at it it is at delta 0 so what i get from this is that the earth is starting to stabalise sence it is stabalising sence it is almost exactly on 0.
this graph is allways gona b unpredictable unless you know what the exact reaction betwene evry particle that will ever b.

so your telling me if you measured CO2 right next to a factory and in the middle of a jungle that the difrence you can just ignore?

sorry if i made it sound shrude ...but look at the graph it mixes data from difrent sorces... you just cant do that im sorry

i like wiki but not for data alot are good but you have learned in english that you can mix the actualy facts to make it to your cause ( ex www.dhmo.org DHMO is water...100% of ppl who ingest it die OMG) it van b loaded facts ....i have given you data sheets from the NOAA about CO2 and tempature change ...those are as good of sorces as your gona find.

What are you, the Highlander

lol i wish

Human activity has brought atmospheric CO2 levels to a place that has not been attainable by the ecosystems which have existed for the past half-million years.

en.wikipedia.org...:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
this is a hard graph ti read so the big black line is the avrage of the individual sorces now look at the 4(meanign4thousand years ago) it is warmer then ..last i checked humans where around then and if you look its just getting to where it was right after the last glacural period.

if you look at the graph agian if im not mistaken dinosars died out 100 million years ago and then 75 or so million years ago humans arived on the scene and when humans came about (by god or evalution) there was more than twice the CO2 levial so we can safeley say that humans can most defiantly take twice the CO2.

i dont get the chicago refrence not do i get the soda pop refrence this thred has nothign to do with CO2 being desolved in a solution.

Just another hodge-podge of unrelated data to prove droughts

well i must not have explaned it wrong and you musnt not have looked at the data i hae put forth...that graph

Staff Edit: Find correct link please.

shows that looking back in the earths history it has had so much more CO2 in the atmosphere and suporting complacated life...... and we coudl have survived(asuming on the facts) then b/c there was ample O2 and not to many posinous bits in the air. and the data is very relatd it shows 6 indapendant acounts of CO2 levals measured in the millions of years ago.

we must keep in mind that looking further back in time gives us a better abilaty to see how the earth can adapt.

sorry if i was curt to you all ...bad cupple of days


[edit on 22-2-2006 by John bull 1]

Im going to say this once and once only.

Keep the debate on this issue civil. Telling someone to shut thier 'Pie Hole" or any other kind of Ad Hominem attack is not allowed here at ATS.

More to the point if your argument has to resort to these types of "Fallacies of Logic" perhaps you need to rethink your position on the matter.

Deny Ignorance everybody

Fred

Originally posted by engenerQ
im a noob i have no idea what a turnament is on ATC

Neither do I (on ATC), but on ATS a tournament is something that goes on in the debate forum. You might want to check it out if formalized debates are up your alley- you seem like you'd do alright there perhaps. That's why some people have "fighter" under their name in the mini-profile- they participate in the debate forum. (I think Amorymeltzer and Nygdan are the ones to U2U if you're interested).

you correct it is the braudent plateau ever but take a look at it it is at delta 0 so what i get from this is that the earth is starting to stabalise

That's not necessarily a good thing though. The word stabilize is misleading, in that true "stability" in terms of maintaining the natural order of conditions on Earth is not characterized by a plateau (was we can see in the past) but rather as a regular fluctuation within a certain range. If we have created this so-called stablity in temperature when it should be falling, it stands to reason that when the factors which naturally serve to arrest the fall and bring the fluctuation back up (Milankovitch Cycle for example) kick in, we're going to hit temperatures for which presently existing lifeforms have not been prepared by their recent evolutionary history.
Humans will be particularly affected because the civilizations we have grown to depend on are so much more vulnerable to traumatic events (like Hurricanes for example) than other species.

so your telling me if you measured CO2 right next to a factory and in the middle of a jungle that the difrence you can just ignore?

