[Sea of Time]

I stole Al Gore's title, but this topic isn't about the movie or the book.

It's about the problem at hand with global warming. We bought the book in our house and it brings up many incredible facts about how the world will completely change if we do not get our act together and start becoming more ecologically friendly.

Here are a few surprising facts from the book, just for reference if you still think global warming is not a truth.

Quote

If Greenland melted or broke up and slipped into the sea - or if half of Greenland and half of Antarctica melted or broke up and slipped into the sea, sea levels worldwide would increase by between 18 and 20 feet.

...

In Manhattan, the World Trade Center Memorial is intended to be, among other things, an expression of the determination of the United States never to allow such harm to befall our country again. But the picture at right shows what would happen to Manhattan if sea levels rose 20 feet worldwide. The site of the World Trade Center Memorial would be underwater.

Is it possible that we should prepare for other serious threats in addition to terrorism? Maybe it's time to focus on other dangers as well.

Quote

The United States is more responsible for more greenhouse gas pollution than South America, Africa, the Middle East, Australia, Japan, and Asia - all put together

To sum it all up, Gore writes this:

Quote

Our climate crisis may at times appear to be happening slowly, but in fact it is happening very quickly - and has become a true planetary emergency. The Chinese expression for crisis consists of two characters. The first is a symbol for danger; the second is a symbol for opportunity. In order to face down the danger that is stalking us and move through it, we first have to recognize that we are facing a crisis. So why is it that our leaders seem not to hear such clarion warnings? Are they resisting the truth because they know that the moment they acknowlege it, they will face a moral imperative to act? Is it simply more convenient to ignore the warnings?

Perhaps, but inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen. Indeed, when they are not responded to, their significance doesn't diminish; it grows.

Comment on our "planetary crisis" here.

[Platinum Sun]

Global warming is a problem. I can believe that. What I don't believe is that we all face imminent doom because we aren't reacting to it. All the global warming fear-nazis tell us that the earth is heating up and that we have to reduce fossil fuel use. What they don't tell us is how the heck we're supposed to do that. All we get is conserve... blah blah blah... alternative blah blah blah... Conservation won't significantly alter the progress of global warming. And alternative fuels have no infastructure. The gasoline network we have now took 50 years to build. It will be at least that long before hydrogen or whatever else becomes practical. Until they come up with a working solution they're just tree-huggers on soap boxes to me. There's a lot of things that are causing the world to end and practical solutions to them.
And as for America burning the most fuel...
DUH! All the other countries on that list except for Japan (and maybe China) have almost no industrial complex. Compare us with our counterparts in Europe. You'll see we're not that far ahead of the pack.

[Sea of Time]

Are you saying that this is ultimately a political problem? Or are you saying that there is nothing we can do to help stop the effects of global warming? Electroluminescent bulbs, hybrid cars, there is so much you can do personally to do your part. If everyone does their part, and the government acts up and does theirs, then this problem can be stopped.

[Platinum Sun]

This is ultimately a human problem. We can't simply stop using fossil fuels, which is the only ecologically viable solution. Fancy bulbs still use electricity, and hybrids still burn gasolene. All the individual efforts people make are conservation, and if global warming is as bad as Al says it is, conservation isn't going to help. And what can the government do? Gas tax? that would knock the economy to its knees. Research funding? $6 trillion dollars of national debt; not an option. Public service announcements? Sorry, that was proven ineffective with the downfall of Darth Nader. Think of something else while I'm taking my chemistry exam, I'll come back and shoot it down.

[Sea of Time]

So what you're saying is that there's nothing we can do, our planet is doomed, and we should just move to another planet right now?

Changing our policies can put us on the right track. With Bush, it's been all talk since 2000. He keeps talking about changing policies on global warming, but what does he do? He throws Kyoto into the toilet and throws trillions of dollars into a pointless war in Iraq. The irony is, the war is over oil, which is another cause of global warming. You can't say nothing will change until something actually changes. I have a sickening feeling that it will be a long time until we see that change.

[TheEnglishman]

It is going to be difficult to get people to change their ways to more eco-friendly options. But SoT is right this isn't a problem that we can hide from, no matter how much we try.

[Sea of Time]

If we combine individual action, political action, and industry innovation, this problem can go away. But why is the American government and other governments so nervous to take action? We need to solve our problem if we plan on keeping our world the way it is.

[Platinum Sun]

Stupid late bus... Oh well, I'll make the best of it.

That is along the same lines as what I'm saying. What I'm trying to get across to my soapbox friends is that until you have a workable solution to global warming SHUUUUUT UUUUUUP!! Don't waste your time campaigning and my time listening to you. Put your advertizing dollars and political clout into research and give me something I can work with.
And you're right. Nothing will change for a very long time because of us. (Us Americans that is) Actions speak louder than words. Sure we'd like to save the planet if we could, but we'll kill to maintain our oil supply.

[TheEnglishman]

Americans are unwilling to change because of the way it would affect their lifestyle and the economy. But I think that as the problem becomes more evident, more and more people will change their ways. The only problem then is, will it be too late?

[Platinum Sun]

Stupid bus driver... Drove right by my house!

Anyway, the effects are evident already. Just look at last year's hurricane season. That was not natural. I doubt people will be quick to react even if the sea levels do begin to rise. (They'll probably just build levees, it worked for New Orleans! :) ) Most lay people believe that the weather is beyond their control, they're only half right, but they continue to act, or refuse to act, on that belief.

[Sea of Time]

Here's a list from the book of real things you can do at a personal level to do your part:

Quote

Reduce emissions from your home energy use.

Choose energy-efficient lighting: Lighting accounts for one-fifth of all the electricity consumed in the U.S. Convential incandescent bulbs most consumers use in their homes are highly energy inefficient. Only 10% of the energy they consume actually generate illumination. CFL (compact fluorescent lights) use 66% less energy. If every household in the U.S. subsituted even one conventional bulb with a CFL bulb, it would have the same effect on pollution levels as removing a million cars from the nation's roads.

Choose energy-efficient appliances when making new purchases.

Properly operate and maintain your appliances.

Heat and cool your house efficiently. Lowering your temperatures just a few degrees in the winter and setting your air conditioner a couple of degrees higher in the summer can make some real savings over time.

Insulate your house.

These are the big ones, that you can change easily. There are others but they must be implemented over time, like buying a hybrid car or a fuel-cell car when they become available.

[Platinum Sun]

C
O
N
S
E
R
V
A
T
I
O
N

=

N
O
T

W
O
R
K
I
N
G

There I spelled it out for you.

These things are great, but it's like trying to save the Titanic with a pack of Band-aids. Even if you reduce emissions by 99% global warming is still going to be a problem. I'm not saying don't do these things, I'm saying that you have to realize that they'll only buy us a few decades even if everyone does them.

[Sea of Time]

Have you done these things?

I didn't think so. Don't be such a hypocrite then.

[Aquamarine]

I know all about those surprising facts you said SoT and a lot more. I am more aware of this than anyone I know(except my brother) and I have very, very strong opinions regarding Global Warming and such. I will not start talking a lot about this just now, but there are a few things I can say now.

Do you guys know about the Kyoto Protocol? It was created in 1997. Japan called all countries of the world to sign it. By signing it all the factories and other poluting buildings must reduce the amount of gasses they create and send into the atmosphere. 163 countries have signed it. The USA, which creates about 25-30% of all dangerous gasses(if I remember correctly), has not signed the agreement. Australia and a few other smaller countries haven't either.
Which brings me to my conclusion: There is nothing we can do. You shouldn't be too worried, but enjoy your life while you can. Something else also hit my mind a few years ago: The world will become impossible for humans to live on in about 100 years. Laugh all you want at my stupidity, but think about this: People around the world are dying from the heat the Sun is creating. There are huge floods throughout Europe, destroying houses, crops and lives. Hurricanes are hitting Florida and other places much more regularly. I also think snow fell in Mexico a few years ago, something that hasn't happened for a few hundred years. During that same time there was no snow in central Europe, where snow is supposed to fall. All this is happening because of Global Warming. All these things will just get worse, and without the US government wanting to sign the Kyoto Protocol, there is really nothing we can do about it.

I very rarely tell anyone how I feel about this because they would all just laugh at me. I hope you guys are more mature and different.

[Sea of Time]

I fear that you're right.

When Al Gore released that movie, everyone said "Wow, he's really concerned." But did they do anything? No. If there is no change, we're all doomed.

At least it will be warm in our lifetime, it'll be our kids that suffer.

Our new PM here in Canada, Stephen Harper has pulled out of Kyoto so he can be like Big Brother Bush. Harper is a suckup and has began sending troops to Afghanistand. Dejavu? You bet.

[TheEnglishman]

People say 'It doesn't matter if you try to change the way you live because the planet is already doomed.' But even if it is, isn't it better to try and change things rather than not even bother?

[Sea of Time]

I agree, but we can't save the world on your own.

Well, as they said it on the Daily Show, if the government keeps pouring money into oil companies, maybe they'll just get tired of money and pass the savings onto us. XD

[Someone Else]

Why don't we get a huge vacuum cleaner, put it on some wings, send it out to the atmosphere and suck all the carbon dioxide out of the air?! That'll clear up the green house effect!!

Then we send it on a huge space shuttle and put all of it on one of the planets that already has an atmosphere with tons of carbon dioxide, like Venus!


Well anyway, Al Gore's a friggin genius, I still don't understand why he lost the election (but that's a different subject).

Something needs to be done, but nobody can figure out what entirely. We humans hate and fear change, if you haven't noticed. That's why nothing's happened so far. We're all like, "We must do something!" "Yeah!!" "Any ideas?!" "..."

[Aquamarine]

Um... I know why Al Gore lost the election. But just as you said, that's a different subject. Now, if somebody was to make a topic about that I could tell you, but no such thing exists...

[Platinum Sun]

Sea_of_Time, on Jun 21 2006, 11:44 AM, said:

Our new PM here in Canada, Stephen Harper has pulled out of Kyoto so he can be like Big Brother Bush. Harper is a suckup and has began sending troops to Afghanistand. Dejavu? You bet.

Lol, yeah it was starting to bother me that every time Bush whistled, Tony Blair would run in to the room and jump in his lap like a puppy.

[TheEnglishman]

Yeah people over here in Britain feel a similar way about the Prime Minister as well.

[Someone Else]

Aquamarine, on Jun 21 2006, 12:05 PM, said:

Um... I know why Al Gore lost the election. But just as you said, that's a different subject. Now, if somebody was to make a topic about that I could tell you, but no such thing exists...

Well, to tell you the truth I know why he lost, too. But it was still stupid. He was technically supposed to win if I remember BUT ANYHOO

[Platinum Sun]

He was not technically supposed to win. He just cried like a little baby for months on end and swayed the state legislature temporarily until the supreme court finally knocked some sense into him. And furthermore... gah! you guys got me doing it!
I'm going to stop talking now.

