Global Warming

[Solaris]

I was hoping we could have another debate on Global Warming. Lets debate the following three points:


Is the Global Warming phenomena real?
Is it caused by mankind?
What can/should be done to prevent it?Personally, I'm not convinced, whenever I look on the internet for a decent source about it I find sites with a massive agenda and I don't think any of them are free from major bias. What do you people think?

[brink's]

Who knows?

I do think it's a pretty big coincidence that the earth just happens to be heating up at an alarming rate only 100 years or so after the industrial revolution.

But, I'm quite ignorant on the subject. I'll sit back and see what you guys ahve to say.

[Solaris]

Who knows?

I do think it's a pretty big coincidence that the earth just happens to be heating up at an alarming rate 100 years or so after the industrial revolution.

But, I'm quite ignorant on the subject. I'll sit back and see what you guys ahve to say.

This is a pretty amazing coincidence too! (http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg)

[brink's]

You never know.

[Beerdude26]

Holy shit! Everyone get their ass to Sealand D:

I'm sitting Global Warming out, wondering what it will do to our environment. Nothing is of course an option aswell :p

[The Brick]

Who knows?

I do think it's a pretty big coincidence that the earth just happens to be heating up at an alarming rate only 100 years or so after the industrial revolution.

But, I'm quite ignorant on the subject. I'll sit back and see what you guys ahve to say.

That's what the discussion is about I think. Press says "We're gonna die!", science says "in 20.000 years!".

[theotherguy]

Is the Global Warming phenomena real?
Is it caused by mankind?
What can/should be done to prevent it?

1. Yes, and it is accelerating.
2. Yes, in coordination with mild environmental effects.
3. A massive 8-step program involving a complete switch to hydrogen, solar and wind, sequestering of carbon underground, the destruction of old coal powerplants and their replacement with nuclear energy. The stopping of deforestation. The planting of new trees. The sequestering of methane on cow fields and in landfills. A carbon tax. A methane tax. A carbon credit exchange. A methane credit exchange.

Total Time: 50 years.
Total Cost: Over $7 trillion.

Total Time if we do nothing: 150-200 years.
Total Cost of "stay the course":Well over $15 trillion.

[Solaris]

What evidence is there to suggest it is a real phenomena?

[theotherguy]

What evidence is there to suggest it is a real phenomena?

ice core measurements, direct air measurements since the 1970s, melting glaciers, rising sea levels, etc. The data that it is a real phenomena is overwhelming, the general question right now is whether it is mostly human caused or mostly caused by the evirnonment.

[ĐynastҰ]

What evidence is there to suggest it is a real phenomena?

Sorry but ignorance is bliss.

Think of the ozone layer as a blanket over the earth. Thicken the blanket, whats going to happen? It gets warmer. Just like you do when you put more blankets over you when you sleep. You get hotter. Simple science right?

'Oh but where's the evidence?'

Man stfu. Scientists know that the ozone layer is composed of gases that we also just so happen to be pumping out more of. 'Oh but wheres the evidence to show the gases are the same?'. Its not all about gases anyway, its also to do with condension and PRESSURE. Now if you dont believe in those aswell as global warming, you're officially a potato.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/ozonelayer.html

And i doubt the 'world's greatest minds' at NASA are going to lie about stuff like that...

[theotherguy]

Sorry but ignorance is bliss.

Think of the ozone layer as a blanket over the earth. Thicken the blanket, whats going to happen? It gets warmer. Just like you do when you put more blankets over you when you sleep. You get hotter. Simple science right?

'Oh but where's the evidence?'

Man stfu. Scientists know that the ozone layer is composed of gases that we also just so happen to be pumping out more of. 'Oh but wheres the evidence to show the gases are the same?'. Its not all about gases anyway, its also to do with condension and PRESSURE. Now if you dont believe in those aswell as global warming, you're officially a potato.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/ozonelayer.html

And i doubt the 'world's greatest minds' at NASA are going to lie about stuff like that...

global warming has nothing to do with the ozone layer, its about atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. The ozone layer is shrinking, not growing.