Obviously not, but the relative dearth of factories in Antarctica defeats this criticism. As I pointed out, 4 of the 5 measurements taken were taken in Antarctica, where small distances do not have such a tremendous effect, only the most recent measurements from Hawaii are even remotely questionable, and in that fixed position a rate increase is being measured which corroborates the trend shown in Antarctica, even if the argument that the actual levels are inflated is given the benefit of the doubt.

sorry if i made it sound shrude ...but look at the graph it mixes data from difrent sorces... you just cant do that im sorry

No need for appology. I debate in an adversarial manner too, but I don't usually consider it personal.
The layering of data is perfectly acceptible in this case for the reasons I have already explained.
Furthermore please note the inset in the image, which shows near-perfect agreement between the various sources.

i like wiki but not for data alot are good but you have learned in english that you can mix the actualy facts to make it to your cause ( ex www.dhmo.org DHMO is water...100% of ppl who ingest it die OMG)

A link to a joke page hardly disproves the reliability of all data in a wiki. I still see no challenge here to the validity of data provided by the EPA, US DOE, and EPICA, nor any serious challenge to the alarming correlation between the valid demonstration of a potential causative factor for temperature increase and the observation of an unprecedented temperature increase.

i have given you data sheets from the NOAA about CO2 and tempature change ...those are as good of sorces as your gona find.

From the cores taken at Vostok, which, you might note are among the sources used in the graphs I have presented.

en.wikipedia.org...:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
the big black line is the avrage of the individual sorces now look at the 4(meanign4thousand years ago) it is warmer then ..last i checked humans where around then and if you look its just getting to where it was right after the last glacural period.

Using an average of localized conditions as measured in different geographic areas is precisely the error you tried to pin on me with the CO2. This particular graph is indeed questionable. I'll do more looking at it later and continue my reply, but at present my younger brother needs help with the ignition system on his truck, so I'll talk to you later.

first to fred.. i asume your talkting to me but i dont know at what instance i have said pie hole or any such comment. i tried finding it on this page...so if i have ofended ANYONE they may post it here i will stop this thred and BAN myself from ATS hows that sound? as for my logic i am not shure what your problem is with it and i dont use

"Fallacies of Logic"

yes i know what it is (ex. horses like carrots, sally likes carrots there for sally is a horse) if i have send me a u2u there is no need to insult me or my methods pubicly. i would be happy to edit my mistakes


alright that done as for wiki i am just saying one need to watch out for the mixture of data to for a bias conclusion or graph.

i looked at all those sorses from the graph i agree you add on the sorces except for the last that was made to measure CO2 near one of the most active volcanos on earth. alright we need to stop this data thing.

back to the fact it is totaly natural to see fluctuaations in tempature and CO2 it dosent mean a thing that where humans and we invented things that put more co2 into the atmosphere. still dosent mean the earth is diverting from its "natural or intended" path. humans have only been puting things in to the atmosphere from industory for around 2-3 hundred years if im not mistaken. the earth has a abilaty to acomadate change such as metorite impacts plagues and what ever killed the dinosars... but it can adapt and definatly ocolates being at the pposable piek of climate change. we would think the same thing if we had goten to this point socialy if we are still on a climate tempature increce witch we very might well b

like i stated when the dinosars became exinced the atmosphere started to settle down from the massave iceages of melina past and all of a sudden it becomes more normal then the smaller ice ages and swings to higher tempature but recently it had becoming less predictable ther has been more fluctuations. part of this is the further you go back the less precise measurements become...now dont get me wrong ice studies and things get close but recent ones you can look at rock samples and evral other indacators of tempature.

the graph is not questionable if you look you will see it says 2004 to the far left showing the line is at +.5 delta so it is just another way of showing you this is just a warming cycle caused by the "little ice age" just as there are warming pieroids follow larger iceages......one could say this warming these days is the the direct result of the tempature depression of 1600.

this would explane the elongated section of the first tempature graph.

ahh yes wireing ...... ive had alot of voltes go through me....some say to many lol

I'm responding here both to the second part of the last message as well as to the most current one. Sorry if it creates any confusion.