[Someone Else]

Please. Gore won most, if not all, the debates. He distanced himself from Clinton too much was part of the reason he lost, though. Only part of it. Gotta get my facts straight.

[Eugine]

Quote

This is ultimately a human problem.

Practically everything we see today is human problems...

Quote

Put your advertizing dollars and political clout into research and give me something I can work with.

The main reason they're advertising is because brilliant minds aren't seeing the problems with global warming, don't you know the main purpose of advertising? To make someone aware of something giving information. When people invest in something, they'll want to get something in return the majority of times. Companies need to see these information to invest hugly.

Quote

Sure we'd like to save the planet if we could, but we'll kill to maintain our oil supply.

THAT'S THE MOST ARROGANT, STUPID STATEMENT I EVER HEARD FROM YOU!
You maybe value the lower class as just other people, but everyone on this earth deserves to live freely, and only God should remove him from the face of the world, not any greedy American wanting to continue with their wasteful life.

[Someone Else]

Keep religion out of it, please.

Eugine, on Jun 21 2006, 05:23 PM, said:

The main reason they're advertising is because brilliant minds aren't seeing the problems with global warming, don't you know the main purpose of advertising? To make someone aware of something giving information. When people invest in something, they'll want to get something in return the majority of times. Companies need to see these information to invest hugly.

Well obviously, advertising isn't working. Give the "companies" the money and tell them what you want, they'll get crackin'. It's as easy as that.

[Platinum Sun]

Wow... I didn't know Eugine got mad. :)

Eugine, you do realize that that was my assesment of our foreign policy and not my philosophy don't you?
I'm part of the majority that disagrees with the president. ("Disagrees" is the nice word for it.) I don't like what we're doing any more than you do. But my opinion, whatever it may be, doesn't carry the significance you seem to assign to it.
I don't think there are hardly any Americans that openly endorse killing. As a matter of fact, anti-war protests are a common sight on the news. And yet, a lot more people were up in arms about gas breaking $3 than about our military exploits. We protested the problem, now we're protesting the solution. Please don't take this the wrong way, because you're right. Some americans are very selfish people that think they own the world.
But just so you know, there's at least one american teenager (one who can't make a difference just yet) that isn't.

[Sea of Time]

Gore won the election. Bush became the president.

The Supreme Court of Justice defied what the American people said, it's as simple as that.

Platinum Sun, not everyone in the U.S. is greedy. Just take the American fans at the World Cup for examples. They are pleading not to be recognized as BushAmericans, greedy pigs bent on taking over the world. Nobody wants to be seen like that.

[Platinum Sun]

That's the last straw SoT! Meet me at the topic called "Al gored" I'll be waiting.

[Sea of Time]

Nothing like some shameless advertising. I think a 'The Next President' topic would be a better idea, because I really want to discuss how I think John McCain would make a great president.

But back to the topic at hand, global warming.

[Someone Else]

Global warming is a crisis all over the planet, because it is global. (just doing my part, SOT)

[Sea of Time]

Thanks, WD. I'm sure pointing out the obvious and adding absolutely nothing to this topic makes you feel better.

[Eugine]

Quote

Well obviously, advertising isn't working. Give the "companies" the money and tell them what you want, they'll get crackin'. It's as easy as that.

Every country is filled with politics, it makes each country go round. No current government in their right mind will pay research organisations billions of dollars without letting the public be "aware" of the "good things" they're doing.
That's the inside truth of advertising.

Also, without advertising many organisations will not be aware of the market available to them and neither will the government know all the prospective buyers.
Advertising is necessary, a commodity in our modern lives for everything.

[Someone Else]

Everybody knows about global warming already, dude. They teach it in schools, you hear it from hippies...

[Eugine]

There's million of markets out for research companies, just knowing something doesn't make someone interested. Those adverts help makes someone interested. They're educated on the ill-effects and also shows why they should try to combat it.

The advertisements and books about global warming caused SoT to become interested in global warming. Do you think without those SoT would have made this topic? He maybe might have, but the possibility is decreased surely. It drives the interest in someone.

I myself have became more interested in global warming because of the advertisments and now want to do something pro bono. The government knows this, and advertisments also help organisations go non-profit driven.

[Someone Else]

NOW I agree with you. That I can understand.

[Mars Djinni]

What I'd love to happen is that the R&D's out there could find a way to minimise the effects, just as a worst-case-scenario. To find out how to make the situation from a bad to a good one. This may sound out of my mind and make you echo out there, "You shouldn't have posted, MD, that was so dang stupid!", but if there are hydrogen powered cars, then with the massive growth in water level, make the fission plants separate water molecules. This could decrease water from dangerous to moderate levels, and provide fuel for hydrogen cars. And if it continues on into the far future, mini-fission in the engines of cars can lead to water as a fuel for cars.

[Platinum Sun]

Sorry to break this to you. But you're right. That was dang stupid. You can't just do fission if you want to. You know why nuclear reactors and particle accelerators are so huge? Because fission is reeeeealy difficult to do.
Plus, you can't do fission with water. It's too stable and dosn't release any energy when broken up. (which is done by electrolysis, not fission BTW) And I know we have a reputation as great consumers, but there's no way we could suck enough water out of the ocean to make any kind of difference. Having a panic button is a good idea, just not this particular button.

[Aquamarine]

Platinum Sun is the most realistic guy here. I don't like your idea, PS, of saying that there is no way to do this and that because it's too expensive and would take too long to make/do, but that's exactly how all people, and all governments, around the world think. Even though I said there is nothing we can do, and I still stand by what I've said, I wish people would try something and would not be so greedy.

[Sea of Time]

Let's face it, if it costs money, governments are unwilling to do it. The Kyoto Protocol was a big step in stopping global warming, but it was not the only step. And some countries, like the United States, have yet to even take that first step. It's a bleak future if what is today remains the same.

[Platinum Sun]

That's pretty much it. I know it sounds pessimistic. But Aqua has me pegged, I'm a realist. Any feasable solution to global warming requires us to overcome human nature on a massive scale. That kind of change will require nothing short of a miracle. I hope the children whose future we ruined can understand that when circumstances force them to do so.

[Eugine]

Nuclear energy failed because of the premature release to the world. Many scientists were not able to comprehend the substantial power it posessed. They also were not able to harbour this technology meaningfully.
Eventually, fission was giving a bad name because of the harmful radiation released and the illeffects. Surely if fission was researched more extensive before public release we would have seen tremendous power from it.

In the distant future, I see antimatter being used to power the world, antimatter is the most powerful substance on the earth and is very dangerous since it annihilates matter. Everything on earth is matter, so keep-safing antimatter is very risky, it must always be suspended in air by the use of magnetic fields.
Antimatter will not be used commericially because of the danger, but highly guarded government agencies can use the technology to power cities since it releases 30 times the amount of energy to nuclear matter of same mass.
This may be used to combat global warming since it produces no radiation or pollutants to the environment; well, known to man.

[Platinum Sun]

It has potential. But we have yet to actually create antimatter sucessfully. There are natural radioisotopes with positron decay modes, but positrons move at near-light speed so they're hard to control, and posess infintessimal mass, so they don't make much energy. Bottom line, antimatter is at least 80 years off.

[Eugine]

Hence why I said distant future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Ar...cial_production
Read down here, it explains some information on the production.

[Sea of Time]

But, how does antimatter help us right now? If it's so far into the future, do we really have that much time to wait?

[Platinum Sun]

That's the thing, it dosn't.

[FlamingDuck]

Is there really mush we can do about global warming? Besides hoping a praying? Because in the 60s-70s, weren't people worried about global cooling? I mean, even if certain countries weren't so pigheaded(us), would it make a difference? Maybe its gone too far already, and we're just stuck waiting for it. As I understand, global warming is sunlight getting trapped bouncing back and forth between greenhouse gasses and the Earth's surface. So, once you've created enough greenhouse gasses, you can't really do anything except sit there and watch it all happen. Unless there is a way to disolve greenhouse gasses. Is there? I don't know. As for antimatter, I heard you could create it by flipping enough matter through a particle accelarator. I have no idea if that is true or not.

[Platinum Sun]

Destroying greenhouse gases can be easily accomplished while staying well with in the bounds of non atomic physics. Everyove says greenhouse gases, but of all the compunds that fall under that umbrella, about 95% is carbon dioxide. There is a simple way to get rid of it. Plants. Plants turn carbon dioxide into oxygen and sugar. All we need is more trees, but that's not as easy as it sounds.

[TheEnglishman]

I guess it would be difficult, especially with issues like deforestation. The more people know about the more chance there is to improve the situation. Then again, as I've said before, people aren't willing to change.

[Platinum Sun]

There is no quick fix for this. We have to be prepared for a long and difficult journey. (Through the jungles of Antarctica. <_< )

[Golden Legacy]

There are always these amazing figures you read, like if every household in the US installed just one flourescent light to replace typical light bulbs, the effects would be equivalent of removing three million cars off the streets.

See what it takes? A few dollars, a few minutes out of one's time. The effect is insurmountable.

The other issue is that other nations are beginning to be just as energy demanding as the Western nations (China, India, etc.)

[Toasty]

I'd like to introduce you all to my good friend, there's no global warming. It's a fact people. Every 8 years or so, the earth tilts slightly on it's axis, away from it's normal angle. This causes the world to experience either slightly increased temperature, or slightly decreased temperature, depending on which direction it tilts. This causes scientists to think that either global warming, or global freezing is going to occur in a set number of years. Now this time, they think there's going to be global warming. Afew years ago, it was global freezing. A few years before that, they thought we were going to melt. A few years before that, we were going into the next ice age. It's true that carbon monoxide/dioxide/whatever is causing a "green house effect," and that does increase the rate that the world warms up, but in a few more years, the earth will tilt back to it's normal position, and then past that, and the world will cool down. It's a fact that most scientists disregard. But it's fact people. We may eventually begin to feel the effects of global warming, but definately not as soon as scientists predict.

[My Best Wishes]

Do you have any facts or sources for that? Ever since primary school I've heard of global warming and no one has told me anything to oppose that.

[Platinum Sun]

Mr.T, on Aug 10 2006, 01:55 AM, said:

I'd like to introduce you all to my good friend, there's no global warming. It's a fact people. Every 8 years or so, the earth tilts slightly on it's axis, away from it's normal angle. This causes the world to experience either slightly increased temperature, or slightly decreased temperature, depending on which direction it tilts.

That isn't possible. The earth's axis wouldn't heat up the whole planet if it shifted by 90 Degrees. If that really was happening, one hemisphere would get colder and one would get warmer. Scientists are acutely aware of the angle of Earth's axis. (23.334 Degrees) And you can be sure that they would all totally freak if the angle changed.
Tell me this:
If Global warming is caused by the tilt of the planet, why are both polar caps melting?