[Beerdude26]

global warming has nothing to do with the ozone layer, its about atmospheric greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. The ozone layer is shrinking, not growing.He confused raybeam reflection with raybeam filtering ;)

Yeah, if we do a FULL stop scenario, where EVERYTHING that pollutes just grinds to a halt instantly, the earth would still continue to heat up for a century or two. Only then will the gases start to dissolve and will temperature start to drop. You can argue that volcanoes and other seismic activities easily outdo humans in terms of pollution, but the problem still remains the same: If the earth heats up too much: we're ****ed (or a large part of earth at least). And the question still remains aswell: How the hell are we going to deal with it?

[Solaris]

Sorry but ignorance is bliss.

Think of the ozone layer as a blanket over the earth. Thicken the blanket, whats going to happen? It gets warmer. Just like you do when you put more blankets over you when you sleep. You get hotter. Simple science right?

'Oh but where's the evidence?'

Man stfu. Scientists know that the ozone layer is composed of gases that we also just so happen to be pumping out more of. 'Oh but wheres the evidence to show the gases are the same?'. Its not all about gases anyway, its also to do with condension and PRESSURE. Now if you dont believe in those aswell as global warming, you're officially a potato.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/Ozone/ozonelayer.html

And i doubt the 'world's greatest minds' at NASA are going to lie about stuff like that...
**** you.

I never said global warming didn't exist or anything, I just said I wasn't convinced and didn't know what to believe.

You've given a pretty rubbish analogy and posted a link from Nasa explaining what the Ozone layer is.
You want me to support redirecting 1% of my countries GDP based on that?

[ĐynastҰ]

**** you.

I never said global warming didn't exist or anything, I just said I wasn't convinced and didn't know what to believe.

You've given a pretty rubbish analogy and posted a link from Nasa explaining what the Ozone layer is.
You want me to support redirecting 1% of my countries GDP based on that?

*looks around and suddenly realises you were talking*

Sorry what? I wasnt listening.

[Beerdude26]

*looks around and suddenly realises you were talking*

Sorry what? I wasnt listening.Don't be a child, ty

[DaMaN]

First of all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fcezh2-jO8

And now to answer your questions:

Is the Global Warming phenomena real?
Is it caused by mankind?
What can/should be done to prevent it?
1. Global warming is real. Adding carbon dioxide or methane to Earth's atmosphere makes the planet's surface warmer. If it didn't, the Earth would be uninhabitable. See Wikipedia:
Adding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 ?C (54 ?F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors.
Click here for more on the Greenhouse Effect, first discovered in 1824 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect)


2. Most of observed Global warming is attributable to human activities.

Refer to Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html). This scientific report gives the current concentrations of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, as well as concentrations prior to the Industrial revolution.
Some highlights:
Carbon Dioxide:
Pre-1750 Concentration: 280 ppm
Current Concentration: 377.3 ppm
Methane:
Pre-1750 Concentration: 730/688 ppm
Current Concentration: 1847/1730 ppm
Nitrous Oxide:
Pre-1750 Concentration: 270 ppm
Current Concentration: 319/318
Tropospheric Ozone:
Pre-1750 Concentration: 25 ppm
Current Concentration: 34

For further information on this report, see: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html
Note: Sources, calculations and methods are also contained within the report

For more information about the increase of greenhouses gasses, see Wikipedia's entry on Increase of Greenhouse Gasses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases#Increase_of_greenhouse_gases)

Finally,
As expressed in 2001 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), and recently confirmed by a joint statement of the G8 academies of science, most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/007.htm).

3. We can reduce the impacts of Global Warming by reducing emissions of Greenhouse Gasses. (Either that or dropping huge icecubes into the oceans, or moving the Earth further away from the Sun, neither of which are feasible with today's technology). However, as can be seen by the evidence, it is completely impossible to stop the Earth from warming at least a degree or two in the near future. Too much greenhouse gas has already been thrown into the atmosphere. Taking steps to reduce emissions will not stop Global Warming. Taking steps to reduce emissions will only help curb Global Warming's effects.

