Global Warming is a hoax.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Jan 31 2006, 11:44 PM']IM, I don't know for sure, but I suspect that it has to do with carbon dating.  Presumably, if carbon can be used to determine how old something is, we could do the process in reverse by taking something that we know the age of and figuring out how much carbon is contained in it.  Do the math and we could figure out how much there was at a given point in history.  Again, I am just speculating.  I don't have the textbook anymore or access to the study.  I am just trying to intellectually honest.  Like yourself, I think that there are far more important things to worry about, but I would like some credible information to combat the greens on this topic.  Any fair debate (and in order to strengthen our own arguments) requires that the opposition be fairly represented.
[right][snapback]871669[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Carbon dating requires a solid piece of something living. There is no way to tell what the air was 5 miles up over 50 years ago.

[url="http://www.HowStuffWorks.com"]http://www.HowStuffWorks.com[/url] is a great place to start for learning how some stuff works if you want to see. It also has a great history of the Sith... lol


...

As for Fortune... typical media outlet. There are too many scientists that say it's a hoax and with earth cycles in temperature taking up to 250 years, then logically there is nothing to worry about...

Add God into the mix and it proves there is nothing to worry about.


So I say...

"Chicken Little's of the world, where is your faith?"

We have nothing to worry about when it comes to global warming because soon enough there will be a global cooling, then it'll warm again... etc... homeostasis baby... homeostasis. The earth is not as fragile as the commies would have you believe.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[OLAM Dad]

[quote name='Iacobus' date='Jan 30 2006, 11:07 PM']And if it takes 506 K to burn paper and Y is 505.9 and x is 0.2 K then the paper burns, regardless of the fact that Y>>X.
[right][snapback]870601[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is true. Can you show me some evidence that this is what is happening? Can you show me ANY evidence that the environment can only take so much and it is our own actions that are causing the change? Absent some evidence your statement is pure speculation and pontification.

If you ARE able to prove this then I think it only fair that volcanoes should be regulated, not us people.

Edited February 1, 2006 by OLAM Dad

[Azriel]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 31 2006, 08:58 PM']I am not saying that we shouldn't be responsible and I don't think anyone here is.. I think everyone here knows we should be responsible, so it's common knowledge so I didn't need to mention it. I do not understand why it bears repeating unless you think that we are saying to pollute.

In no way shape or fashion am I saying that we should pollute. I am saying simply that "global warming" is not something cause by humans as the media and a hand full of scientists who get paid for saying it.

[u][b]I might be misunderstanding your intent, and if I am then just disregard this, [/b][/u]but this is what I mean by some people here pulling more out of my posts than what is there.

An analogy that might help show my point would be this...
If I wrote: "The Catholic Church centers on Christ"
And someone else wrote: "Why do you neglect the Father and Holy Spirit?"

That is the way it makes me feel when people imply I meant something that I do not even imply. I think the misinterpretations are due to stereotypes propagated by the media about conservative republicans who disagree with them.

It gets very aggravating. I'm just trying to explain my point of view to you, I am not trying to attack you in any way shape or fashion.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Catholic shirts for Responsible Catholics
[right][snapback]871615[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Iron - in this instance you were misinterpreting my intent. I've no beef with you on this, I just thought Phil had an excellent point.

But I feel ya, stereotypes stink. I wasn't attacking anybody just expressing an opinion.

God Bless you Iron - Lord knows we dont see eye to eye on stuff a lot of the time - but I wasn't attacking you.

[JP2Iloveyou]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 1 2006, 06:03 AM']Carbon dating requires a solid piece of something living. There is no way to tell what the air was 5 miles up over 50 years ago.

[url="http://www.HowStuffWorks.com"]http://www.HowStuffWorks.com[/url] is a great place to start for learning how some stuff works if you want to see. It also has a great history of the Sith... lol[/quote]

Actually, Carbon dating requires something that used to be living. If the thing were still alive, it would be obvious approximately how old it was. I will admit that I am far from an expert in this field. I am just throwing out an idea that I had that as I am thinking about it now, might not be as plausible as I had originally thought.