[Toasty]

I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer. One hemisphere is getting warmer, the other is cooling. For instance, Mexico got snow if I remember right, and England has been experiencing higher temperatures.

I'll post the article that was in the newspaper a few days ago once I get home. I don't have it with me now.

And I also mentioned that global warming is real to an extent, just not as much as scientists say. So don't expect to melt anytime soon, or anytime as soon as scientists are suggesting.

[Golden Legacy]

The point is, it matters how much we're affecting the Earth's climate. Even if the Earth does fluctuate through periods of warming and cooling, that means that with each cycle, the effects become more and more prominent and widespread.

[Platinum Sun]

Yeah, If you ever look at a CoT graph of Earth's temperature over the last 500 million years or so, you notice that it fluctuates quite randomly. Until the 1800's that is. That's when we figured out burning coal was a good idea. At and after that time, there is a steady rise in temperature that looks nothing like the rest of the graph.

[Toasty]

Mabey, but the earth isn't 500million years old. It's about 10,000.

[Platinum Sun]

You can't incorporate religious beliefs into a discussion of scientific research. You're welcome to believe that crap in your own time, but for the purposes of this discussion you must at least act like you have a logical bone in your body and accept the fact the the Earth is 4.3 Billon years old.

[Toasty]

And the way they estimate the age of the world is very inaccurate. It's based on radioactive decay, which fluxuates, and isn't steady. Yes, my estimation is religious based, but if you believe that humans were around in the beginning, then it's just as accurate.

[Platinum Sun]

I hope you're good at sports, because you are totally going to fail any science you get near. Radioactive decay is always constant in all conditions, that's why it's used. My hole freaking point is based on the fact that, before humans, the temperature was random, now it's going up.
Look, you can believe that 1+1 equals goat if you want to, just don't use it as an argument in a scientific discussion. You must at least entertain the idea of the scientific definition of the truth. Religion is fine, but, back here in reality, the physical world follows the laws set forth by science.

[Toasty]

First off, I'm good at science, I just don't believe everything it teaches. It's my second best subject behind math. And second off no, radioactive decay isn't always constant. It can change depending on environment and interaction with different chemicals, and there's a lot of that outside of controlled environments. It's only eternally constant in th lab. Finaly, religion IS reality. Just because you don't believe in any religion doesn't give any right to denounce it. Science itself is a religion, if you didn't know. I'll stick by everything I've said here, because it's all true.

[Platinum Sun]

It feels like I've gotten dumber from just reading that. Radioactive decay is not affacted by any chemicals or outside conditions, chemical and nuclear reactions are totally different. It is only eternally constant in this entire universe. Science is not a religion, it's based on fact and can be proven true by experimentation. Religion is ancient conjecture that is held together by the mere difficulty of proving it wrong due to lack of objective historical records. I have every right to debunk religion in a scientific context because the claims of religion can't be proven and in no way relate to reality.

[Toasty]

I don't think it was possible for you to become any dumber in the first place. :rolleyes:

http://www.epm.org/a.../evolution.html Read it, and quit acting like you think you know everything.

[Platinum Sun]

Oh yeah, I'm such a hack for believing what I learned in science class when I could've been listening to Eternal Perspective Ministries. :rolleyes: This is a church site. It's the job of a church to get people to believe in unprovable crap. Try this one. go to the section about radioactive decay. You'll find this:

Wiki said:

The radiometric decay rates used in dating are totally reliable. They are one of the safest bets in all of science as concluded by Dr. Hovind.

[Toasty]

Quote

7. The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions.
Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

Quote

Radioactive decay is the set of various processes by which unstable atomic nuclei emit subatomic particles (radiation). Decay is said to occur in the parent nucleus and produces a daughter nucleus. This is a random process, i.e. it is impossible to predict the decay of individual atoms.

You should've read those. The way they determine the age of the earth isn't reliable. And your article supports it. Your quote says "safest bets." That doesn't sound like it's toatally reliable to me. And religious people, like on that ministry site, don't just say things to get people to believe what they want. The statement says that radiometric decay isn't entirely reliable, AND SO DOES YOURS.

Quit trying to say people are lying when your finds support theirs.

[Platinum Sun]

Perhaps you should've read mine what part of "TOTALLY RELIABLE" did you miss?

[Joshua Johnson]

I fear that we're all doomed... But be optimistic about it. So I guess all we can hope for if we don't do anything is to pray (or wait if you have no religion or something else) that scientists will find a way to restore what's been decaying over the years...

[Toasty]

Quote

Radioactive decay is the set of various processes by which unstable atomic nuclei emit subatomic particles (radiation). Decay is said to occur in the parent nucleus and produces a daughter nucleus. This is a random process, i.e. it is impossible to predict the decay of individual atoms.

Read it PS, it was in your article. And your quote doesn't say anything about it being totally reliable. And yes, I read your article, it's true, and it supports my argument.

[Platinum Sun]

We don't need to predict the decay of individual atoms! That's why we take samples of incalcuable septillions of atoms. Everything at the atomic level is a random process. That's the whole theory behind quantum physics. Come back when you have a quote that's not meaningless.

[Toasty]

Exactly, random. Not consitent, random.

[Platinum Sun]

Do you have any idea what I just said? Read it again and try not to hurt yourself. I would type slower if I thought it would help you understand. Everthing that has to do with atoms in unpredictable, and everything that has to do with large groups of atoms is predictable. That's quantum physics vs regular physics. The fact that an object's molecules act in a random manner has no effect on it's macrocosmic (that means big) properties. Just as it's coherant Macrocosmic properties have no effect on the chaos that takes place within it's microcosmic (That means small.) dimensions.
Maybe I'm not simplifying this enough. If you flip a coin 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
times, the number of heads and tails will be at or really close to 50/50. Since we have very large numbers of atoms per sample, the accuracy of the macrocosm balances out.

[Toasty]

It's scopic, not cosmic, and I know what it means dumbass. I'm not as dumb as you look. It's not as simple as fliping a stupid coin. There's more than just two outcomes. Sure, there will be a general outcome that occurs most often, but that doesn't excuse the fact that the individual atoms are deteriorating at entirely different rates. No matter how much you generalize it, they will always be random, and therefore, inacurate. You don't have to have a phd to know that.

Quote

(Note that although these are constants, they are associated with statistically random behavior of substances, and predictions using these constants are less accurate for small number of atoms. Otherwise, The radiometric decay rates used in dating are totally reliable. They are one of the safest bets in all of science as concluded by

Do you see that? Bets. That's what it says. It means that it's the most accurate that they've found, but IT'S NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE. You are so oblivious (that means you don't pay attention to them) to some things that it drives me insane.

Now if you're done trying to act smart, I have to go eat (that means consume) dinner.

[Platinum Sun]

Some more light reading for you.

Quote

The process of radioactive decay is spontaneous and the time when any particular atom will decay is not known. However, when large numbers of radioactive atoms are present, the fraction of atoms that will decay in a given time span (the decay rate) can be specified. A quantity that uniquely identifies the rate of decay is the half-life of the radionuclide. This is the time required for one-half of the atoms present to decay. The half-life is a useful measure because no two radionuclides have exactly the same half-life. Also, the half-life is unaffected by the chemical or physical environment of the atom.

Less accurate for "SMALL NUMBERS OF ATOMS" do you have any idea how tiny a sample has to be for there to be any less than an unimaginable number of atoms? So long as you have a large sample, (Meaning larger than the tip of a pin) the end result will conform to the constant.

I could stay up all night saying the same thing over and over again, but I have a college visit in the morning and I don't like to match wits with unarmed opponents late at night.

[Toasty]

You're referring to yourself as the opponent right?

I already read that. And I could say the same to you over and over again and you'll still be so set on believing your own stupid shiz that I doubt any college would dream of accepting you.

The fact is, I'm right, you're wrong. Radioative decay isn't always constant. You'll find that in every real and true article you can find about it.

[My Best Wishes]

Platinum Sun, on Aug 15 2006, 10:11 AM, said:

but for the purposes of this discussion you must at least act like you have a logical bone in your body and accept the fact the the Earth is 4.3 Billon years old.

Oh please, if the Earth has been around 4.3 BILLION years I think things would be a lot more advanced. How many more disaters would have occured? Tetonic plate movement, typhoons, tidal waves, earthquakes, volcanos, and crap from out of space.

Platinum Sun, on Aug 15 2006, 12:45 PM, said:

Science is not a religion, it's based on fact and can be proven true by experimentation. Religion is ancient conjecture that is held together by the mere difficulty of proving it wrong due to lack of objective historical records. I have every right to debunk religion in a scientific context because the claims of religion can't be proven and in no way relate to reality.

Please. Do you know have many people have charted the movement of people in the middle east, and in the America's. There is evidence of a vast population of people moving, ruins, texts saying where stuff should be, and oh shock! It's actually there.

Not to turn this into a topic about religion though.
I do side with PL a bit, Mr.T, I don't think that global warming doesn't exist.

[Eugine]

HMM. I'm not sure who to side with, but in a graph I'm looking at the pattern did change, but we'll have to wait a few more decades to see if it's really abnormal I guess.

[Toasty]

I'll just add one more thing before I quit making PS look like an idiot. If the earth was so old, why hasn't the sun gone super nova and destroyed us? HUH? And If you can explain why, then explain how organisms existed that long ago with normal breezes being 100mph? That's how fast they would be going, judging on the rate that the earth is slowing down. Now that can't be ignored.

And watch, I understand why you side with PS, but for the sake of the argument, I ended with saying that global warming is real, but not to such an extent as scientists say.

[Platinum Sun]

1. The sun's estimated lifespan is 10 billion years.
2. Organisms did not exist that long ago. Unicellular life first appeared around 3 Billion years ago, no multicellular life until about 1 Billion years ago.

Keep attacking. Science is much easier to defend than whatever it is you've got.

[Toasty]

Yeah, except for the fact that science tends to come back and hit itself in the stomach.

Dude, that's how fast the winds would have been moving at 10 million years ago or less. And again, unless you believe that aliens exist, life would have had to be there from the begining, you can't have living things come from non living things.

[Someone Else]

That's just your own view, this is like the chicken-egg discussion now.

[Toasty]

No WD, life would have to be there from the beginning, or placed there by someone or something. Life absolutely cannot come from non living things. Living organisms, according to science, can't just appear out of nothingness.

[Someone Else]

Unfortunately I'm not terribly educated in the subject of how life began (schools aren't funded enough in my area! Agh!!) and I'm probably going to embarrass myself but what was that bit about the Big Bang?

[Toasty]

Some schools don't teach that because of religious vs. non religious reasons. But basically, the theory of the "Big Bang," was that a long time ago in space, before anything ever existed, that two EXTREMELY dense molecules just happend to bump into eachother, and began to start spinning around together, going faster and faster, and eventually, imploded and brought about what is the universe as we see it now. Including life, planets, and all the elements that make them up. But what proves that wrong, is that those molecules weren't living, and supposedly, life was made because they imploded. On top of that, because they were spinning, that is also supposed to be why planets rotate, and if that was true, ALL planets would rotate in the same direction, but one of Jupiters moons rotate backwards.