[ĐynastҰ]

....what HE said.

[Kadayi]

Although he's a little preachy it's worth checking out Al Gores 'An inconvenient Truth' film, as his presentation on global warming is quite enlightening.

[Hectic Glenn]

**** you.
*looks around and suddenly realises you were talking*

Sorry what? I wasnt listening.
Neither of these comments are welcomed lads, lets act our age eh?

[Zeus]

Real? Yes. Human Caused? No.

[Stigmata]

Real? Yes. Human Caused? No.Any evidence to support your claim?

[Bacons]

It most likely will not happen in our time, but in our childrens time & our grandchildrens time.

[Jerry_111]

I was hoping we could have another debate on Global Warming. Lets debate the following three points:


Is the Global Warming phenomena real?
Is it caused by mankind?
What can/should be done to prevent it?Personally, I'm not convinced, whenever I look on the internet for a decent source about it I find sites with a massive agenda and I don't think any of them are free from major bias. What do you people think?

At least 98% of the world's scientists -- the best and brightest -- state that human beings are acclerating the process of global warming in a bad, bad way.

The other 2%, well..

Who are you going to believe?

By the way, why is global warming such a hotly debated topic? And is anyone actually questioning whether global warming is real or not, a natural process? I think the source of debate is whether humans are ACCELERATING the process or not.

We can't afford to not shell out the extra bucks and make extra sacrifices in order to preserve the environment.

[StardogChampion]

whenever I look on the internet for a decent source about it I find sites with a massive agenda and I don't think any of them are free from major bias.
Then you have to ask why would they lie about this? For fun?

[el Chi]

I was hoping we could have another debate on Global Warming. Lets debate the following three points:


Is the Global Warming phenomena real?
Is it caused by mankind?
What can/should be done to prevent it?Personally, I'm not convinced, whenever I look on the internet for a decent source about it I find sites with a massive agenda and I don't think any of them are free from major bias. What do you people think?
A lot of the research that has concluded that global warming is not a genuine problem and that whatever fluctutations there may or may not be are not caused by man has been conducted or sponsored by major fossil fuel companies like Shell - are you saying that this research does not show a bias?

And even if global warming isn't a real phenomenon then it still makes sense to cut down on our orgiastic use of the planet's finite resources which are already dangerously depleted.

[Sulkdodds]

I was under the impression that ice core measurements provided pretty compelling evidence that the phenomenon was very closely linked to human pollution.

[The Monkey]

Global Warming has already begun, and if we don't act soon hell will break lose.

I will rather trust the scientific opinion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) who says it happens, than a bunch of conservatives without any proof whatsoever.

They say that what we see today is a result of the CO2 pollution 30 years ago, so it will take until 2040 until what we do today starts to take effect (provided that we start fighting it for real today). So from now and 30 years forward, it's only gonna get worse.

[ĐynastҰ]

The real problem is that nobody is willing to act because they will be using/loosing money. I mean, technically speaking we COULD stop the problem tomorrow by shutting everything down. But we wont because of:

-people lose jobs
-anarchy
-riots

the usual crap that happens when people dont get paid. I truly think that economics and politics will determine how long we survive on this planet.

[Beerdude26]

The real problem is that nobody is willing to act because they will be using/loosing money. I mean, technically speaking we COULD stop the problem tomorrow by shutting everything down. But we wont because of:

-people lose jobs
-anarchy
-riots

the usual crap that happens when people dont get paid. I truly think that economics and politics will determine how long we survive on this planet.Too bad that, if it really is going to screw up the planet (or parts of it), millions more may lose their job and even their home. :(

[el Chi]

On the other hand, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions could lose their lives as a direct result of the effects of global warming during our life-time...

[Beerdude26]

On the other hand, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions could lose their lives as a direct result of the effects of global warming during our life-time...Meh, we could use another pandemic so people once again realize how precious our lives and our friends are. Currently everyone keeps murdering and hating everyone, but nature is going to lay the smackdown soon, methinks.

[kirovman]

Stephen Hawking suggests global warming is a very real occurance.

