Global Warming

[Bla]

Measurements from the independent research project Berkeley Earth Project compared to other measurings attached.

And here's a fun post about the study and a hypocrite who said "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.", and then goes on to deny it after finding out it agrees with the other studies that Earth is warming:
Link

[atomic7732]

Something killed that multi-decadal oscillation that had been going on for a while, in 1910.

[SomeDude]

The green ideology is the most dangerous of ideologies. 

Communists put the proletarians first.  Fascists put targeted ethnic groups first.  Greens put homo sapiens sapiens last.

[atomic7732]

I would have to disagree. Keeping our planet habitable for future generations is not putting Homo sapiens sapiens last. It's more or less putting "them" first.

[Bla]

The green ideology is the most dangerous of ideologies.  

Communists put the proletarians first.  Fascists put targeted ethnic groups first.  Greens put homo sapiens sapiens last.

Communists want a classless society and thus consider everyone equal. Improving life quality for proletarians at the cost of rich people is not putting proletarians first, it is making the two groups more equal.

As a "green person"*, I don't put humans last, but want a society where we try to minimize our destruction of nature as much as possible. That doesn't mean destroying ourself, in fact our existence relies on nature.

*Whatever that is, I might want to see your definition first so you don't make a straw man out of it, but I'm in favor of a change to 100% renewable energy sources, without being able to say how long that would take.

[vh]

I don't think anyway will care/take major steps to prevent global warming. It costs alot of money
People will pay attention when it threaten's their lives or disrupts their lives somehow.

[Bla]

It costs alot of money

What do you think will cost the most money, to fix the problems now or to pay for the consequences of not doing anything in the future?
Anyway, no, I don't think our economies are in any way good at handling such a problem as this. They're simply too short-sighted and lack significantly big coordination.

[atomic7732]

Yeah, the problem is how narrow-minded and greedy everyone is.

It costs "too much" NOW to do something that would pay off in the long run.

[vh]

"big coordination"
kol, that's like world peace

funfact, when you google big coordination and go to images, you'll see schools, companies, countries, but never the world in coordination

[Bla]

"big coordination"
kol, that's like world peace

funfact, when you google big coordination and go to images, you'll see schools, companies, countries, but never the world in coordination

It could be, but that wasn't the only thing I thought of. I meant a planned economy.

[Darvince]

Aren't the other planets warming slightly?

[vh]

no idea, but it's not important. kol
on the other hand heating up earth is a problem

[smjjames]

Something killed that multi-decadal oscillation that had been going on for a while, in 1910.

WWI? Although that was in 1914. Theres a bump coinciding with WWII and a dip afterwards until around the 1970s. I don't know if that counts as a multi-decadal oscillation, but yea the last big one (according to the chart) is almost two centuries ago, in the 1820s or so and the cycle got killed around 1910.

Whatever happened around the late 1970s, 1980s, it took off from there.

[Darvince]

The other continents than Europe and North America I think really started becoming industrialized around then.

[blotz]

i read a magazine that has an plan idea to send a rocket ship up and pour out millions of mirros to deflect sunlight. ( it only cost either 6billion or 6 million $)
also, in major cities, nvm

[superecnate]

We do not have to worry about global warming causing damage to the Human spicies.
There have been many times in Earth's past when the Earth was warmer, Co2 levels were higher, or both!
The age of the Dinosaurs was a time where Antarctica was a rainforest! (not entirle due to the warmth, some due to the air currents). Back then rainforests dominated the land because of increased co2, which were ,much higher that they are today. (as well as global temperatures). But life adapted, and the Earth returned to normal.
We have to remember that we are not orbiting a lightbulb, but a massive explosion held back only by gravity,swinging wildly from it's fluctuation, highly eratic magnetic fieilds. And that even a small change in the sun can have large effects on Earth.

[Bla]

We do not have to worry about global warming causing damage to the Human spicies.
There have been many times in Earth's past when the Earth was warmer, Co2 levels were higher, or both!
The age of the Dinosaurs was a time where Antarctica was a rainforest! (not entirle due to the warmth, some due to the air currents). Back then rainforests dominated the land because of increased co2, which were ,much higher that they are today. (as well as global temperatures). But life adapted, and the Earth returned to normal.
We have to remember that we are not orbiting a lightbulb, but a massive explosion held back only by gravity,swinging wildly from it's fluctuation, highly eratic magnetic fieilds. And that even a small change in the sun can have large effects on Earth.

So can a small change in the composition of our atmosphere.
The point that we don't have to worry about global warming because Earth's temperature has changed in the past is always brought up, but there are two problems:

1: The temperature is increasing very fast. The changes we see in the past from Earth's geological history were much slower compared to this change - they happened over millennia or millions of years, not decades.

Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt (AnnMean J-D column)

2: Just because the temperature can change naturally, it doesn't make it any less harmful. An asteroid can hit us without us being the reason for it. It doesn't mean we should just ignore the asteroid.

[Bla]

The notion that man is some God entity that is powerful enough to be a direct cause of it is the myth. The climate has been changing for billions of years and will continue to do so [...]

This argument keeps being repeated.