Originally posted by engenerQ
dinosars died out 100 million years ago and then 75 or so million years ago humans arived on the scene and when humans came about (by god or evalution) there was more than twice the CO2 levial so we can safeley say that humans can most defiantly take twice the CO2.

Actually, Homo sapiens showed up a few hundred thousand years ago- during the timespan shown on my graph. The fossil record on our genus goes back less than 3 million years. Even if you go back to Australopithecus you don't get out of the single millions. Although I'm the page I'm about to cite stipulates that it may contain errors, I'm putting it forward as a ballpark.

uts.cc.utexas.edu...

Primates were one of the early branches of the mammalian adaptive radiation that developed after the Jurassic.

In the timeframe that you're talking about (the Cretaceous: 146-65 Million Years Ago, roughly) we're talking about the diversification of mammals still, nothing you'd be proud to call an ancestor.

According to the long-term graph you presented, the last time CO2 levels got in the 1000-2000 range, a lot of very large cold blooded animals were thriving.

When you get into the period where anything remotely resembling us was able to thrive, we were around or under 500ppm.

Please understand that I am not saying the atmosphere will become unbreathable. What I am saying is that the climate in warmer regions will become rather unfavorable both for us and perhaps also for certain species.
Perhaps of greater importance however is the fact that further deglaciation of the poles and possible weather changes related either to temperature itself or deglaciation could mean trouble for coastal areas, not to mention any inland areas which might experience climate changes.

i dont get the chicago refrence

Um, the canada reference you mean? I was alluding to the warm climate that existed when CO2 levels were so much higher, which apparently was suitable to the reign of very large reptiles.

Indeed the Earth can support life with higher CO2 levels, however with a very different climate and consequently very different ecosystems. Traumatic changes in climate would be very unfavorable for humans, and a rapid shift in greenhouse gas levels may indeed serve to cause traumatic changes in climate.

recently it had becoming less predictable ther has been more fluctuations.

I agree, and I don't like it. To be fair, I've never gone extinct before, but it really does not sound any fun.

im gona go to bed soo but ill just go to if the climate changes thing for now.
if it continues to get warmer most certnaly it will cause problmes melting icecaps though is not that big of a deal on the issue of coastal flooding and such b/c of the properties of ice and when it changes phase states.

it would mess with the salt concentrration and would kill alot of fish till it was more evenly distributated. honestly i love in norther indiana and my family are farmers so other than world problmes would be good for corn b/c it would shorten growing time...just as if this keeps increasing plants will thrive more than ever(as long as we dont cut them all down) eventualy leading to a abundance in O2 so as long as we dont destroy massave amounts of crops. where i live it could get a bit warmer and nothing in the imeadate area would suffer to much. maby if there continues to be a global warming trend to where it becomes such a problem but it can stand to increse quite a bit b4 the human race is faced with a issue of survival


as a song goes
"concerns about the world getting warmer people thought that they where just being rewarded.....now we can swim any day in december"

and to all good night and good luck

[edit on 16-1-2006 by engenerQ]

precursor thread in different section: www.abovetopsecret.com...


from www.sciencenews.org...

..
Living plants growing at their normal temperatures generated even larger quantities of methane, as much as 370 ng per gram of plant tissue per hour. Methane emission more than tripled when the plants, either living or dead, were exposed to sunlight.
..

In short: as long as established science is continously overlooking such simple facts, and as long as our weather forecasts are usually good for a few days, i recommend we postpone the more drastic measures against the latest craze (whatever that may currently be, acidous rain anyone?)

I'm all for reducing emissions and increased efficiency, but C02 and methane are not poisonous, period.

PS: since we have no idea what more or less greenouse gases will actually do to this planet (super hot OR interrupted oceanic circulation, so super cold instead?), we might as well take a more relaxed stance, don't you think?