[Someone Else]

Mr.T, on Aug 16 2006, 03:40 PM, said:

Some schools don't teach that because of religious vs. non religious reasons.

Hmm, that explains alot of things.

Anyway, I'll hear both sides of the issue (PS) before I decide what to believe.

[Toasty]

Fair enough.

[Platinum Sun]

It would appear that leaves the floor open to me.

Mr.T, on Aug 16 2006, 04:15 PM, said:

Yeah, except for the fact that science tends to come back and hit itself in the stomach.

Dude, that's how fast the winds would have been moving at 10 million years ago or less. And again, unless you believe that aliens exist, life would have had to be there from the begining, you can't have living things come from non living things.

Ten million years ago we had a 23hour-59.5 minute day. That's hardly enough to whip up hurricane-force winds on a global scale.

True. The theory of spontaneous gneneration was disproven by Pasteur. Life has to come from somewhere. However, amino acids, proteins, and simple sugars can spontaneously generate if given eons to do so. The theory is that comets laced with simple sugars smashed into Earth and combined with the other spontaneous organic compounds to form life.

And the big bang is the origin theory of the universe, not life.

[Toasty]

But, that still says that life came from non living material, or that living material was already there. As far as I know, the sugar I ate with breakfast this morning didn't jump up and start tap dancing.

And the big bang theory is still disproven due to Jupiters moon rotating backwards.

[Platinum Sun]

That's because the sugar in your cereal bowl wasn't hit by a comet. That's what the theory says about the generation of life. It was the impact of the comet that provided the park to ignite life.

[Toasty]

Oh, so if I hit it with a comet, it will jump alive and start swimming through my cereal bowl?

And why the heck would hiting something make it come alive? I know that if I keep on pounding on a mound of dirt, that it won't all the sudden jump up and start hitting me back.

[Platinum Sun]

That's the key difference between your theory and mine. Life didn't snap into existance in that instant to look exactly as it does today. What the comet's impact created was essentially a puddle of goop. (Pirmodial ooze is the fancy term people like to use.) This soup was a cauldron of organic reactions, but no life just yet. The reactions competed with eachother within the ooze, the winning reactions continued, the losing reactions ceased. That's how we got the winning combination of reactions that produced the first cell. It took 2 Billion more years before two cells figured out that they could stick together and protect eachother, creating multicellular life. With the next billion years, the theory of evolution leads us to today.

And comets don't just hit stuff, they explode with enough heat and electrical discharge to force compounds together.

[Toasty]

Except for the fact that that still is saying that life came from non living material.

And the theory of evolution still isn't proven. For it to be proven, they have to find all of the millions of missing links. And any of the ones that they claim to have found now, were thrown together using a pigs jaw, and a monkey's head. On top of that, the only thing we've noticed over the years so far, is devolution, for instance, a bat in a cave, they might not have eyes because they devolved to live in the dark. We would have at least seen small examples ov evolution over the hundreds of years that have been documented in text.

[Platinum Sun]

Life can come from organic junk that's just laying around. However it takes a comet and several billion years, so it's easier to say that it can't.

True, the theory of evolution lacks some critical hard evidence due to the incredibly rare circumstances needed to create fossils, and tectonic activity destroying them, but it's still more plausible (and easier to prove) than: "God snapped his fingers and stuff became the way it is now instantly."

In some cases, losing an organ or the use of one is actually an advantage. Eyes use a lot of valuable protien and optic nerves use up nerve fibers. If the eyes were underdeveloped, or absent, in a bat, that bat would be stronger and smarter just because it had more raw materials to work with while it was developing in the womb. Natural selection says that the new mutant strain of bat beats all the others and had lots more offspring. Add time and voila, blind bats.

[Toasty]

Evolution means to advance, and the theory is that over time, organisms became more advanced, and therefore, developed more advanced organs, not losing them.

And the Christian religion says that god created the earth in 6 days, and on the seventh, he rested. He didn't just snap his fingers and everything came to be.

It may also be easier to say that it can't happen, life coming to be over several billion years, but organic material is stuff that came from living organisms, but has since died, which means that living material must have already been there.

[Platinum Sun]

"To advance" isn't the best definition of evolution. Whatever trait favors the survival of an organism (be it advancement or regression) will become most prevalent. It just so happens that survival tended to favor more advanced organisms for the most part. The useless organs that we use as evidence of evolution are mostly the result of this.

6 days is immaterial compared to billions of years. If the Earth was indeed populated with life in only a few days, we could dig down into the ground and find the layer where creation took place. Above the layer would be fossils of fully evolved life, below it would be nothing. What archaeologists actually find when digging though, is progressively lower orders of live as they dig in older and older soil, leading to evolution, the most viable explanation.

The term organic just means that the compound has carbon in it. I can create organic compunds form non organic materials in a test tube. I have actually, we did it in lab last year. We just didn't have a few billion years to let our slurry incubate and turn into life. All you have to do to create an organic compund is bond something to a Carbon atom. Life is the easiest and most common way of doing this, but not the only way.

[Toasty]

First off, scientists are always finding new uses that the seemingly "useless" are used for. None are useless, some we just havn't found a use for, yet.

But you see, earth has been around for 10,000 years according to my religion, and if the way scientists aproximate the age of rocks is innacurate, which it is, then things may happen a little bit faster than you think, there fore building up layers in the earth faster. Scientists predicted that it would take 10 times as long as it did for the area around Mt. St. Hellens to conitain lush green fields again, which means that it is possible that things in the past happened faster than we think.

Okay, so it does. That still means that your theory says that life came from non living material.

[Platinum Sun]

Of course uses can be found. They are only useless now, at one poind in the organism's evolutionary history the had a use.

Mr.T, on Aug 16 2006, 05:51 PM, said:

Scientists predicted that it would take 10 times as long as it did for the area around Mt. St. Hellens to conitain lush green fields again, which means that it is possible that things in the past happened faster than we think.

You can't compare those two. Ecological recovery and the genisis of life are somewhat different in their fundamentals, don't you think? ^_^

Even if our dates are wrong, there is no genisis layer where instant life just sprung up. If your theory about the 10,000 year-old Earth is correct, then humans and dinosaurs would've coexisted since humans were around 10,000 years ago. That means there shouls be human and dinosaur fossils in the same layers of dirt. There aren't. Human and dinosaur fossils are always several yards apart. And the dinosaurs had to die some how or they would be here today. Why didn't the disaster that destroyed them affect humans. (If you say "divine will" I'll punch you.)And why is there no mention of microbes or dinosaurs in the bible anyway?

And your theory says life came from absolutely nothing! In my book, nothing counts as non-life.

[Toasty]

My thoery cannot be compared to yours. Mine doesn't have to do with scientific explanation of things that didn't happen.

And proof that dinosaurs did co-exist with humans is in Texas. There's dinosaur footprints right next to human footprints. The bible also states that Adam and Eve lived with animals, and according to the bible, and some assumptions about it, dinosaurs were killed in the great flood, while Noah and his family survived with animals on the Ark.

And I'm not comparing those two, I'm comparing Mount Saint Helens to the economic development of earth, not life.

[Platinum Sun]

Mr.T, on Aug 16 2006, 06:47 PM, said:

My thoery cannot be compared to yours. Mine doesn't have to do with scientific explanation of things that didn't happen.

As compared to your made-up explanation of things that didn't happen.

Quote

And proof that dinosaurs did co-exist with humans is in Texas. There's dinosaur footprints right next to human footprints.

An article would be nice, and there's no way to prove that they were left at the same time because there's no way to know when a footprint was left for sure.

Quote

The bible also states that Adam and Eve lived with animals, and according to the bible, and some assumptions about it, dinosaurs were killed in the great flood, while Noah and his family survived with animals on the Ark.

Assumptions based on the bible, there's a rock solid base of credibility. Even if this was so, there's no evidence of the entire Earth flooding at the time of the dinosaurs' demise or at any other time in history. Not to mention that a world-wide flood is impossible. If both polar caps melted and all the water precipitated from the air, no more than 30% of the Earth's landmass would be flooded.

Quote

And I'm not comparing those two, I'm comparing Mount Saint Helens to the economic development of earth, not life.

Bwahahahahahaaa! You almost had credibility before you use the phrase "economic development."

Assuming that you meant ecological development:

What I meant was that you can't say that scientists were wrong about Mt Saint Helens, they must be wrong about the origins of life. Everyone gets stuff wrong sometimes, perhaps even your precious Bible.

[Eugine]

There are experiments which proved that Genesis was infact correct, but many scientists are just ignorant about the Bible. Their only aim is to disprove it rather than approve it, mainly to make science the new God.

[Golden Legacy]

And likewise, the devout faithful refuse to accept that science has its own fundamental logic and flow, and denounce science as being a flawed argument, at its very basic.

[Toasty]

Platinum Sun, on Aug 20 2006, 07:00 PM, said:

As compared to your made-up explanation of things that didn't happen.



An article would be nice, and there's no way to prove that they were left at the same time because there's no way to know when a footprint was left for sure.



Assumptions based on the bible, there's a rock solid base of credibility. Even if this was so, there's no evidence of the entire Earth flooding at the time of the dinosaurs' demise or at any other time in history. Not to mention that a world-wide flood is impossible. If both polar caps melted and all the water precipitated from the air, no more than 30% of the Earth's landmass would be flooded.



Bwahahahahahaaa! You almost had credibility before you use the phrase "economic development."

Assuming that you meant ecological development:

What I meant was that you can't say that scientists were wrong about Mt Saint Helens, they must be wrong about the origins of life. Everyone gets stuff wrong sometimes, perhaps even your precious Bible.

You just don't get it, do you? B) I've disproved all of your theories three times over, yet you still decide to believe your disproved theories. Tell you what, when something comes along that proves the bible entirely correct, without doubt, then you quit believeing your stupid theories. Oh wait, IT HAS. The bible predicted the war between Israel and Palestine, and guess what? It happened. And just to let you all know, the different versions of the bible, say the same thing. For instance, the King James Version. Instead of saying you and the, it says thee and thou. Now if you want to continue with your nonsense, go ahead, just quit making a fool of yourself.
And also, I've been going over this argument of ours witha friend of mine who's ten years old. He has even been able to disprove your theories, and finds most of them, rediculously funny. :D

[Platinum Sun]

Mr.T, on Aug 21 2006, 01:16 AM, said:

You just don't get it, do you? B) I've disproved all of your theories three times over.

Refresh my memory, I don't remember that happening...

Maybe because it didn't happen!

Quote

Tell you what, when something comes along that proves the bible entirely correct, without doubt, then you quit believeing your stupid theories.