Hopefully he will persuade us to leave this rock and settle on other worlds, again.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1829404.htm

[ĐynastҰ]

On the other hand, many hundreds of thousands, if not millions could lose their lives as a direct result of the effects of global warming during our life-time...

Aye and thats the irony i was trying to put through hehe.

[Kadayi]

And even if global warming isn't a real phenomenon then it still makes sense to cut down on our orgiastic use of the planet's finite resources which are already dangerously depleted.

Agreed. The Oil driven, energy indulgent way of life we have enjoyed in the last century isn't remotely sustainable in the long term. The inherent problem is though that our present world is one that wholly revolves around the notion of transportation and consumption.

An informative film to watch is:-

'The End of Suburbia: Oil Depletion and the Collapse of the American Dream'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446320/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_end_of_suburbia (shortened video version available)

I'd also recommend the series:-

'The century of the self'

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0432232/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Century_of_the_Self (google video available)

Which goes some way to explaining the modern human condition of consumption.

The real problem is that nobody is willing to act because they will be using/loosing money. I mean, technically speaking we COULD stop the problem tomorrow by shutting everything down.

Actually this isn't quite true, the world temperature will still continue to rise even if tomorrow the entire world switched green and all carbon emmisions ceased, because all the pollutants we've already put into the atmosphere haven't played through their cycle on the environment yet. It will take a good two centuries for the world to recover from the damage it's already sustained. Dealing with the environmental issues now, benefits out great grandchildren, not us, we were already damned by our forefathers I'm afraid. It's time for a bit of personal sacrifice for a better future.

[SAJ]

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I am miserably confident that anthropomorphic climate change is real, but....

I want to call bullshit on this concept of a two hundred year carbon cycle, but I'm uncertain as to whether or not the idea is being pulled out of peoples collective asses (so to speak) or if there is a valid scientific basis for such a claim.
If true, it would mean we are only now feeling the effects of extra carbon in the atmosphere from the industrial revolution now, two hundred years later.
So where is this claim coming from? Not picking , just interested.

Its also not as straightforward as stopping emissions now, for results in the future. There is also the matter of acting now in order to prevent tipping points being reached in the future.
An example of a tipping point the we seem to have failed to prevent is the siberian tundra. For hundreds of thousands of years it has kept billions of litres of methane out of the atmosphere. Now the permafrost is melting and releasing its methane, which is -you guessed it- a powerful greenhouse gas. So a small amount of warming can, in turn lead to positive feedback, resulting in a disproportionate rise in greenhouse gases.

Many minor tipping points have been reached already, the real danger in not acting effectively now, is that we will pass some major tipping points (ie artic/antarctic ice caps) soon, effectively pushing greenhouses gases into an unstoppable spiral.

[DaMaN]

Just so there's no misunderstanding, I am miserably confident that anthropomorphic climate change is real, but....

I want to call bullshit on this concept of a two hundred year carbon cycle, but I'm uncertain as to whether or not the idea is being pulled out of peoples collective asses (so to speak) or if there is a valid scientific basis for such a claim.
If true, it would mean we are only now feeling the effects of extra carbon in the atmosphere from the industrial revolution now, two hundred years later.
So where is this claim coming from? Not picking , just interested.

Its also not as straightforward as stopping emissions now, for results in the future. There is also the matter of acting now in order to prevent tipping points being reached in the future.
An example of a tipping point the we seem to have failed to prevent is the siberian tundra. For hundreds of thousands of years it has kept billions of litres of methane out of the atmosphere. Now the permafrost is melting and releasing its methane, which is -you guessed it- a powerful greenhouse gas. So a small amount of warming can, in turn lead to positive feedback, resulting in a disproportionate rise in greenhouse gases.