We don't need to have "godly" powers (whatever that is) to change the composition of the atmosphere and change the climate. All of our machines in the industry and transport emit enormous amounts of gases which change the composition of our atmosphere, and some of them are greenhouse gases, like CO₂.

In short, the problem is that the well-documented change which is happening now is a big change over a very short amount of time (decades, centuries) compared to millions or billions of years.

I suggest you read some of our past discussion if you want to discuss it or if you're interested in reading our responses to your argument, I don't feel like repeating myself over and over again.

http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.msg12112.html#msg12112
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.msg12247.html#msg12247
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.msg52408.html#msg52408

Also good posts by Dan:
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.msg39676.html#msg39676
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.msg39883.html#msg39883
http://universesandbox.com/forum/index.php/topic,1229.msg39965.html#msg39965

And the reason I replied in this topic is because this was the first topic and I don't see any reason to have the discussion split into two topics.

[Astronomical]

Is global warming real? Of course. However, I do not believe that man has any more than the tiniest of influences on the global temperature.  The temperature of the Earth has been on a sharp increase since 1700s, and the spike of today is most likely comparable to the Medieval Warm Period. Inferred, similar sharp rises in temperatures, followed by a much slower decline, are well-documented within ice cores (such as those that are part of EPICA), and while cautious measures to limit manmade compounds from escaping en mass into the atmosphere is a good idea, it will have little-to-no effect on the rise that the Earth will experience.

[vh]

'The temperature of the Earth has been on a sharp increase since 1700s
graph please, because i can't find any to support this

also, nature has always been naturally changing earths temperature, and there is a close relationship between the concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature
http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/files/2009/06/460000-years1.jpg

-we're not exactly helping that
http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

oh, and the most extreme warming nature has ever pulled off on it's own:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

we're heating up the globe a thousand times faster than that natural cycle ever did.

[Astronomical]

'The temperature of the Earth has been on a sharp increase since 1700s
graph please, because i can't find any to support this

Though it's pretty much a give-in that temperature has been rising at this point, as there was a cooling episode that resulted in lower temperatures from the 1500s to the 1800s.

we're heating up the globe a thousand times faster than that natural cycle ever did.

You're free to believe how you feel about the source of warming, just like I am. While we do produce a sizable amount of CO2, there is virtually no feasible way to be able to determine what the temperature would be like without human influence, as it always has been extremely dynamic. Only gross estimates are possible, as not even the most powerful of supercomputers can accurately portray all conditions on Earth to a tittle.

[Bla]

While we do produce a sizable amount of CO2, there is virtually no feasible way to be able to determine what the temperature would be like without human influence, as it always has been extremely dynamic. Only gross estimates are possible, as not even the most powerful of supercomputers can accurately portray all conditions on Earth to a tittle.

The fact that we cannot determine exactly what the temperature would have been without our influence doesn't mean that we can't know that we're causing it to warm. We have caused the emission of huge amounts of greenhouse gases, which we know contribute to warming Earth simply because of their physical properties and the properties of the light and radiation which enters our atmosphere.

"Global atmospheric concentrations of CO₂, CH₄ and N₂O have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (Figure 2.3). The atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ and CH₄ in 2005 exceed by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years. Global increases in CO₂ concentrations are due primarily to fossil fuel use, with land-use change providing another significant but smaller contribution. It is very likely that the observed increase in CH₄ concentration is predominantly due to agriculture and fossil fuel use. The increase in N₂O concentration is primarily due to agriculture.

The global atmospheric concentration of CO₂ increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280ppm to 379ppm in 2005. The annual CO₂ concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995-2005 average: 1.9ppm per year) than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960-2005 average: 1.4ppm per year), although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates."
Source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-2.html

Is global warming real? Of course. However, I do not believe that man has any more than the tiniest of influences on the global temperature.  

We have increased the CO₂ content in our atmosphere by more than one third since the 18th century, surely we not only can, but must, have an influence on the global temperature? (And those of us who aren't men, too?)

[Darvince]

no only people named adam are men
everyone else is a woman

[FiahOwl]

This message is only viewable with Universe Sandbox Galaxy Edition. Access it and much more with promo-code '79110'.

[Darvince]

watch out for the flooding lake eyre and kangaroos in victoria

[atomic7732]

Invalid Arguments: Climate Change

[blotz]

summary: (i think) he said we're denying the fact that the world is warming and that no one cares yet. he's also saying about how global warming is accelerated because of the risen co2 levels and that we should develop another way to make energy that's not burning fossil fuels, even though that's okay because it's cheap.

so he's trying to say that there is climate change or something? i thought that was a common fact
anyways 117k views we need more

[Bla]

Aircraft pollution: One flight from Copenhagen to New York (6183 km) emits 438 kg CO₂ per person, equal to having a refrigerator turned on for 181 years, a TV turned on for 5 months, a vaccum cleaner turned on for 3 weeks or a washing machine turned on for 2 weeks.
(I guess they're average values or some reasonable examples)

Sources: SAS, Momondo and the EU Commission
http://www.dr.dk/Nyheder/Indland/2014/01/31/170158.htm

Tl;dr use bikes

[blotz]

even across water

[Darvince]

Bla what is your opinion on motorcycles?