Bring it. My real proof will wipe the floor with your hypothetical proof's sorry face!

Quote

Oh wait, IT HAS. The bible predicted the war between Israel and Palestine, and guess what? It happened. And just to let you all know, the different versions of the bible, say the same thing. For instance, the King James Version. Instead of saying you and the, it says thee and thou.

Any idiot can predict wars in the middle east. That's where war came from. There will always be something to fight about in Palestine as long as there is greed. And believe me, greed isn't going anywhere.

Quote

Now if you want to continue with your nonsense, go ahead, just quit making a fool of yourself.

I would say the same to you, but please continue. Your nonsense is very entertaining.

Quote

And also, I've been going over this argument of ours witha friend of mine who's ten years old. He has even been able to disprove your theories, and finds most of them, rediculously funny. :D

And I know a college anthropology professor that finds your ideas rather amusing.
There are a lot of people on both sides of this argument. (Although you may not have picked, or been, the best random sample) Having the agreement of your little ace in the hole history expert means nothing.

[Toasty]

Platinum Sun, on Aug 21 2006, 09:06 AM, said:

Any idiot can predict wars in the middle east. That's where war came from. There will always be something to fight about in Palestine as long as there is greed. And believe me, greed isn't going anywhere.

Yes, nowadays any idiot could, but this prediction was made 5000 years ago, and predicted (that means said it was going to happen before it happens) to the very day that it started. So yes, I do believe that proves the bible is ture and real.

Quote

Refresh my memory, I don't remember that happening...

Maybe because it didn't happen!

I could quote your points and mine all over again and show you, but that would take too long, and it would be a waste of my time, since you would just toss it all aside without a second thought, in denile.

[Platinum Sun]

I very much doubt that the Bible was that specific. (Because it never is.) If the Bible said "In 5022 years, 8 months and 15 days Israel will declare war." Then it would be significant. However, the Bible speaks in metaphor and overcomplex, repeatedly retranslated rephrased verse that makes very little sense and is incredibly open for interpretation. If you read the Bible looking for something, you'll find it wether it's there or not.

[Eugine]

Quote

makes very little sense

Maybe you're just poor at english <_<

[Golden Legacy]

And as fascinating as your argument about the validity of the Bible is (very interesting to read), remember that this topic is about global warming. <_<

[Aquamarine]

Wow, Toasty and PS really started hating each other in this topic! :( But I must say that I'm on the side of Platinum, the side of science, not on the side of religion, as Toasty is. Yes, that is all I have to say.

[Eugine]

Honestly, I don't know whether I believe the Bible's account on how life came into being, I'm not disproving it... I'm just saying, it's just hard to believe.

[Toasty]

Platinum Sun, on Aug 24 2006, 11:29 AM, said:

I very much doubt that the Bible was that specific. (Because it never is.) If the Bible said "In 5022 years, 8 months and 15 days Israel will declare war." Then it would be significant. However, the Bible speaks in metaphor and overcomplex, repeatedly retranslated rephrased verse that makes very little sense and is incredibly open for interpretation. If you read the Bible looking for something, you'll find it wether it's there or not.

Obviously, you've never read or studied the Christian bible. Otherwise, you wouldn't have said that. You don't know what you're talking about, so don't even pretend you do.

And Aqua, I know you side with science, but I've disproved his theories with science as well. For instance, no matter how he says organisms came to be, it all starts with non living material, which there in itself, disproves the theory. Life can only come from life. In the case of the bible though, God created us. BUT, he is living, so if you believe the christian bible, life (us) came from life (God). I just hope my arguments have convinced people.

[Neon]

We're qickly running out of conventional fuel. The reason we havn't invested in alternatives is because it costs so much and at this point in time conventional fuel is cheaper. However, as it becomes more rare, prices will increase until it is no longer that much cheaper than more eco friendly alternatives and businesses will make the shift.

Something interesting I learnt the other day. America and Australia are the two biggest sources of CO2 emissions, and a large percentage of total CO2 emissions is from the production of concrete.

[Split Infinity]

The father of a friend of mine buys excess oil from a chip company to power his biofuel engine. He's a mad scientist of sorts, his house is full of various gizmos. It's always fun to visit.

[Toasty]

There was an article in our local news paper (I think) a few months ago about a guy who had his deisel engine in his truck converted. He owns a fast food resturaunt, so he fills his secondary (to hold the main fule) 40 gallon tank with the left over cooking oil. He only has to fill his deisel tank up once every few months since you still have to start the engine on deisel. Saves him a LOT of money, and it's healthy for the environment. Right now, the best thing for the environment is to get cheap biofules, like corn on the market, and make it easier to have you engine converted.

Besides that, I still do not believe in global warming.

[Sea of Time]

Mr.T, on Feb 23 2007, 07:39 PM, said:

^that's about what I meant. Well said PS. :D

@SoT: No, I'm saying a vast majority of them are stupid in general, and then on top of that, saying they spend too much time freaking out over global warming. Which, also proven by science, isn't true.

The only reason people believe global warming is true, is because it's gotten media coverage. Fact is, our planet tilts slightly from side to side every few years, resulting in temperature changes of about 1 degree farenhiet. It's been proven by scientists, but it hasn't gotten news coverage because it's not as interesting as a global doomsday crisis.

Sure, CO2 traps heat, and yes, cars and power plants produce a lot of it. But global warming won't become an issue, if it ever does, until much later than the currently specified date. But for now, to those of you who still believe in global warming, invest in hydrogen powered cars,. And push for hydrogen to be harvested from biofuel. It's the most economical, safest, and cleanest way to get it. Trust me, I've done my homework this time.

Okay, took this quote from another topic to bump this one.

First off, the most common argument against global warming is that it is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere go up and down constantly, just because we are at a point near the top doesn't mean it won't go back down. Which is obviously your argument against it.

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/images/raw/fig01.gif

Take a look at the graph. You can see that the CO2 levels are going up and down, but the overall trend says that CO2 levels are going up.

Also, although I don't have a graph to prove it, there is another scary fact about CO2 levels. Although you may base your argument on the "medieval warming period" that happened in the early 13th century, where temperatures went up. But the fact is, CO2 levels have never been over 300 parts per million. Yet today, they stand at over 325 parts per million.

[Platinum Sun]

First of all, he never said that CO2 concentration wasn't going up.

And now onto my opinion:
Yeah, global warming is real. I've heard it a million times before; The Earth is heating up blah blah blah God is punishing us blah blah blah the pyramids were actually built by Sears blah blah blah...

What I take issue with is the fact that everyone says that the polar ice caps will melt and Florida will vanish and the like in ~50 years. If this truly is a global problem, then we have nothing to worry about until at least our granchildren's generation because nothing on a global scale changes that fast. (Short of like... a meteor or whatever.)

[Sea of Time]

The problem may be off in the distance, but nobody is stepping up and doing anything about this. The U.S. has done nothing and they're responsible for 30% of emissions. You can't just say, "We'll deal with that tomorrow" forever.

[Platinum Sun]

Just you watch me! "We'll deal with it tomorrow." Is the perfect philosophy to have at the moment. If we don't waste money on freaking out about global warming now, we can adress the myriad of other society-crippling problems that our world has. (I won't list them because it'll come off as emo whiny facist apocalyptic fear-mongering. Count yourselves lucky, few excersize this restraint.) That way we can build a society that has the resources and organization to adress global warming when it's a more timeframe-realistic threat. (I.E. 2200ish) I mean let's face it, there are plenty of things in this world that are threatening to kill us all right now.

[Sea of Time]

What about China? The problem only gets worse if we wait because now China is producing coal at just as high of a rate as the U.S. To wait until tomorrow is to allow the problem to become exponentially worse. If we do nothing, it won't be 2200 before the world will be a significantly different place.

[Eugine]

Quote

Just you watch me! "We'll deal with it tomorrow." Is the perfect philosophy to have at the moment.

That philosophy honestly doesn't work for global warming. Whether or not global warming is true or not, the changes in our environment has a negative impact on us, so why not try to understand it now, while we still can fix it rather than waiting until it actually becomes a major problem? That's the same philosophy used by many other life threatening situations (eg AIDS, terrorism) and watch how dangerous it's now.
Should we really adapt that philosophy for anything now, when we see what it has done to us negatively already?

[Platinum Sun]

Sea_of_Time, on Feb 26 2007, 05:49 PM, said:

What about China? The problem only gets worse if we wait because now China is producing coal at just as high of a rate as the U.S. To wait until tomorrow is to allow the problem to become exponentially worse. If we do nothing, it won't be 2200 before the world will be a significantly different place.

And just what are we going to do about China? If their emission rates are increasing exponentially then pretty soon our contribution will be immaterial. Then it will be on China's conscience, they won't care. and we'll all be doomed. So not only is this out of our hands, it's still only a problem for people that I will have died to early to know.

@ Eugine
I'm all for understanding. Research into climatology is fine by me. It's wasting time and resources on a threat we don't understand and can't conclusively prove exsists that bothers me.

[Sea of Time]

Did you not look at the graph? That is scientific fact that the CO2 levels are going up in the atmosphere. It's also scientific fact that CO2 holds in the sun's rays. It has been proven and it is happening.

[Platinum Sun]

I know global warming is happening, it's the supposed apocalyptic consquences of it that I've yet to see. (proof that it's not natural would be nice too.)

[Sea of Time]

I'm sure it won't bring about the apocalypse, but it will create a much less favorable environment for generations to come.

[Platinum Sun]

You're really going to need to work on your fearmongering if you're going to be a proponent of global warming.

[Sea of Time]

I figured I'd leave the grunt work to Al Gore. I'm just here to convince a small group of people.

[Toasty]

Sea_of_Time, on Feb 26 2007, 09:32 AM, said:

First off, the most common argument against global warming is that it is the CO2 levels in the atmosphere go up and down constantly, just because we are at a point near the top doesn't mean it won't go back down. Which is obviously your argument against it.

Never said that. I said that CO2 isn't the main cause for this so called "Global Warming."
Now it's a fact that a few years ago, people were freaking out about the next ice age. Before that? Global warming, and yes, they believed CO2 was behind it. Then a little while before that, it was global freezing and so on and so forth.
It's been going on for decades, and the topic changes as quickly as the temperature. Like I said, yeah, CO2 traps heat balh blah blah, but the earth wobbles slightly (which has been proven true), and this wobbleing changes the angle of tilt towards the sun. When everyone was freaking about the next Ice age, the earth was tilting away. Did anyone pay attention to that? No. Again, when people were freaking about global warming, the same thing happened. Everybody blamed it on something other than what it really was. And here we are back at global warming. Again. The suspected culpret is the same, the real cause is still the same, the press is still printing out the same old lies about the whole deal because catastrophes sell more than science. Only this time, we've got Al Gores ugly mug to press it forward, and a whole lot more gullible people to follow him. A lot of people don't even do research on it, just follow along because everyone else is, and don't care to hear any other explanation.