'My worlds on fire, how bout yours, but thats the way I like it and I'll never get bored.' Smashmouth
'PS: since we have no idea what more or less greenouse gases will actually do to this planet (super hot OR interrupted oceanic circulation, so super cold instead?), we might as well take a more relaxed stance, don't you think?' long lance

I'd say we have some idea, and I have seen evidence myself. A tv documentary I saw 25 years ago showed a computer simulation which modeled what the results of the warming would be. In this region, they were bang on, and the two things they predicted have happened.

Might as well go get my fiddle, there is a warm breeze blowing through Roma tonight.

CO2 and Methane are not poisonous (though the later smells really bad), so no worries. Nevermind the fact that we have ample paleoclimatological evidence that the living conditions on this planet will be less suitable to human beings over the next 100 years or so if we don't do anything about our release of greenhouse gasses.

Blackguard is right, and I'm in no fiddling mood about it.

www.bbc.co.uk...

We can sit on our hands or we can actively participate in solutions. If the climate won't harbor human life, it's up to us to change it and preferably before reaching an apex.



Survival of the fittest.

I'd just like to see less hysteria and more solid understanding, before we enforce some kind of draconian energy reduction regime, without even knowing the long-term effects. Example: C02 blocks a spectral line, clouds block much much more, don't you think that people should worry less about single factors? that's scare mongering, but bad news sell i guess.


Trees were found below glaciers in Switzerland, dated 6000BC, which prooves that our climate is not cast in stone and that natural fluctuations occur. If you're inclined to freak out about it, and do (advocate?) silly things (such as dumping power plant exhaust into the ground perhaps?), that's your decision, i personally think that rational responses do not stem from hysteria, what about you?


PS: methane doesn't smell at all, it's an additive designed to warn people of hazardous gas leaks.

Originally posted by Long Lance
I'd just like to see less hysteria and more solid understanding, before we enforce some kind of draconian energy reduction regime,

I see nothing draconian about aggressively pursuing technological advances which reduce the emission of a host of chemical compounds, some of which have been linked to the depletion of the ozone layer, the trapping of energy that would otherwise be radiated back out from the Earth, poor air quality, and in some cases, cancer. Of course when you grotesquely misrepresent a much needed energy revolution as a push for energy reduction it is correct as said, but not as applied, since there is no serious push for energy reduction but from our economic competitors, whose arguments can hardly be credited to the environmentally conscious.

If I were inclined to brand either side of this debate with the name of a man whose laws favored the rich, gave the poor virtually nothing but slavery or death, that brand would have to be placed upon the defenders of the inefficient, soon-to-be-anachronistic, but financially well entrenched fossil fuel economy.

Example: C02 blocks a spectral line, clouds block much much more, don't you think that people should worry less about single factors?

I seem to recall an old saying about straws and the backs of camels. This planet is doing things that it has not done in hundreds of thousands of years, if not millions. The departure from normalcy is very recent; the ecosystem has not perceptibly changed (aside from those portions of it that we have paved), we are beginning to reach beyond anything the established cycle has been observed to do, and the only thing that has really changed is the amount of stuff we're pumping into the atmosphere.

There is ample cause for consciousness, documented by respectable government and intergovernmental agencies. We would be quite ill advised to continue on our current track, rather than investing in alternative energies.

We live on a huge dynamo, traveling at incredible speeds around a huge fusion reactor which heats or air generating kinetic energy, with another large mass revolving around us, generating kintetic energy within our massive oceans by its gravitational influence. This planet is capable of generating more energy in a large hurricane or typhoon than we generate in a year. Even our nukes can't compare. If lighting stuff on fire is the only way of generating energy that we can master, then we, as a species, are too stupid to live, or at the very least, we are complete pyromaniacs and need to be institutionalized.

PS: methane doesn't smell at all, it's an additive designed to warn people of hazardous gas leaks.

Said additive is somehow being produced in my intestines along with methane. Should I be concerned? I have also noticed that this effect is particularly strong on St. Patty's, possibly in connection to corned beef and cabbage and/or beer.