Many minor tipping points have been reached already, the real danger in not acting effectively now, is that we will pass some major tipping points (ie artic/antarctic ice caps) soon, effectively pushing greenhouses gases into an unstoppable spiral.
200 years of greenhouse gas goodness: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html

[SAJ]

Thanks DaMaN, from that table we get ... carbon dioxide (CO2)
Pre-1750 concentration1 =280 ppm
Current2tropospheric concentration = 377.3 ppm


Atmospheric lifetime (years) (4) = variable

4 - The atmospheric lifetime is defined as: "the burden (Tg) divided by the mean global sink (Tg/yr) for a gas in a steady state (i.e., with unchanging burden)" (IPCC 2001, page 247). That is, if the atmospheric burden of gas x is 100 Tg, and the mean global sink is currently 10 Tg/yr, the lifetime is 10 years. The atmospheric lifetime of carbon dioxide is difficult to define because it is exchanged with reservoirs having a wide range of turnover times; IPCC 2001, (page 38) gives a range of 5-200 years.....
So its as fair to say that the atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is 5 years, as it is to say it's 200.
As I thought, the length of time that CO2 stays in the atmosphere depends partly on the ecosphere's ability or (crucially) its inability to absorb excess carbon dioxide.
If so, we are f***ed, totally and utterly f***ed.
I mean, have you seen the rainforests recently ?

[Kadayi]

If so, we are f***ed, totally and utterly f***ed.

Well,it's bad..but it's not the end of existence if we collectively make an effort to change our ways in the long term. Sure we might not see the goodness, but concentrating on 'We' and 'I' rather than everyone else is pretty much what got us in this mess.

Consider the 300 Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae, they knew they were all going to die holding the mountain pass against the vast army of the Persian King Xerxes, but they also knew that the longer they held it, the further their people will have gotten to safety. They sacrificed their lives for the greater good. Spending a few moments to sort your litter out, or a little more money to buy a greener product etc pales in comparision.

[bbson john]

We are quite sure that CO2 does absorb, reflect infrared ray. We had put them into spectrometer for millions times. CO2 absorbs infrared ray. The mechinism is that, sunlight shines on Earth, ionizing the air and soil molecules. Then the molecules re-emit the energy, in form of infrared ray, into the outer space. If it is reabsorbed by CO2, the thermal energy will not be able to escape but accumulates inside the Earth's atmosphere. The total energy on Earth will rise then. We are sure that CO2 contributes to the global warming. Of course, other greenhouse gases do not raise Earth temperature only by absorbing infrared ray, but I tried to explain CO2 only. Greenhouse gases act as a greenhouse. All Scientists have no doubt about that.

The question is: how much does it contribute? Grievously or insignificantly? Some say that Greenhouse gases are the major cause, while some say they don't. I explain a bit. The sun maintains its size by the balancing force of gravitional force and the expanding force of the hot(vibrating) plasma. But the structure of the sun somtimes fluctuates, making the sun bigger or hotter. The negative feedback mechanism consists of the two forces will put the sun back to its shape after all. Still, the temporary perturbation of size still affects the Earth greatly. It makes the Earth either hotter and colder. This fluctuation is not totally unpredictable. The sun accretes and diminishes almost periodically. Scientists study that by drilling, extracting polar underground-ice. It is proven that this phenomenon exists. Perhaps, we have come to the era of calefaction. As well as that the following tide will be a sudden drop of temperature, cooling of Earth. The global warming may regard as an uncontrollable process owing to the change of sun. We can do nothing with it, since it will cool down and back to normal someday, foreseeably.

As I said before, the action of CO2 is not totally negligible. It absorbs radiation, as a matter of fact. So as the other greenhouse gases. How much is due to greehouse effect? How much is due to the accretion of Sun? We don't know. Perhaps 50/50, perhaps 25/75, perhaps 99/1. Even the chance of global warming having nothing to do with greenhouse gases is very high, will you place all the lives, all the fabulous landscapes on Earth as a bet? Now, the probability is fifty fifty, which is relatively high. No matter what the probability has been, we cannot take the risk since we cannot bear the consequences of losing the game. We must do what we can do to reduce the heating of Earth. We must put the chance of human extinction into minimum. We ought to protect the Environment, the Earth. Cease emitting greenhouse gas. Be wise, be safe, be aware.

p.s. Do not fart too much.