[Alex the Adept]

Global warming is real, it's happening, and nobody's stopping it. We need to work on it.

[Gardna]

We should begin in USA then.

[Shikonaurum]

It's not really "beginning" anywhere, although working on America would really really help.

Whether or not CO2 emissions damage the environment or not, it could always help to reduce emissions of anything, for that matter.

[Toasty]

Alex the Adept, on Mar 18 2007, 09:18 AM, said:

Global warming is real, it's happening, and nobody's stopping it. We need to work on it.

Now here's my point. Exactly how much do you really know about global warming? Are you saying that because you've studied both sides of the argument, or are you just saying that because the majority of people do?

I'm serious. This has been going on for DECADES. It's either been global freezing, or global warming. It's been flip flopping back and forth for ages, and it fits perfectly with the timing of earth's "wobbleing." Like I said, I'll admit that there's a bunch of eccess CO2 in the air, and that CO2 does trap the sun's heat, but the fact that people have been switching between that and the next ice age makes it that much harder to believe. I.E. it's not real.

[Sea of Time]

Decades? Does that explain how the previous record of seven typhoons in Japan was shattered in 2005 with ten? Storms are getting worse, drought is spreading quickly. Sure, things have gone back and forth for many years, but the weather gets worse every day.

100% of scientists say that global warming is a problem. Do you really think that "wobbling" can explain everything happening today?

[Toasty]

Yeah, I do. If global warming is so big and bad, why did it snow in Britain? (it was either there or someplace else, can't remember. But they usually don't get snow). Wobbling causes the earth to tilt either away or towards the sun. Tilting towards the sun causes the majority of the planet to heat up, while a few places get colder. Exactly opposite when earth tilts away.

And I know of scientists who don't believe in global warming, so your little "100% of scientists say global warming is real" isn't true. Now it would be true if they were liberal scientists.

[Sea of Time]

Then explain how, since 1860, twenty of the hottest twenty one years have happened in the last 25 years. And the hottest year of all was 2005. Is the wobbling getting more severe? Because the earth is warming up, bit by bit.

[Toasty]

Show an unbiased article that supports that first. It's kinda hard to believe that, since for the first 4 years I've lived in Moses Lake, the days were all warmer than usual, then for the past 4 years they were a lot colder than normal. The most snow we've ever had in the past decade here in Moses Lake was in 2005. This year, it was really cold, though we barely got any snow.

[FlamingDuck]

The weather has been all sorts of screwed up around here. It varies between 30-70 degrees on a weekly basis. I don't know if global warming is the culprit, because it's been really cold recently. But then again, that changes almost every week. It was 70 degrees last Thursday, and then we got snow on Friday. And it was 40 today, but it is supposed to be 65 tomorrow. It's weird.

If global warming is happening, I don't know that it would happen this noticably. Although apparently the ice age came about in a span of about ten years. That's from tropical to ice age in ten years. Kinda scary. And if global warming is real, we could be getting another ice age, because once one thing happens, like the melting of the ice caps, it starts spiraling and bad things happen.

I've heard a lot of crazy biased information on this, so I'm witholding judgement until I learn more about it.

[Blink]

I am amazed that after Katrina, the United States has made no political movements against Global Warming. I don't know how much more "real" it can get than a mutant hurricane hitting our homes. It was bad levies that destroyed New Orleans, but it certainly wasn't bad levies that created such a monster of a hurricane in the first place.

Toasty, I fear you're being ignorant to the problem. It's not really global warming in a sense of "world gets hotter" but rather, it's global climate change (a phrase I fear will soon become cliched in these debates, though that it's debated I find shocking in itself). The world isn't getting hotter everywhere, it's getting hotter in the atmosphere, and that's screwing up our life on earth. Natural disasters seem to be happening more and more across the planet, between tsunamis and monsoons at the wrong time of the year, heat strokes and drought (like those in Europe) of previously unseen levels (in recorder scientific history), snow storms at the wrong times of the year (not in the summer, but way too early or way too late, and above all, way too strong), it's absolutely everywhere, and it's not going to get better by ignoring it.

It's actually really easy to stop too. I don't know if anyone else has gone through this, but thanks to some power purchase screw ups the old governor of California had, we ended up in a bit of a power drought. Cities got blacked out in order to cut down on power, at random times for unknown lengths, and nobody was standing for it. Then somebody launched an ad campaign: Flex your power. If we worked together, we could conserve enough electricity to stop this kind of stuff from happening across our state. People would simply turn off lights whenever possible, shut down their hottubs so they didn't consume as much power, turn the heating down a few degrees, turn off the TV when they left the room, unplug that second refrigerator in the garage. By limiting their power consumption, even by such a small degree, people were able to really make a difference, and the power outages were gone in less than a month.

We can do that too. We can cut down here and there, make improvements, and use our heads rather than our instincts or emotions. We don't need SUVs, we should instead be looking at cars based on their MPG. We don't need standard bulbs, fluorescents use a third or less energy and output the same amount of light. Even starting up the "Flex your power" campaign again would help tenfold with global warming. We just need to do it together, as a common goal. That's all there is to it, and out here in California, we've found we're able to do that, so I don't doubt we'd be willing to do it again.

[Toasty]

Hurricane Katrina was hardly Mutant. It was strong, stronger than a normal hurricane, but I wouldn't call it mutant. Katrina was also quite a long time ago (a few years). Now name one other hurricane between then and now that caused a considerable amount of damage.

As for the power consumption, if every household replaced their standard lights with the flourescent ones that still fit in normal sockets, we'd put a huge dent in getting rid of CO2, but the problem is, is that it's nearly imposible to do that. That's not to say everyone won't do it, but only a little more than half would at best. You have to keep in mind, few other places besides California (if any) have power consumption problems to the point of blackouts. Therefore, they really have no reason to conserve energy. If they have enough power to keep living like they do, they'll continue living like they do. On a side note, our family shuts everything off when we leave the house, but only to save money.

And Blink, I'm not being ignorant. I simply believe that the climate changes are due to a different force other than "global warming." And I have to say, global warming does have quite an argument, but the whole earth wobbleing thing has been proven and studied for the past few decades. Much, much longer than global warming.

[Platinum Sun]

Global climate change on a moderate scale I'll give you, but Katrina and the recent Tsunami in India are not examples of it. Katrina was a hurricane of above-average strength and nothing more. The only reason that it was so devastating is that New Orleans was built in a hole surrounded by water on three sides. A lot of people died because of their own stupidity. Many remained in their homes to defend their property and ended up drowning or stranded on a roof. Hurricane Rita was in the same category as Katrina, but when the weather report said that it was headed for Texas, they initiated the largest peacetime evacuation in history and guess what? Only a handful of deaths occurred in Texas.

Also, tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, which are geological, not meteorological.

[Sea of Time]

I'd agree that Katrina was not a direct result of global warming, it was the result of a freak coincidence that Katrina would run directly over the hot water in the Gulf of Mexico. However, it should stand as a warning. As water temperatures increase, there is more of a chance of another Katrina in our future.

[Blink]

But why did Katrina run over those waters? The most probable answer would be abstract wind patterns, or changed wind currents/jet streams, which are a definite sign of global warming showing up.

Like I said though, Katrina did not directly cause the damage in New Orleans, it was only partially to blame. But it was not a normal hurricane. That cannot be denied.

[Toasty]

Here's a nice, fat, juicy question for you all. Why wasn't this happening in the 1800's when the earth was hoter than it is now? And furthermore, seeing as we didn't have cars back then, what in god's name made it so hot? Farting cows? Sure. If you can answer that in a way that still supports Global Warming, I'll consider revising my belief.

[Eugine]

hmm. Can I see a reputable source which has this information? (Or even a graph ^^)... The only thing I can find is this and it clearly has different info. Stop making up points to be correct ^___^
Guilty until proven innocent Mr. T! ^-^

[Sea of Time]

I agree, temperature directly correlates with CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and guess what, CO2 levels are higher today than they've ever been. EVER.

[Blink]

Mr.T, on Mar 22 2007, 06:14 PM, said:

Why wasn't this happening in the 1800's when the earth was hoter than it is now?

Actually, it wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Ye..._Comparison.png

Notice how up until now, the highest it's ever been was a 0.1 temperature anomaly (Celsius) increase? It's a 0.4 now.

And if you don't trust Wiki, you can always compile the information again yourself.

Oh, and you can count that as your graph Eugine. :smile:

[Alex the Adept]

Industries that dump air pollutants need to ease up on their business, in my opinion.

[Ironsight]

I have a few things to say about this. First of all: STOP BLAMING IT ON THE U.S!!!. China is the one burning all that coal, go complain to them. Second: two words ICE AGE!. The world goes through natural climate changes all the time, it could just be defrosting itself from the last freeze. Third: Al Gore did'nt make that movie becuase he actually cared about what was happening to the Earth. He's just a attention seeking Doosh who saw he could get some publicity on this subject

[Sea of Time]

Why would he want publicity for an election he won't run in? Why would he not care about something he's gone to Congress about numerous times?

And the U.S. is the problem, Mr. Patriot, since they are responsible for 30% of the world's greenhouse gas pollution. China? Only 12.3%.

[Toasty]

I hope you know how unreliable Wikipedia can be. It's edited by thousands of people, and because of that, means it's not reliable. It's open source, so anyone at anytime could hop in there and change the information (that includes the pictures).

Now here's a little bit of information that gives other reasons for global warming.

Quote

Causes of Change
Known causes or “drivers” of past climate change include:

• Changes in the Earth's orbit: Changes in the shape of the Earth's orbit (or <A href="http://epa.gov/climatechange/glossary.html#Eccentricity">eccentricity) as well as the Earth's tilt and precession affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface. These orbital processes -- which function in cycles of 100,000 (eccentricity), 41,000 (tilt), and 19,000 to 23,000 (precession) years -- are thought to be the most significant drivers of ice ages according to the theory of Mulitin Milankovitch, a Serbian mathematician (1879-1958). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Earth Observatory offers additional information about orbital variations and the Milankovitch Theory.
  
• Changes in the sun's intensity: Changes occurring within (or inside) the sun can affect the intensity of the sunlight that reaches the Earth's surface. The intensity of the sunlight can cause either warming (for stronger solar intensity) or cooling (for weaker solar intensity). According to NASA research, reduced solar activity from the 1400s to the 1700s was likely a key factor in the “Little Ice Age” which resulted in a slight cooling of North America, Europe and probably other areas around the globe. (See additional discussion under The Last 2,000 Years.)
  
• Volcanic eruptions: Volcanoes can affect the climate because they can emit aerosols and carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
  • Aerosol emissions: Volcanic aerosols tend to block sunlight and contribute to short term cooling. Aerosols do not produce long-term change because they leave the atmosphere not long after they are emitted. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the eruption of the Tambora Volcano in Indonesia in 1815 lowered global temperatures by as much as 5ºF and historical accounts in New England describe 1815 as “the year without a summer.”
    