In repsonse to the thread title, Global Warming may or may not be our own fault, although I suspect it is, but it most definitely is our problem. Unless you believe that it is not a problem at all, who is going to fix it if we dont?

well first methane smells idk where you got it dosent.

ignorance is the realy bad guy we realy odnt have the data to prove we have had a dramatic impact on the enviroment im shure we have had some but with out the data i have to stick with we havent had that much of an impact. IM ALL FOR alternative powersorces i follow the fusion reports very very closly and i hope to god we find a better for of power then jsut burning things.

what needs to be dont is stop putign crap in to the atmosphere weather it causes global warming or not. we need to make more CO2 monatering stations(the main one is situatiod over a active volcano now tell me that acurate data lol) and most of all we need time, we need time to shed this asumption of what we do is detramental and becoem objective. studies that last 1...5 ....even 50 years are still insignifacant.

plz leave politics out of this thred it is evryones concern and trying to pin it on a certin person or party is just crazy we need to stop pointing fingers and work togeather to find the truth and if it is true that there is GW then we need to act to solve it.

Originally posted by The Vagabond
CO2 and Methane are not poisonous (though the later smells really bad)

Are you sure about that? As in methane smells? I was under the impression that it has no odour, but the methane produced under normal biological processes does because it either

1. comes out the same place poo does
   
2. comes from rotting vegetation (which also smells bad)
   

Note that I'm not sure, but this was what I was told, and that they actually add some odour to methane from the pipelines to make leak detection easier. I could be wrong, though.

www.dhfs.state.wi.us...
Methane is an odorless, colorless flammable gas. It is used primarily as fuel to make heat and light. It is also used to manufacture organic chemicals. Methane can be formed by the decay of natural materials and is common in landfills, marshes, septic systems and sewers.

If the signing nations of the Kyoto accords took the treaty seriously, they'd have to shut down electricity (exception is probably France, which has ~80% nuclear power) for several hours aday and limit traffic in a drastic way to get anywhere. Fortunately, people don't take it all too seriously.

Now, let me explain my more cynical viewpoint: we have a powerful green movement, which is advoacting everything from tax breaks to subsidies for 'alternative energy'... such as wind or solar power for electricity and hybrid cars.

Let's analyse a bit in detail:

Wind isn't reliable, so for every MW of wind power, you have to keep a MW of conventional power plants on standby ready to take over. this kind of quickly available power is either rare (f-ex. storage hydro plants for peak output can only be built in mountainous terrain) or more expensive than standard emplacements. On top of that, it's well known that without subsidies, the stuff wouldn't go anywhere, which begs the question: for how long does a windmill have to operate before it breaks even?

Solar power through photocells is horribly inefficient and results egregious amounts of toxic waste during production of the cells. Using the Sun for heated water is nice and useful, which is probably why it's not widespread, probably not 'trendy' enough.

Hybrid cars, are a potentially good idea, and i honestly have no idea why carmakers insist on plugging ever more heavy transmission gear AND batteries AND a complete standard engine plus gearbox into their cars. It's not entirely suprising that modern diesels offer more milage per gallon, but then, who cares as long as you get to wear the envirnmentalist badge.

For the record: batteries are toxic and require rare materials, producing them costs a lot of energy and no one, i repeat no-one ever gives a damn about the total lifetime consumption of any device or vehicle (including recycling, if you don't mind). I also have to wonder if people ver consider charge/discharge heat losses in their equations, if they did, anything using batteries would be examind with more caution.

It seems that if an approach is a dead end, chances are politicians and meda love it, if it's a good idea it has to be badly exectuted and any seriously useful stuff will not be produced, or why do you think do people put refridgerators into heated rooms during the winter, have you ever considered how ludicroulsly dumb that is?

So, please gimme a break with your doomsday predictions, if this wasn't a racket, we'd see serious efforts not just lip service and more and more subsidies.