...

[quote]As for Fortune... typical media outlet. There are too many scientists that say it's a hoax and with earth cycles in temperature taking up to 250 years, then logically there is nothing to worry about...

Add God into the mix and it proves there is nothing to worry about.
So I say...

"Chicken Little's of the world, where is your faith?"

We have nothing to worry about when it comes to global warming because soon enough there will be a global cooling, then it'll warm again... etc... homeostasis baby... homeostasis. The earth is not as fragile as the commies would have you believe.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]871854[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Can you point out a scientist that says that? I mean like name one and reference where he/she has said it? The only reason I ask is because I can also point out many scientists who do say that it is happening. All scientists receive money from special interest groups. Those that claim that GW is going to destroy the earth are receiving a fortune from groups like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club. Those that claim GW is a hoax are receiving a fortune from oil companies, etc. In all reality, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. I would just like you to site one of your sources. Again, I don't disagree with you IM. You and I see eye-to-eye more often than not. I just want a fair debate, so I'm trying to represen the other side.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 31 2006, 10:15 PM']...the methane that you might be producing that is causing global warming...
[right][snapback]871631[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Not to bring this discussion into the toilet or anything... but I contribute a fair share of methane to our atmosphere.

[jezic]

i think part of the whole problem is that man has "gotten" used to the way that things are now.

We forget very easily that nature has always been about change and things will change rapidly at times.

The rise in annual temperatures is startling.

Though i would probably be more worried about what all of the chemicals in the air do to human health (if ironmonk is right). Some of those chemicals really can't be good for anything except causing cancer.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jan 31 2006, 09:15 PM']I would be interested in the source of that research and how they actually measured it two hundred years ago.

Carbon dioxide was discovered in 1771...

We didn't have the periodic table of elements until 1869.

It wasn't until the 1960's that we had tools to measure carbon in the air.
(ref: [url="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm"]http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm[/url] - the first greenhouse gas scare)

If they actually had a tool to measure the carbon in the atmosphere, how accurate was it. How did they measure it many miles up?

From what I have studied about chemistry, I highly doubt the validity of what your professor presented because it just doesn't add up.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Catholic Shirts that make no attempt to measure the methane that you might be producing that is causing global warming so you will not be fined by the UN when they rule the world. 
[right][snapback]871631[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Then you might not have a understanding of chemistry.

The same proceess is used when people date a tree and then record rain fall amounts by doing so. By counting the number of rings and their thickness, one can determine the amount of rainfall over a period of 100's of years.

This is similar to what chemists/geologists do when they drill for ice in a glaciar. The ice acts like a "time machine" of sorts and stores trapped pockets of gas deep inside. Also, the ice itself has non-water content in it that can be recorded. They don't have to go miles into space to do that, that data is just as valid when talking about the CO2 content in this layer of the atomosphere, which does cause a good amount of global warming.

And you also don't know what people are worried about with global warming. They aren't so worried about a natural cooling/warming process but rather the rate at which our system is currently changing. The amount of ice melting from the ice caps and glaciars is far more rapid then any point in recorded history and more rapid then the data suggests ever happened before. This is what is worrying people.

And you live in FL, if there is a 1*C change your house may very well be part of the ocean. Along with 20% of the world's population (live in areas low enough to be flooded by that little of a change). People though Katrina was bad, compered to what could/will/might happen, Katrina will look local and like a small fish in a big ocean.

For the record, two things. Carbon dating doesn't require that something ever lived as much as it requires carbon to be present. Seeing as how much life is carbon based, that is mostly true. However, I could date a peice of graphite. Or any other compound that has a known decay rate. It just depends on the halflife and how stable that is. The half life, fyi, for CO2 is 50 years.