  • Carbon dioxide emissions: Volcanoes also emit carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas, which has a warming effect. For about two-thirds of the last 400 million years, geologic evidence suggests CO2 levels and temperatures were considerably higher than present. One theory is that volcanic eruptions from rapid sea floor spreading elevated CO2 concentrations, enhancing the greenhouse effect and raising temperatures. However, the evidence for this theory is not conclusive and there are alternative explanations for historic CO2 levels (NRC, 2005). While volcanoes may have raised pre-historic CO2 levels and temperatures, according to the USGS Volcano Hazards Program, human activities now emit 150 times as much CO2 as volcanoes (whose emissions are relatively modest compared to some earlier times).

These climate change “drivers” often trigger additional changes or “feedbacks” within the climate system that can amplify or dampen the climate's initial response to them (whether the response is warming or cooling). For example:

• Changes in greenhouse gas concentrations: The heating or cooling of the Earth's surface can cause changes in greenhouse gas concentrations. For example, when global temperatures become warmer, carbon dioxide is released from the oceans. When changes in the Earth's orbit trigger a warm (or interglacial) period, increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide may amplify the warming by enhancing the greenhouse effect. When temperatures become cooler, CO2 enters the ocean and contributes to additional cooling. During at least the last 420,000 years, CO2 levels have tended to track the glacial cycles (IPCC, 2001). That is, during warm interglacial periods, CO2 levels have been high and during cool glacial periods, CO2 levels have been low (see Figure 1).

Take a look at the first two bullets, and then the last bullet. Now I'm well aware of what it says about CO2 emmissions from cars etc., I already read the article. So please, don't be retarded and point out the obvious.

It was taken directly from here.

[Eugine]

Toasy, that quote was totally out of context in relation to your "Why wasn't this happening in the 1800's when the earth was hoter than it is now?" statement.

First of all, there's a graph on that page which has practically the same data as the graph on Wikipedia, just a bit more complex.

Now, those quotes do not indicate that there were not vioilent storms back then, and the decrease in temperature was only temporary, as the graph indicates. Current levels is higher than 1800. The other bullet was unnecessary also, because it says 2/3s of the last 400 million years. Do you know how longggg that was? Was there even life on earth then? And mind you, the earth structure was very different back then (example Central America wasn't connected to South America). This mean, the earth we know now cannot be compared to the old because the whole biology/structure of the earth was different.

Now, for me to believe you, I need some proof from you which says although there was a high level of CO2 in the atmosphere, life was in abundance, because everything I learnt says the contrary. Life only started, according to scientists after that.

[Blink]

Looks like Eugine got most of what I was going to say. Toasty, there's the exact same graph that you just struck down from Wiki, within the very quote you posted. And I might add, I did provide the source of the information on that graph. Sourceless items on Wikipedia are not worth anything, true, but when something is backed up by a reliable internet source like what I posted, you can't just say "Well wiki is unreliable" because that's not Wiki, that's the main source.

Quote

# Present evidence suggests that temperatures at many, but not all, individual locations were higher during the past 25 years than any period of comparable length since A.D. 900. However, uncertainties associated with this statement increase substantially backward in time.

This quote from your own article as well, directly states that of all the years between 900 AD and 2007 AD, the last 25 have been the hottest. These have been the hottest years we have witnessed in scientifically recorded history. We did not have anyone measuring before 900 AD, so it's not going to account for say, the creation of life on earth, or the creation of earth itself, but within all reasonable comparisons for this discussion, this is the hottest we as a species have ever encountered and been aware of. The "uncertainties" it refers to are exactly what I just said: nobody knows for certain how hot it was before we started recording this information.

On top of all that, your list does not, as you claim, give other reasons for Global Warming. It gives all the reasons for climate change in the past. These climate changes, as I have just shown, are nothing compared to what's happened in the last 25 years. There is obviously something different going on here, something new, and something more horribly wrong. If you leave a margin of error when performing a math equation, and you end up with an answer outside of the margin of error, would you expand the margin of error, or try to fix the math problem? We could certainly change the text books to say that we're still doing the right thing, and the world is just being a problem, or, we could admit that we're doing something wrong since things are so far out of balance, and actually try to fix it.

I really don't understand how you can think, when the most solid of facts back up the idea of global warming, that it's not happening. Remember the hole in the ozone layer? We actually fixed that, that was awesome. We decided to cut down on the chemicals we knew were causing problems in the atmosphere, under the United Nations even I think, and everything got better, because we addressed the problem. But even more importantly, we realized something huge: We created the problem in the first place. If we can do that again, and realize that we're the source of Global Warming, and that it does really exist, we can fix it. We just need to get out of denial about it, and so far, it seems to be working. It is spreading, people are finally realizing it, and eventually, we'll all understand it as a threat. I just hope that happens before it becomes too huge of a problem to fix.

[Toasty]

NASA just recently tested the sun. Turns out it's hotter than they thought it was. Go figure.

The meat industry produces more CO2 than cars do. Go figure.

Al-Gore alone uses up twenty times more energy in his house than the average American, and he's the head of everything global warming related. Go figure.

All this info is found by government studies. And NASA held a conference about the sun being hotter than expected at the same time that (nearby as well) Al-Gore testified that the planet has a "fever." The NASA conference wasn't covered. Why? Because there's three things that sell news: Sex, Heros, and end of the world conspiracies.

Here's the article about the sun: http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/929/the...balwarmiqn8.png

The other two were taken from Glenn Beck, who's employed (according to most of you) by the most reliable news network out there. CNN.

[Blink]

Ah, I heard that 20x thing, I'd like to see backup for that, because it's currently just a rumor. There's no citation for it, it makes it's rounds as chain mail, nothing more, unless, of course, you can prove otherwise. Doubtful though.

In fact, you haven't given ANY sources. That "image" of yours has no source, where's it taken from? What's the means of media it was used in? Newspaper? Magazine? Which one? Can you give proof? Because that could just as well be a photoshopped news article, considering there's no author, no company, and no sign of where it's from.

Oh, and, funny that you think the sun is the source. Scientists don't.

Quote

Rush Limbaugh made a similar claim in September 2005, selectively reading on his nationally syndicated radio show from a year-old article to falsely suggest that a 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research found that an increase in solar brightness is the sole cause of global warming. In fact, the article, which appeared in the London Telegraph in July 2004, specifically noted that the study's lead author did not believe increased solar brightness was responsible for the dramatic rise in global temperatures over the past 20 years; according to the parent organization of the group that conducted the study, solar brightness "plays only a minor role in the current global warming."

That's from Media Matters, probably the most reliable of newsources considering how unbiased it is, moreso even than CNN. Huh. Link, it's got some interesting stuff, I didn't read all of it, I just wanted to clear up this sun stuff. I'm sure some of it does disagree with what I've said earlier too, but that's not what we're addressing right now, apparently.

[Toasty]

The image of the article is from Inverstor's Buisness Daily. And I gave sources, I said Glenn Beck stated the other two points, and infact, he did. Just last week. And Blink, if you too a look at my sigs, you'd notice I suck ass at photoshop. I don't even have a good photo editing program to begin with. All my stuff is done on a second rate program that can't even set the background as invisible.

The fact is, is that the sun is much hotter than previously expected. Now read the last three paragraphs of that article, and read them closely. Maybe then you'll understand exactly why I posted it.

As for Al Gore using more energy than everyone else, here you go. Now don't run off on a tangent saying that Fox News isn't reliable, because they weren't the one's who studied it. Tennessee Center for Policy Research did. So there's your proof. It literally took me three seconds on google to find it.

Tennessee Center for Policy Research, on February 26 2007, said:

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Sounds like a hipocrit if you ask me.

[Blink]

Awesome, that's the kind of backup I was looking for. xD

And I wasn't saying you photoshopped it, but it could just as well have been photoshopped by someone else.

The only thing is, saying "Glenn Beck said..." without using a direct quote leads to some problems. You, in these scenarios, interpret what they say based on reading the text, and attempt to regurgitate that information to us. If you misinterpret it though, that can be a problem, which is why it's best to use quotes to back up such things rather than just throwing in someone's name. Then I have proof that it was said, and who said it, making it undeniable as a fact that it was said by ____ person.

Now, back on Global Warming:

The article you posted directly relates to the quote I responded with. Those scientists think (according to that news source) that the Sun is the sole source, and there is no manmade global warming. The quote I posted however, was from a similar test, that also showed the sun increasing in temperature back in 04. However, in this case, the scientist opened up a year later and claimed that his information was in fact, cut down intentionally to be misinterpreted, as to lead people to believe the sun was the sole source of global warming, when in reality, the tests showed it would have been completely insignificant. (also, "Goracle" is a pretty sound way of making your article look biased. xD)

The hypocrite thing isn't surprising. He's a politician, and I don't know if I can respect many politicians as human beings like that, but they certainly can get the facts they want to out in public. I actually know most of my global warming information from Mr. McCullough, my science teacher, who is extremely active in preserving the environment. (He mastered in the subject in college, and he convinced our highschool, as a single teacher, to begin implementing recycling about eight years ago) He is very hands on with the subject, and is willing to take any questions on the subject. He teaches AP Environmental Sciences as well, so from our standpoint as students, he knows far more about the way the world works than we do, I would think. :P

He's also involved now in trying to get our school to cut down on power consumption, and he himself doesn't always respect Gore (especially upon hearing this information about his being such a hypocrite) but he acknowledges the good Gore is doing by bringing this information to light.

But enough about my science teacher! There's one other thing I wanted to bring up, if you want to discuss it. I will not post any backup for it right now, as I don't want to start a new discussion here if you don't want to, but Scientist in the government have recently (as in, since the Congress switch to Democrats, supposedly) started coming out and admitting that their documents were edited by the government before releasing their research on global warming. Whether for or against global warming, this is extremely troubling, and not a good sign for anyone. At the least, this seems to prove that global warming is a controversial issue that should be addressed.

[Toasty]

The article from IBD I posted never said anything about scientists opinion on wheher the sun was the cause or not, but that another institution found a correlation between the earth's temperature and the sun's, while there was no correlation found between industrial factory activity and the temperature of earth. Now my main point is in the second to last paragraph in the IBD article. It states "that even if you shut down factories and powerplants, as Gore reccomends, "there would not be much effect on temperatures." " The quote inside the qoute is from the study conducted by the Hoover institution.

And yes, using the term "Goracle" could make any article look biased. XD But regardless, the information is still fact.

[Eugine]

Anyway,

BBC World is having a climate-watch month. Very interesting. I can't remember exactly now, but some species are being added to the endangered species list because of the rising temperate.

So, even if Global Warming human-induced or natural, it doesn't matter. Right now, trying to minimize it's effects is top priority, rather than wondering whether it's real or not.