[SAJ]

.....Greenhouse gases act as a greenhouse. All Scientists have no doubt about that.

The question is: how much does it contribute? Grievously or insignificantly? Some say that Greenhouse gases are the major cause, while some say they don't. Wrong.

Global warming: the final verdict


A study by the world's leading experts says global warming will happen faster and be more devastating than previously thought

A draft copy of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained by The Observer, shows the frequency of devastating storms - like the ones that battered Britain last week - will increase dramatically. Sea levels will rise over the century by around half a metre; snow will disappear from all but the highest mountains; deserts will spread; oceans become acidic, leading to the destruction of coral reefs and atolls; and deadly heatwaves will become more prevalent. ....

....'The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,'.....

....And the cause is clear, say the authors: 'It is very likely that [man-made] greenhouse gas increases caused most of the average temperature increases since the mid-20th century,' says the report. ....

....And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation. We are the masters of our own destruction, in short. .....

...The report reflects climate scientists' growing fears that Earth is nearing the stage when carbon dioxide rises will bring irreversible change to the planet. 'We are seeing vast sections of Antarctic ice disappearing at an alarming rate,' said climate expert Chris Rapley...
Source - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html Link - http://www.ipcc.ch/

p.s. Do not fart too much AKA , talking out of your arse? ;)

[Solaris]

Oh my, it seems clear we're ****ed.

The things needed will never be implemented.

[dream431ca]

Yay for fear!! The terrorists are controlling global warming!!

By a eco-friendly car or global warming wins.

[bbson john]

Wrong.

Source - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1995348,00.html Link - http://www.ipcc.ch/


First, you didn't get my message. I didn't say that global warming effects have nothing to do with greenhouse gases. I said there is a HUGE relation. So don't defy my point of view like that. I am just trying to list out the two perspectives on global warming, let others view the same event with different sight. Hence, you CANNOT say I am wrong.

Second...

Robin McKie, science editor
Sunday January 21, 2007

The news is released right AFTER my reply. I cannot foresee the report, so it is sensible that I input inaccurate data in my reply. Even then, it is good to see this piece of news is released. At least we now clear know what we should do and where are we heading towards.

p.s. fart releases methane gas and sulphate. Greenhouse gases...

[ĐynastҰ]

^Which is why cows contribute to 1% of the total gases released into the atmosphere.

Global warming now cant be stopped, only slowed. So thanks to the media, everyone has in their heads we can either stop it or die basically. Technically we cant, thanks to specific countries and their contribution levels...

Oh, and has anyone heard of this forest in the North/South Pole (cant remember which), which contributes to over 50% of the world's gas exchange via photosynthesis (facts are wrong, but its pretty damn high).

[SAJ]

^Which is why cows contribute to 1% of the total gases released into the atmosphere. ...


Its worse than that, he's dead Jim! Cows do not add to the amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

They do not run aground and spill crude oil. But they do ruminate ? which is to say that they give off methane when they chew their cud and belch, and nitrous oxide and ammonia when they leave manure all over the barnyard.

So that pungent odor you smell on a farm? It's bad for the global environment.

Methane, while less prevalent in the air than carbon dioxide, is 23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas, the FAO report says.

Do some math, the authors say, and you find that livestock is responsible for 18 percent of the world's greenhouse gas problem.

What's more, cows take up a lot of space, grazing on land that could feed many more of the world's people if it were used for crops. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/GlobalWarming/story?id=2723201&page=1


...Oh, and has anyone heard of this forest in the North/South Pole (cant remember which), which contributes to over 50% of the world's gas exchange via photosynthesis (facts are wrong, but its pretty damn high). No, not heard of it. Though its highly unlikely that such a forest would be so far north/south. Most likely it would be a northern forest , somewhere around or below the arctic circle (if it hasnt been cut down already).

@bbson jon : I got you loud and clear, I (and pretty much every scientist on the planet) happen to strongly disagree with you. Its not "the other side of the argument" , its a load of flat-earth type bullshit.
If you dont put quotes around an idea you post or quote sources , people are right to assume its your own opinion, rather than that of someone else and react accordingly.
Sorry you were offended.