OLAM Dad, I can show you data that suggests that greenhouse gases cause global warming. On a simple model scale, take a beaker and put a small metal plate in the bottom (your planet). Get another beaker of the same size and do the same thing with it. Place two temp probes, one in each and record the delta temp between the two. In the first beaker add a greenhouse gas, CO2, O3, NOx, etc, and nothing to the second beaker. Turn a light on about the beakers (the sun) and watch. Intially there would have been 0 K difference, afterwards it isn't impossible to have a 10 K difference (avg's tend to be around 3-7 K). That is a simple way to gather data to suggest that greenhouse gases exist.

Another thing is that the chemical strutures of these compounds suggest that they undergo vibrations/strechs/etc at some wavelengths, supporting the greenhouse gas idea.

The earth can only take so much at a given time. The atomosphere contains the CO2 and other gases and the planet warms up slightly. However, the rate at which CO2 decays works here. The halflife, as I said above, for CO2 is 50 years. Every 50 years a "cloud" of CO2 gas will be halved in amount as CO2 turns into orther cpds. So, with a fixed rate of CO2 decay and a rate of output, a stable situation can be achived. If 1 000 000 000 tons of CO2 decays a year, then 1 000 000 000 tons more can be accepted without increasing the concentration of CO2. However, once 1 000 000 001 tons a year are added then the concentration of the CO2 in the atomosphere increases.

[God's Errand Girl]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Jan 31 2006, 09:13 PM']At first I read "....that darn Elmo", which I agree with [b]much[/b] more than what you actually wrote.
[right][snapback]871562[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Well, I hope that you don't think that I seriously believe what I posted.
It was a very deep sarcastic remark and I think I could put it another way that it absolutely has no way of being misinterpreted (not that you interpreted it wrong)...

Let's try again--

Well, we all know what to blame for this global warming...it's that darn Y2K.

[God's Errand Girl]

Last night, I was watching the weather forecast on our local news. It has been particularly warm in this part of Indiana in January (at least seven days of temperatures of 60 or above). While watching the forecast, the weatherman reported that although yesterday was unseasonably warm, in actuality it was the third warmest January on record. The other Januarys which had a higher average temperature were in 1932 and 1933, both consecutive years.

This is why global warming seems incredibly fishy to me. There were two consecutive Januarys where the average temp was higher than it is this year. What the heck were those ancestors of ours thinking when they had two consecutive Januarys with these temps? That a new ice age was coming? The world was ending? Global warming was occurring? (even though the term wasn't coined back then, the concept is understood as applicable)

Edited February 1, 2006 by God's Errand Girl

[morostheos]

ironmonk, you still haven't cited a source for your volcano trivia....

And as a brief primer, here's a quote from the EPA website:
[quote]Like many fields of scientific study, there are uncertainties associated with the science of global warming. This does not imply that all things are equally uncertain. Some aspects of the science are based on well-known physical laws and documented trends, while other aspects range from 'near certainty' to 'big unknowns.'

What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

What's Likely but not Certain?
Figuring out to what extent the human-induced accumulation of greenhouse gases since pre-industrial times is responsible for the global warming trend is not easy. This is because other factors, both natural and human, affect our planet's temperature. Scientific understanding of these other factors – most notably natural climatic variations, changes in the sun's energy, and the cooling effects of pollutant aerosols – remains incomplete.

Nevertheless, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated there was a "discernible" human influence on climate; and that the observed warming trend is "unlikely to be entirely natural in origin." In the most recent Third Assessment Report (2001), IPCC wrote "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."

In short, scientists think rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to global warming, as would be expected; but to what extent is difficult to determine at the present time.

As atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases continue to rise, scientists estimate average global temperatures will continue to rise as a result. By how much and how fast remain uncertain. IPCC projects further global warming of 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) by the year 2100. This range results from uncertainties in greenhouse gas emissions, the possible cooling effects of atmospheric particles such as sulfates, and the climate's response to changes in the atmosphere.

