Is happening. Thoughts or rebuttal? Debate here.

Please note: If you want to post something against this proven theory, please link your source.

_________________

Ugh, not this again. Haven't we hashed this out enough already?

_________________
FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ FrankerZ

Sure, it's happening.

Do we know everything about the cause of global warming? No.
Do we know everything about the effects of global warming? No.
Could there be potential positive benefits from global warming? Yes.
Do I think we should take government action to try and stop it? No.

Pretty much this. We don't know nearly as much about how the Earth works in the long term as much as our deceitful friend All Gore would have us believe.

So since we don't know everything the natural reaction by you is... not to do anything? We know a whole hell of a lot about it. Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused

Positive benefits of global warming: new waterfront properties. What the fuck are you talking about here? Positive benefits? Get the fuck out of here.

Yes, the earth warms and cools, but like just about anything else if humans interfere unforeseen (and foreseen) consequences will happen.

Should the government take action? Uhh... yes... who else is going to take action? Half a trillion dollar oil companies?

I'm glad you have your opinions, but maybe you should try having an opinion rooted in fact.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

When the consensus of climatologist agree on something I will tip my hat and admit that they are smarter than me. I won't go on rambling about how they are wrong just like the skeptics treated Galileo and Darwin.

Yes humans cause greenhouse gases by driving cars.
yes green house gases trap heat in the atmosphere.

Case Closed.

http://berkeleyearth.org/results-summary/


The average surface temp of the Earth has risen 1.5 degrees C in the last 250 years, and 0.9 C of that since 1956. This organization is run by Berkeley, but they do claim to be non-partisan and transparent. They do provide all data for anyone to analyze on their own. It is their opinion that humans have caused the surface temp to rise faster than the regular trend; since they also found the Sun temp to have a negligible effect on the Earth the past 250 years. What they don't have an opinion about yet, is what it all means for the future.

Assuming they are in fact non-partisan (being from Berkeley they do have a stigma to overcome), I don't see why anyone would not believe them that the Earth is warming.

I do wonder if anyone has compared it to the natural cycle the Earth goes through in warm periods and ice ages. Maybe we are increasing it some, but how much? And does it matter in the big picture?

I do believe oil should be thought of as a bridge technology, from old school to new school. We should take advantage of oil drilling for now, but seriously fund research for new energy types. And politics needs to fuck off. So does big oil. Both have an agenda that isn't pure research, which is what we need.

I do think some things, like solar panels, should automatically be built into everyone's roof when we build new houses. Why the hell not? It's cheap enough now days and every little bit adds up.

_________________
"Are we rockin' and rollin' or what?!''

-- Seattle coach Pete Carroll, celebrating with his coaches after the Seahawks pulled off a trade with the Jets, netting running back Leon Washington on Saturday, via Seahawks.com

What's to debate if it's all proven?

And very curious as to what has been proven. Can you please link your source?

_________________
That's weak sauce!

The OP doesn't even realize that "proven theory" is a misnomer, lol.

Science: frequently wrong, but never uncertain.

_________________
President of the Perfect Parents Society - est. 2013

MLO, I think your account's been hacked.

Frankly, If the government can't even come up with a semi-decent budget then I don't wan't them trying to play god and cool the whole freakin planet down. I'm kinda curious as to what you would have the government do? The best thing would be to try and steer the country away from fossil fuels, and to make more green energy plants and the like, upgrade our infrastructure to make more efficient ways of moving energy around, but that tends to be really expensive. How would we have enough money to protect our oil interests around the world, and what would that mean for all the oil, and weapons companies who own our politicians?

Yes, it's real.
Yes, humans contribute significantly to it.
Yes, scientists do know a little something about what will happen if it continues on the current pace.
Yes, governments should do something about it because industry won't. It isn't in their profit interest to do anything.

To say that "science is never uncertain" is a bald faced lie. Pretty much all science is based on probabilities, which means that everything has a certain degree of uncertainty to it. But when probabilities rise up into the 80-90% range, I think we should do something.

_________________
Talent can get you to the playoffs.
It takes character to win when you get there.

Global warming is pretty simple: You either believe it doesn't exist, or you believe we're all going to die by overflowing oceans, hurricanes, and massive ice storms. There's obviously no middle ground where humans have an impact on the environment, which we can control, while the Earth also goes through different climate phases.

_________________
My single greatest contribution to the board: "42-13" (formerly 24-14)

/thread

I think Sarlacc pretty much summed it up, albeit a bit sarcastically.

There isn't really anything new to discuss at least from my POV

Yup.

Also of interest is this recent NASA article on the solar storm and its effects on the earth and atmosphere. Of note in the article: “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

This, to me, signifies that carbon dioxide appears to be a reflector of temperature, and that the thicker the carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere, the less transference between earth and space occurs. This works both ways, though, both trapping heat inside the atmosphere, and deflecting solar energy away.

So quite possibly, carbon dioxide levels are responsible for both periods of global heating and cooling. And at best, we know very little about temperature trends and causes in the big picture.

_________________
I blog, I tweet. When I'm not writing or goofing around on Seahawks.NET.

The problem is, even if we are to accept the 80-90% you said, what exactly is the 80-90% referring to? That we have some sort of impact on the temperature rise of the Earth? What does that exactly mean? How much of the Earth's temp rise is human caused and how much is the Earth going through a natural change we have no impact on? Can humans reverse this trend at all? Has this same pattern occurred many times in the Earth's history before and we just haven't been around to witness it? These are all questions that can't be answered right now, so that 80-90% you quoted turns into a very vague conclusion.

YEAH, SCIENCE IS THE GROUP OF MORONS.

Why don't you go read a Bible.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012

Which Bible?

_________________
If you're walking on thin ice, you might as well dance.................................................Mom

Pick one, doesn't matter.

_________________
RIP ROAD WOES 12/2/2012