[ĐynastҰ]

Ok facts on that forest were COMPLETELY wrong

Its a Tundra Pine Forest that covers 1/5th of the planet

Cant find a link, but i definitely saw it on the latest something Planet show here in the UK.

[SAJ]

Dynast, I think this might be it .... Taiga (IPA pronunciation: /ˈtaɪgə/ or /taɪˈga/, from Mongolian) is a biome characterized by coniferous forests. Covering most of inland Alaska, Canada, Sweden, Finland, inland Norway, northern Kazakhstan and Russia (especially Siberia), as well as parts of the extreme northern continental United States, the taiga is the world's largest terrestrial biome. In Canada, boreal forest is the term used to refer to the southern part of this biome, while "taiga" is used to describe the more barren northern areas south of the Arctic tree-line link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiga

Sounds a lot like it anyways.

[Tyguy]

suprised this hasnt turned into a religous debate, after all, it is GODS EARTH.....

oooooooh boy.

/sarcasm

[DaMaN]

suprised this hasnt turned into a religous debate, after all, it is GODS EARTH.....
I don't see his name on it! :cheese:

[delusional]

This is all the proof you need for global warming

[KagePrototype]

Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

\o/

[baka-raven]

Oh and I just love this one ;)

Scientist Offered cash to dispute climate changes (http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html)

[clarky003]

^ really wouldn't suprise me.

It's too obvious a truth now that humans are having a large accelerating impact on climate change, and simply futile for oil giants to attempt to buy out scientists or brush it off as unfounded.

[Steve]

Well, to me, global warming is pretty obviously real.

But I haven't been convinced that it's more than part of the Earth's natural heating and cooling cycle yet.

The reason I haven't been convinced is that everyone I listen to on the radio or watch on television talking about the subject is a massive schmuck.

Either way, I'm for mandatory emissions reductions. No use taking even the slightest chance. I live just across the Mississippi from a huge Exxon refinery, too, so it'd be nice for my lungs.

What really pisses me off is that all the politicians who are against mandatory emissions reductions are always saying "it will hurt U.S. businesses!" Right. It'll be great for business when everybody's DEAD.

[pvtbones]

Well, to me, global warming is pretty obviously real.

But I haven't been convinced that it's more than part of the Earth's natural heating and cooling cycle yet.

The reason I haven't been convinced is that everyone I listen to on the radio or watch on television talking about the subject is a massive schmuck.

Either way, I'm for mandatory emissions reductions. No use taking even the slightest chance. I live just across the Mississippi from a huge Exxon refinery, too, so it'd be nice for my lungs.

What really pisses me off is that all the politicians who are against mandatory emissions reductions are always saying "it will hurt U.S. businesses!" Right. It'll be great for business when everybody's DEAD.

I'm in the same boat.

[DaMaN]

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fourth in a series of reports on climate change. It concludes that global warming is happening, and is very likely caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The key conclusions were that:

It is unequivocal that global warming is occurring
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%


As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century:

Surface air warming in the 21st century:

Best estimate for a "low scenario"[4] is 1.8 ?C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 ?C (3.2 ?F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 ?F)
Best estimate for a "high scenario"[5] is 4.0 ?C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 ?C (7.2 ?F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 ?F)

Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[6] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
in a low scenario[4] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
in a high scenario[5] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

[SAJ]

I would just like to add that whilst a change of 1-4C degrees change doesnt sound like much, the average global surface temperature is 15C.

So the projections - based on the best available evidence - suggest an average shift of somewhere between twelve and thirty percent, not something to be laughed at.

[Stigmata]

So the projections - based on the best available evidence - suggest an average shift of somewhere between twelve and thirty percent, not something to be laughed at.Not to nitpick, but that percentage stuff doesn't really make sense - if the average surface temperature right now were to be 1C, the change would be a "massive" 100-400% shift :P

Anyhow, it's all but completely determined that global warming is caused by human activity.

[The Brick]

Yeah if you look at Kelvin (which makes a lot more sense to do), it would only change about 1%.

