Global Cooling

[Fidei Defensor]

I have one question. What do I have to gain from believing that global warming is true, if it is in fact not? I'm following scientific fact. It it's wrong, I will follow what's shown. However, to me, being so strongly against the idea seems to be a form of pride and denial. How are you benefiting yourself by doing that? If the science points to changes to the climate because of this, I would think you'd want to protect what is so beautiful and worthy of protection. But I guess that's your choice.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But you can't go wrong with trying to preserve the environment from our corrupting effects.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470870' date='Feb 28 2008, 07:35 PM']While I agree, 6 billion humans also have a tendency to affect nature.[/quote]
DUH! Everything affects nature. The wings of a butterfly will affect nature! No matter what we do we'll affect nature!

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1470875' date='Feb 28 2008, 06:44 PM']DUH! Everything affects nature. The wings of a butterfly will affect nature! No matter what we do we'll affect nature![/quote]
I think your mind is in the right place. You just need to realize that the environment is precious, whether you believe global warming is real or not. More concentrated efforts to protect it can never be bad.

[dairygirl4u2c]

it's funny to watch people use the same religious faith and mentality etc on things like science. it severely weakens why they have faith to begin with.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470885' date='Feb 28 2008, 08:01 PM']I think your mind is in the right place. You just need to realize that the environment is precious, whether you believe global warming is real or not. More concentrated efforts to protect it can never be bad.[/quote]
I never said we didn't. I just think it's ridiculous how people spend so much time worrying about it. We need to remember that we are, in fact, a natural creation, as well, and we have just as much right to live on this planet as anything else.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='MissScripture' post='1470927' date='Feb 28 2008, 08:06 PM']I never said we didn't. I just think it's ridiculous how people spend so much time worrying about it. We need to remember that we are, in fact, a natural creation, as well, and we have just as much right to live on this planet as anything else.[/quote]
But at the same time, we have no right to destroy ecosystems of other creations.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470844' date='Feb 28 2008, 06:41 PM']Ever hear of the saying "too much of a good thing"? Nature has a balance. We're upsetting it.[/quote]
Nature has a balance.


lol

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470931' date='Feb 28 2008, 07:09 PM']But at the same time, we have no right to destroy ecosystems of other creations.[/quote]

What about beavers? They build dams, that destroys the ecosystems of other creations. Should we destroy all the beaver dams?

[Spamity Calamity]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1470872' date='Feb 28 2008, 07:42 PM']I have one question. What do I have to gain from believing that global warming is true, if it is in fact not?[/quote]

Well I don't profess to know much about global warming. But I do know that ALOT of people have much to gain by using global warming to push their agendas.

No one has yet convinced me that this is our fault or not part of a larger cycle.

People will "go green" just as soon as technology driven by the free market makes it cheaper to do so and not until then.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1471293' date='Feb 29 2008, 02:17 PM']People will "go green" just as soon as technology driven by the free market makes it cheaper to do so and not until then.[/quote]
YES!

[T-Bone _]

Although that reasoning is why Al Gore and his cronies are seeking to tax energy so much that the lower class will be unable to afford basic needs.

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Spamity Calamity' post='1471293' date='Feb 29 2008, 12:17 PM']Well I don't profess to know much about global warming. But I do know that ALOT of people have much to gain by using global warming to push their agendas.

No one has yet convinced me that this is our fault or not part of a larger cycle.

People will "go green" just as soon as technology driven by the free market makes it cheaper to do so and not until then.[/quote]
I can personally assure you that this is not my reasoning. I genuinely care about the environment, and the loss of 5,000 species each year due to changes in climate upsets me. I do, however, understand your concerns and I respect them.

[Fidei Defensor]

Edited March 1, 2008 by fidei defensor

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Scofizzle' post='1469167' date='Feb 26 2008, 11:09 AM']Your graph only covers a 150 year time span. The planet is millions of years old. The large spike in recent years could be part of the fine structure of even larger graph.

I think that global warming is a croc of carp. I do also believe that is doesn't hurt anything to be kind to the envirmoment.[/quote]

Ok. Found some graphs with longer time frames.