The IPCC states that even the low end of this warming projection "would probably be greater than any seen in the last 10,000 years, but the actual annual to decadal changes would include considerable natural variability."[/quote] [url="http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html"]http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming....ertainties.html[/url]

[jezic]

and while it is warm here int he united states, in other areas of the world like Europe the temps are WAY below normal.

It is amazing for ND as well. The average temp was nearly 20 degrees warmer than other years so far in January.

[morostheos]

[quote name='jezic' date='Feb 1 2006, 09:15 PM']and while it is warm here int he united states, in other areas of the world like Europe the temps are WAY below normal.

It is amazing for ND as well. The average temp was nearly 20 degrees warmer than other years so far in January.
[right][snapback]872498[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Hence why the more accurate name for the phenomenon is global climate change, not just global warming. It has to do with a lot more than just temperatures rising.

[JP2Iloveyou]

It is important to reiterate that this is an historical trend. It is incorrect to attribute one unseasonably warm month to GW, or even an unseasonably warm year. Regardless of where one stands on the GW debate, that much is certain. Even the most strident doom and gloom scientists say that the total chane in temperature will be "only" 6 degrees Celcius or so over 100 years. This cannot account for average temperatures 30 degrees above normal in a given year.

[morostheos]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 1 2006, 11:45 PM']It is important to reiterate that this is an historical trend.  It is incorrect to attribute one unseasonably warm month to GW, or even an unseasonably warm year.  Regardless of where one stands on the GW debate, that much is certain.  Even the most strident doom and gloom scientists say that the total chane in temperature will be "only" 6 degrees Celcius or so over 100 years.  This cannot account for average temperatures 30 degrees above normal in a given year.
[right][snapback]872597[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

In a way, yes - because global warming refers to climate change, not specifically weather changes. However, the two are certainly related. Average temperatures 30 degrees above normal in one locality are balanced out with other areas of the globe where average temperatures are say, 20 degrees below normal. While single days, months, or years can't necessarily be attributed to global warming (there are many other factors at play), it is certainly a continuation of the historical trend.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='JP2Iloveyou' date='Feb 1 2006, 09:45 PM']It is important to reiterate that this is an historical trend.  It is incorrect to attribute one unseasonably warm month to GW, or even an unseasonably warm year.  Regardless of where one stands on the GW debate, that much is certain.  Even the most strident doom and gloom scientists say that the total chane in temperature will be "only" 6 degrees Celcius or so over 100 years.  This cannot account for average temperatures 30 degrees above normal in a given year.
[right][snapback]872597[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Only six degrees?

[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v209/Iacobus/jan_temp.gif[/img]

That image was taken, without premission, from [url="http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/jan_temp.gif"]http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundament...es/jan_temp.gif[/url] and shows avg. temp in Jan in degress C.

Okay, 6 degrees change, okay, lets move every color up 6 degrees. The color changes at 5 degrees, so we will say a little more then the color will be counted for. Anything with temputures in Jan of over -5* will now have an avg temp above freezing. Whoa, that is scary, it seems huge parts of Russia will now be above freezing as well as some areas with major amounts of glaicar ice and snow caps. That would really bite to have that melt, you know. It would all melt if the temp changed 6* avg over the next 100 years. And this is for the winter! And look at Anartica, that would all melt.... that is a huge volume of ice.

[url="http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/images/july_temp.gif"]http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundament...s/july_temp.gif[/url] that is for the summer. Again, find the -5 * C and find all areas that warm or warmer. Those areas will all melt during the summer months at a huge rate.

The same thing I was talking about with the amount of gases holds true here. A lot of the ice masses in the world at are "high" temps, a slight increase will push them over the melting point (notice the term, point, it is a fixed thing, you can exist at it, 273.15 K will have ice water mixture, but 273.16 will be water and 273.14 will be ice).

If one inch of ice melts from Greenland's ice surface (up to a meter melts per year on the edges and there is melting on most of the surface, I am just saying one inch on the whole surface) 60,980,500,000,000,000 gallons of water will be added to the world's oceans. Think about that. Only six degrees and Greenland will be above 0 C almost all year.