[kirovman]

Yes, you can't say that 20C is twice as hot as 10C. It doesn't make any sense.

You have to look at it in a different light - will a 1C change in temperature have a lot of impact on the climate?
Raising the earth's surface average temperature by 1C takes a hell of a lot of energy. All that energy would likely go into melting polar ice caps and creating chaotic weather.

[Aenama]

Not to nitpick, but that percentage stuff doesn't really make sense - if the average surface temperature right now were to be 1C, the change would be a "massive" 100-400% shift :P

Anyhow, it's all but completely determined that global warming is caused by human activity.

no it isn't.

[Beerdude26]

Up to 3?C? Dayum :|

[ComradeBadger]

Global Warming has become a means to an end, a politicised issue, that politicians know they can manipulate to their own ends.

I don't yet believe it's anthroprogenic.

[Sulkdodds]

no it isn't.You're very convincing.

[DaMaN]

Ok, I'm posting this AGAIN because people still seem to think that we aren't causing global warming:

The Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the fourth in a series of reports on climate change. It concludes that global warming is happening, and is very likely caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases.
The key conclusions were that:

It is unequivocal that global warming is occurring
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes is less than 5%
The probability that this is caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases is over 90%


As a result it is predicted that, during the 21st century:

Surface air warming in the 21st century:

Best estimate for a "low scenario"[4] is 1.8 ?C with a likely range of 1.1 to 2.9 ?C (3.2 ?F with a likely range of 2.0 to 5.2 ?F)
Best estimate for a "high scenario"[5] is 4.0 ?C with a likely range of 2.4 to 6.4 ?C (7.2 ?F with a likely range of 4.3 to 11.5 ?F)

Based on a model that excludes ice sheet flow due to a lack of basis in published literature,[6] it is estimated that sea level rise will be:
in a low scenario[4] 18 to 38 cm (7 to 15 inches)
in a high scenario[5] 26 to 59 cm (10 to 23 inches)
It is more than 90% certain that there will be frequent warm spells, heat waves and heavy rainfall
It is more than 66% certain that there will be an increase in droughts, tropical cyclones and extreme high tides.
Both past and future anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will continue to contribute to warming and sea level rise for more than a millennium, due to the timescales required for removal of this gas from the atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report

[Ennui]

It seems fairly self-evident to me that global warming is caused by humanity, and what's maddening is that no-one's doing shit about it.

[pvtbones]

think on the bright side Ennui, global warming with force mankind to develop the technologies for space travel/ colonization faster than any other form of stimuli.

Necessity is the mother of all invention.

[SAJ]

Not to nitpick, but that percentage stuff doesn't really make sense - if the average surface temperature right now were to be 1C, the change would be a "massive" 100-400% shift ....
Sorry, but what the hell are you talking about?
Where do you get one degree from? No one said that the average global temperature was one degree.
Really though, WTF?!

Lets start again shall we?

The average global surface temperature is described variously as ranging from 14?C ( thats fourteen or one-four degrees celcius) to 14.52?C .

Global warming is predicted to raise this average global surface temperature by 1.1 to 6.4?C

The end result would be a global average surface temperature of between 15.1?C and 20.92?C
This would be a percentage change of around 8 - 46%

What I hoped when I brought this up, is that it would help put the climate change numbers into their proper context. I mean, no one thinks 1.4?C is a lot if they're sitting on a beach where its 32?C in the shade, but considered in the context of a global average it makes more sense(to some people at least).




Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/indicator8.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Edit: For some reason hl2.net has substituted the symbol for "degree" with a question mark. Can't change it, sorry.

[Stigmata]

What I meant was that the conversion to a percentile change was fundamentally flawed. Zero degrees Celsius can't be used as the point of reference for these percentile changes because there is a range of roughly 280 degrees Celsius into the negative which, if any are used as alternate reference points, result in far smaller percentile changes due to global warming. I'm not trying to dispute your claim that a global temperature change of 1-4 degrees is functionally enormous, because it is - but the whole idea of "it's a 30% increase in temperature" is a mathematically flawed concept.