---

Originally posted by mytym
In repsonse to the thread title, Global Warming may or may not be our own fault, although I suspect it is, but it most definitely is our problem. Unless you believe that it is not a problem at all, who is going to fix it if we dont?

That's exactly the problem: OMG we have to do something OR ELSE, now before you get over-excited, i recommend looking up the 'cane toad' and how Australia learn the hard way that good intentions do not equal satisfactory results.

[edit on 25-2-2006 by Long Lance]

Beachcoma, Methane, the main constituent of Natural Gas is odorless and colorless. Just search for it in Wikipedia, it took all of 30 seconds for me to confirm that it was, I was pretty sure though.

The concept that humans are above all other life on earth, and that we have dominion over the world, or some divine right to use it as we please, has allowed us to act like a great greedy guts. I wonder what the present state of affairs would be if the story of Eden had used the word stewardship, or guardians, or protectors, instead of us having dominion over the animals. We haven't taken good care lately. The last two millenia, and in particular the last two centuries have shown a steady decline in the eco-system. We would rather debate the value of stopping our actions, not doing new things, we've done enough. I agree that batteries are not the answer, and are much like the cane toad....
But,for power sources, here's a good one.

www.bluenergy.com...

Read this thread, there are truly some brilliant minds here. But, alas, none of it matters, we're all moving to Serpo!

i was reading about the cane toad it is funny b/c the ones who where pushing for the toads introduction where the people who where saying that a chemical solution would mess up the eco system.... it is a good example for those who think they understand a problem and think they can solve it in a more "nature friendly way" b/c the introduction of the toad didnt have any detramental efects on there eco system.

pure methane is oderless but he drivign sorces of methane is cow crap and cow burps so for all real porpases you can say methane stinks b/c of where it is found. go downwind of a cattle oporation in the high methane enviroment guess what it stinks. that is why most fertalisers dotn smell bad b/c there pureafied.

funny you referign to eaden wher humanaty was punished for trying to fully understand and controol there soroundings. i dont know why you are trying to question gods actions we where kicked out b/c we are a aragent race who is self centerd and still thinks he can controol what he does not understnad!

we dont even know if where doing anything to the planet, there is no cradable proof that we have had any impact though i know we have had atleast some but not enough for all the icecaps melting haveing no ozone and all the anamals on the planet dieing. we have 1 primary CO2 monaterign station it is located over a active volcano! witch releace massave amounts of CO2. the fat of the matter is that if there is more CO2 and its warmer it will exponentaly spurr plant and algy growth and a subsaquent O2 rise but will the public fear things then no b/c the public has no idea whats going on and they hear CNN declare there is globalwarmign and its all from SUV's and burning coal.....thats a whole bunch of bull no one ever gives the whole truth the world is in the dark and is under the thumb of those who would perswade others to get power and uses these fear tatics to keep them in fear.

so lets relate this to the cane toad useing the whole story. just like in Aus people beleave that they can fully understand somethign in this case the whole of the planet. we think there is a problem, same with the incets in Aus but yet there are no facts that support that the warming trend is caused by humans or even anamals. so we think well anythign could b better then the thret of global warming so we act we do somthign that is in the best of intentions but is made out of fear and ignorance like the cane toadd introduced rather than to let things go.......and it blows up in uor face as it shurly will by rushing things. when you push imedate action to solve this saposed globalwarming you are condeming the earth and all of us who live here to death from blind misguided passion and ignorance of all the facts. the ones who will kill the earth will not be the ones who are seen as killers but those who try to act for the better of the whole.

as for the blueenergy it is a good start but has more holes than swis cheese. a huge box or wall of boxes in a river will certanly mes up the rivers ecosystem. second your putting a metal box in water ...and then salt water...anyone else see a problem with this? and its DANGEROUS puting a high energy sorce in the middle of water.....wow now theres thinking things through one failure in the protective layer a drop of water gets in to that electronics package and poof you have a floating useless hunk of crud. just some thoughts about electricaty from water at this point in time the tech we have just isnt tothe point where we can do this reliably.