The first is prehistoric CO2 levels from as far back as 400,000 years. I hope that this is long enough, as it encompasses a number of drastic climate changes in the form of ice ages.



[img]http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9374/co2levelslo1.jpg[/img]

You will note a number of very interesting features about this graph:
[list=1]
[*]Peaks are approximately every 100,000 years. This is remarkably consistent so as to suggest a natural, cyclical phenomenon.
[*]These peaks occur around 125,000 years ago (my unit: YA); 250,000 YA (with a minor peak at 225,000 YA), 325,000 YA; and ~400,000 YA (note that these year dates are based on visual approximations from the graphs).
[*]Carbon dioxide concentrations peak each time around 275-300 ppmv (parts per million * volume).
[/list]
Now, please refer to the following graph, which demonstrates temperatures over the last 450,000 years:

[img]http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/8551/iceagetemperatureaf0.jpg[/img]

This image actually displays a composite graph of temperature data from three different locations/methods. Treat each colored line as a separate graph. We note the following features of this graph:
[list=1]
[*]Peaks are approximately every 100,000 years.
[*]Peaks are at 125,000 YA; 250,000 YA (with a minor at ~225,000 YA); 325,000 YA; and 400,000 YA.
[*]Today's current average temperature is arbitrarily set at 0. The baseline temperature is -6* C cooler, while peaks are consistently more than 3* C warmer.
[/list]
While comparison of these two images doesn't in itself "prove" a cause-and-effect relationship between CO2 concentrations and global temperature, we can see that there is a VERY strong correlation between the two. Such correlation is strong enough, in my opinion, to conclude that such a causal relationship is "beyond reasonable doubt". [b]Indeed, scientists attribute prehistoric climate change to prehistoric CO2 fluctuations. Note the "Ice Age Cycles" printed on the CO2 graph.[/b]

We return to the original CO2 graph (I'll include again here so that you don't have to scroll back and forth):

[img]http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/9374/co2levelslo1.jpg[/img]

We note again in the blue section of the graph that CO2 levels peak consistently between 275-300 ppmv. We note during the green section of the graph that it seems that we are in the middle of another [b]natural[/b] period where CO2 levels spike. We also note that this period seems to be at about the same time as we would expect to have it -- about 100,000 years after the last one. This CO2 data again coincides with the temperature data above: we are in a natural warm period, called an interglacial by scientists.

The problem is, in addition to this natural CO2 spike, resulting in a natural interglacial period, we also note the teal and black spikes that extend up to 375 ppmv CO2. This is beyond the level of any of the previous spikes over the past 400,000 years. Now, either there is some other cause of this CO2 spike that we are not aware of (in which case, show me what this cause is), or the increased burning of fossil fuels during recent years is responsible for this spike in CO2 emissions. Burning fossil fuels does indeed result in the production of CO2 according to the following chemical equation for the combustion of gasoline, for example:

2C8H18 + 25O2 ---> [b]16CO2[/b] + 18H2O

So, in addition to the [b]natural[/b] spike of atmospheric CO2, we also have a man-caused spike of CO2. We know from comparison of the above graphs that CO2 is related to climate change. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so we infer that this relationship is causal in nature. Thus, we conclude that the unnatural spike in CO2 levels may cause an unnatural climate change that is not within the range of natural temperature fluctuations normally observable over the course of the ice age cycles.

Reference to the above temperature graphs indicate that temperature fluctuations today are not yet outside expected ranges. However, the time period that we have been burning fossil fuels, according to the CO2 graph, is approximately 150 years. On a graph whose scale is in the hundreds of thousands of years, with climate change cycles taking about as long, it is most probable that we simply haven't been able to appreciate the full extent of the effects yet.

Further, CO2 levels have only risen 33% beyond what is a normally acceptable level. What is truly scary, however, is that scientists predict that CO2 levels will more than [b]double[/b] their current level in just the next 100 years. Thus, by 2100, CO2 levels will be at 250-300% of what would be normally observable even at the peak of an interglacial period, CO2 consumption is left unchecked.