[Toasty]

Usually, about this time of year where I live, we start to get 70+ degree weather. Hasn't been any higher than 67 for the past few months. Huh.

[Eugine]

With global warming, the usual hot places become cold, and the usual cold places becomes hot.

Like, they said the equator might receive snow in the future. Can't wait ^__^
Will be dead already though.

[Split Infinity]

Or better yet, we'll have gotten off of our asses and done something. ;)

[Eugine]

Most likely we won't. Especially with countries like China worried about gaining world supremacy, rather than their heritage and environment. Can you believe, they're just letting the Great Wall of China be destroyed by western tourists just to get income, when the whole of China is in uproar over its distruction? That's one thing I dislike about China. They're abandoning their heritage imo.

And, one reason I love Europe is the love for their heritage, history, and the environment. They are the leaders in the fight against climate change.

[Split Infinity]

Australia is playing a huge role in reducing greenhouse gases. We already survived the national water restrictions, so we thought, why not go one better? [/patriotism]

[Saturos S.]

Whoo! I finally saw the movie, documentary whatever.

I thought it was full of bullcrap to shorten the story.

He has a point that we should pollute less. But the way he brings, he's practicly terrorising people into not polluting. The whole movie is basicly: "Storms and other natural disasters will destroy loads." with pieces of "I grew up here, even though my dad was a politian, he milked cows."

As for the Netherlands and pollution, they're willing to cooperate with nearly everything to drop the levels and are one of the most ambitious in Europe with it.

[Mysterious Adept]

The way i see this is that Yea Global Warming can happen, Do i think it's happening now? No. Why? Well if things are as bad as politicians say it is, Why hasn't the oceans risen dramatically? I mean ya we need to cut back on pollution but Global Warming shouldn't be the reason. There are other things than the climate that can be affected by this. Landscape, nature all of the things actually living on this earth have their health affected by this. So i guess my question is If Global warming is such a big problem, then why don't people want to act on it quickly instead of saying it's urgent but doing things so slowly no one knows the difference?

Yes i know i could be uneducated in this debate...if that makes any1 feel better :P

[Sea of Time]

You know, I think that global warming is a problem and everything, but was Live Earth really necessary? It did more hurt than help as far as the problem, and really didn't raise much awareness since the consensus is that it sucked ass (which it did).

[Toasty]

Eugine, on Apr 20 2007, 09:36 PM, said:

With global warming, the usual hot places become cold, and the usual cold places becomes hot.

Like, they said the equator might receive snow in the future. Can't wait ^__^
Will be dead already though.

Global warming means warming globally. The heat is trapped by "greenhouse gasses" and warms up the entire planet.

The one thing that would cause some places to be colder and others to be warmer, is the fact that the earth really does "wobble". It tilts a little bit on it's axis from side to side, causeing warm places to be cold and Vise Versa.

And as for live earth, I scoffed at it as soon as I saw it. If I had the chance, I would've LOVED to make a speach in front of all of those tree huggers about why "global warming" isn't anything near as serious as everyone makes it out to be.

[Eugine]

Well, you're correct. You defined Global warming correct and the greenhouse effect is one reason for global warming... but, that still doesn't prove that I said was wrong.

With global warming, the increase in temperature causes weather patterns to change (it's debated the current El Nino extreme weather is because of global warming for example), and, (although I admit scientists aren't on common grounds) it's believed global warming is the reason for record low in temperature and snow. Example LA had snow last year in about 15 years. Whether it's regional events or a global problem... I don't know. =)
I'll try to see if I can have more data, to show you that temperatures are inverting somehow.

[Aquamarine]

Split Infinity, on Apr 21 2007, 06:54 AM, said:

Australia is playing a huge role in reducing greenhouse gases. We already survived the national water restrictions, so we thought, why not go one better? [/patriotism]

If Australia is so loving of its environment, explain to me why it hasn't ratified the Kyoto Protocol?

Eugine, I completely agree with you. Anyone who refuses to notice that the climate is changing every year(and that Global Warming is obviously the reason) is a ****ing idiot. Whichever part of the world you look at, the climate has changed considerably. Until about three years ago, Serbia used to always have a lot of snow during the winter, and last winter there was none, and that's how it'll be this year too. Only a week ago Serbia saw it's hottest day in over a hundred years, and now it's suddenly quite cool here. A couple of days ago, Greece experienced huge storms and rains, which is unbelievable for this time of year, seeing as Greece is supposed to be extremely dry and hot now. And I'm sure you all know that Italy hasn't had rain in an abnormally long time, while England is drowning beneath the downpour they are experiencing.

[TheEnglishman]

I'd agree that the floods have been pretty extreme, but it isn't the first time that the country has been flooded. You always run the risk if you live on an island. Weather has been pretty great here for the past two weeks though.

[Toasty]

Auqa. I'm gonna laugh when all these climate changes go in the opposite direction in a few years, and then after that, go right back to this. Why? Wobbleing. It's what the earth has been doing for a really, long, time.

You remember when everybody was freaking out about global cooling? I'll bet you all the money I have left that in a few years, everybody will be freaking out about that. The main, if not only reason that people even ackknowledge global warming, is because Al Gore wanted to become famous by telling everybody that there was a relation between the global temperature, and greenhouse gasses. But in a few years, when we've still got a **** load of CO2 in the atmosphere, the temperatures will drop again. Italy will get monsoons, Serbia will be buirried in snow, Greece will become a desert, and the water levels around England won't be anywhere near flood levels.

[Golden Legacy]

Topic revived, renamed, redone - let's bring on the debating.

[Toasty]

I think it'd be a good idea to add another section to the poll asking what we believe is causing it. Basically, whether it's natural and will pass in a few decades, or whether it's being caused by humans and we have to do something about it.

[Golden Legacy]

All taken care of. Poll has been reset everyone.

[Toasty]

http://www.spaceweather.com/images2008/24apr08/midi512_blank.gif

Picture of sun activity in recent days. Taken from here.

As you can see, there is only one very small sunspot in the upper right hand corner. This means that the sun isn't very active right now.

Here's an article that an Australian astronaut (the first Australian to become a NASA astronaut) wrote about his observations.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/global_...4/24/90591.html

What was that about me saying that people were going to start worrying about an iceage again?

Feel free to call it biased or whatever, as I have no idea as to where Newsmax's political standing is.

Anyway, I can't seem to find any prior sun activity measurements on that space weather site, so other than the fact that there is research out there to support the sun activity to global temperature correlation, I can't seem to find any proof on that site.

But I thought the article was interesting. And seeing as it came from a non-American, that has to make it less biased, right? :(

[Gio]

I have read two articles before now that say the exact same thing. I read them in some book in my space flight class at school. So that Australian dude isn't the only person who has come to that conclusion.

[Caael]

I'd rather be in Tropical Britain rather than have another Ice Age.

[Saturos S.]

Quote

Researchers at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science cited a range of evidence that the Earth's temperatures are rising:

-- The Arctic regions are losing ice cover.

-- The populations of whales and walrus that Alaskan Eskimo communities depend on for food are crashing.

-- Fresh water draining from ice and snow on land is decreasing the salinity of far northern oceans.

-- Many species of plankton -- the microscopic plants that form the crucial base of the entire marine food web -- are moving north to escape the warming water on the ocean surface off Greenland and Alaska.

Ice ages come and go over millennia, and for the past 8,000 years, the gradual end of the last ice age has seen a natural increase in worldwide temperatures, all scientists agree. Skeptics have expressed doubt that industrial activity is to blame for world's rapidly rising temperatures.

But records show that for the past 50 years or so, the warming trend has sped up -- due, researchers said, to the atmospheric burden of greenhouse gases produced by everything industrial, from power plants burning fossil fuels to gas-guzzling cars -- and the effects are clear.

"We were stunned by the similarities between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people. And for those who insist that the uncertainties remain too great, their argument is no longer tenable. We've nailed it."

Barnett and other experts marshaled their evidence and presented it to their colleagues for the first time at a symposium here.

For the past 40 years, Barnett said, observations by seaborne instruments have shown that the increased warming has penetrated the oceans of the world - - observations, he said, that have proved identical to computer predictions whose accuracy has been challenged by global-warming skeptics.

The most recent temperature observations, he said, fit those models with extraordinary accuracy.

But a spokesman for the Bush administration -- which has been criticized for not taking global warming seriously -- was unfazed by the latest news.

"Our position has been the same for a long time," said Bill Holbrook, spokesman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "The science of global climate change is uncertain."

"Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet, and especially in the Arctic, " said Ruth Curry, a physical oceanographer at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, "and there is large-scale drying throughout the Northern Hemisphere."

Ice cores drilled deep into the Greenland ice cap show that salinity of the ice at the upper layers of the cores has decreased sharply due to the incursion of fresh water draining from melting snows on the surface, she reported, and land ice and permafrost are in decline all around the Arctic. In the meantime, she said, measurements show that salinity of the ocean waters nearer the equator has increased as the rate of evaporation of warmer tropical and subtropical oceans quickens.

It may take several centuries for all the ice that covers Greenland to melt, Curry said, "but its release of fresh water will make sea-level rise a very significant issue in this century." In fact, she said, changes in the freshwater balance of the oceans has already caused severe drought conditions in America's Western states and many parts of China and other Asian countries.

Already, the physics of increased warming and the changes in ocean circulation that result are strongly affecting the entire ecology of the Arctic regions, according to Sharon L. Smith, an oceanographer and marine biologist at the University of Miami.

Last summer, on an expedition ranging from Alaska's Aleutian islands to the Arctic Ocean above the state's oil-rich North Slope, Smith said she encountered the leading elder of an Eskimo community on Little Diomede island who told her that ice conditions offshore were changing rapidly year by year; that the ice was breaking up and retreating earlier and earlier; and that in the previous year the men of his community were able to kill only 10 walrus for their crucial food supplies, compared to past harvests of 200 or more.

Populations of bowhead whales, which the Eskimo people of Barrow on the North Slope are permitted to hunt, are declining too, Smith said. The organisms essential to the diet of Eider ducks living on St. Lawrence Island have been in rapid decline, while both the plants and ducks have moved 100 miles north to colder climates -- a migration, she said, that obviously was induced by the warming of the waters off the island.

Another piece of evidence Smith cited for the ecological impact of warming in the Arctic emerged in the Bering Sea, where there was a huge die- off in 1997 of a single species of seabirds called short-tailed shearwaters.

Hundreds of thousands of birds died, she said, and the common plankton plants on which they depend totally for food was replaced by inedible plants covered with calcite mineral plates. Those plants thrive in warmer waters and require higher-than-normal levels of carbon dioxide -- the major greenhouse gas -- to reproduce, Smith said. "What more convincing evidence do we need that warming is real?" Smith asked.

Some newsarticle I saved on my pc a few months ago. Reviving this topic for the sake of not ruining the US elections one.