Global Warming topic

[warri0r45]

Um, how most scientists only mention humans in their propaganda global warming theories, ya know, not that nature or anything has contributed to global warming :roll:

 

 

 

I'd be happy to read a source. The one you gave isn't working, sorry.

 

 

 

"Propaganda global warming theories"? Why are the propaganda? All the scientific papers on the issue go through the scrutiny of the peer review system. My point on saying that real scientists (which are the majority, don't you worry about that) aren't stubborn was due to the way science is approached. Scientists applaud and accept alternate theories and emplore people to challenge old ones. The entire field of a particular science can and regularly do engage in discussion and find weak spots in old theories and any new ones presented. It's the scientific principle of accountability upheld by falsifiability.

 

 

 

I'll reassure you that by the systems of peer review and the way science is approached by the overwhelming majority of scientists regardless of the theory, there is little to no stubborn attitude to speak of.

[Ambassadar]

You might find this article I quoted an excerpt from interesting Warrior.

 

 

 

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

 

 

 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385

[warri0r45]

You might find this article I quoted an excerpt from interesting Warrior.

 

 

 

The activity of the Sun over the last 11,400 years, i.e., back to the end of the last ice age on Earth, has now for the first time been reconstructed quantitatively by an international group of researchers led by Sami K. Solanki from the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany). The scientists have analyzed the radioactive isotopes in trees that lived thousands of years ago. As the scientists from Germany, Finland, and Switzerland report in the current issue of the science journal "Nature" from October 28, one needs to go back over 8,000 years in order to find a time when the Sun was, on average, as active as in the last 60 years. Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades.

 

 

 

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=15385

 

 

 

That's interesting stuff. It definately warrents much more research in the field in my opinion.

[Led-Zeppelin]

NO! Global warming is the source of all our problems! How dare you say otherwise.

 

 

 

I completely agree. It is the problem

 

 

 

Global warming is going to kill us all (unless the robots get to us XD lol) but seriously there is no bigger problem than global warming at this moment

 

 

 

Al gore made a documentary on it ide watch it if you have time its called "an inconvenient truth"

 

 

 

 

 

 

Unless we have been living in a cave, I think everyone knows about it. I think Global Warming caused by humans is media hyped crap.

[venomai]

I believe that global warming would be at a minimum if human's weren't here.

 

 

 

Since we are here we should be taking better care of the world we live in.

 

 

 

One thing I don't like is how wasteful we are. In the US alone over 50 million pounds of toothbrushes are thrown out every year. These could easily be made with recyclable plastics such as high density polyethylene or polypropylene.

 

 

 

I'm talking about scientists that spend their whole life saying "Global warming will be in 2080 cuz de rates that de humans are submissing see oh too will maik bad water and no water in afrika."

 

Right... I think warrior is talking about the professional and mature scientists who (1) know how to spell and (2) back up their statements with a good thesis and plenty of evidence. Most of those scientists aren't very stubborn and are open to new ideas.

[Rebdragon]

I think we can all agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. Global warming would be at a minimum if human's weren't here.

 

That's a big assumption, considering the fact that I don't :| (not strongly, but my opinion is weighted towards that side).

 

 

 

Doesn't change the fact that we should do something about how wasteful we are. Also doesn't change the fact that I agree with "The Silver Bullet" theory.

[Nitramosma]

I don't believe humans are the main cause of global warming. I hate how we have a few years (4-6 thousand) of accurate climate data and people assume that we know everything about global climate. Here's a hint. Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. That means we have about .00013% of the climate data from the Earth's existence. Seems insignificant doesn't it? Because it is.

[Agunimon979]

I don't believe humans are the main cause of global warming. I hate how we have a few years (4-6 thousand) of accurate climate data and people assume that we know everything about global climate. Here's a hint. Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. That means we have about .00013% of the climate data from the Earth's existence. Seems insignificant doesn't it? Because it is.

 

 

 

 

 

The earth is not 4.6 billion years old, because at a chart at my school, it shows the rate the sun dies out. It's a lot of scientific words, but in simplest form, the sun will eventually die out, and if we trace it back to the beginning, we can find out how old the earth is. Please do not ask for any sources.

 

 

 

Which raises another question. If the sun is dieing out wouldnt that cause global cooling? Yes. Yes it would. One thing is the sun doesn't go out that quickly, so it may be a while.

[Nitramosma]

The generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%).

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

 

 

The best age for the Earth (4.54 Ga) is based on old, presumed single-stage leads coupled with the Pb ratios in troilite from iron meteorites, specifically the Canyon Diablo meteorite.

 

 

 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html

 

 

 

Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.567 billion years

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The generally accepted scientific age of the Earth is indeed 4.5-4.6 Billion years.

[Rebdragon]

The earth is not 4.6 billion years old, because at a chart at my school, it shows the rate the sun dies out. It's a lot of scientific words, but in simplest form, the sun will eventually die out, and if we trace it back to the beginning, we can find out how old the earth is. Please do not ask for any sources.

 

 

 

Which raises another question. If the sun is dieing out wouldnt that cause global cooling? Yes. Yes it would. One thing is the sun doesn't go out that quickly, so it may be a while.

 

:lol:

 

 

 

See, this is what happens on Global Warming threads. People are always doing one of two things; they're either randomly posting graphs that never get us anywhere, or they're spouting out incoherent illogical babble.

 

 

 

"It's a lot of scientific words" "please don't ask for any sources"... pfft :| :lol: .

[jackalope14]

The earth is not 4.6 billion years old, because at a chart at my school, it shows the rate the sun dies out. It's a lot of scientific words, but in simplest form, the sun will eventually die out, and if we trace it back to the beginning, we can find out how old the earth is. Please do not ask for any sources.

 

 

 

Which raises another question. If the sun is dieing out wouldnt that cause global cooling? Yes. Yes it would. One thing is the sun doesn't go out that quickly, so it may be a while.

 

:lol:

 

 

 

See, this is what happens on Global Warming threads. People are always doing one of two things; they're either randomly posting graphs that never get us anywhere, or they're spouting out incoherent illogical babble.

 

 

 

"It's a lot of scientific words" "please don't ask for any sources"... pfft :| :lol: .

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

 

 

And posting "please dont ask for any sources" just makes you sound even more unbelievable (or just lazy). Makes me think "hmmm wonder why he doesn't want us to ask for something that actually backs up his argument :-k . Maybe its just because he is speaking out of his [wagon]."

[ecopetition]

I don't believe humans are the main cause of global warming. I hate how we have a few years (4-6 thousand) of accurate climate data and people assume that we know everything about global climate. Here's a hint. Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. That means we have about .00013% of the climate data from the Earth's existence. Seems insignificant doesn't it? Because it is.

 

 

 

So doesn't this contradict your view that humans aren't causing global warming? We apparently have insignificant data to say that we are, but you reckon it's ok to say that we're not. Choose who's side you're on mate.

[Nitramosma]

I don't believe humans are the main cause of global warming. I hate how we have a few years (4-6 thousand) of accurate climate data and people assume that we know everything about global climate. Here's a hint. Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. That means we have about .00013% of the climate data from the Earth's existence. Seems insignificant doesn't it? Because it is.

 

 

 

So doesn't this contradict your view that humans aren't causing global warming? We apparently have insignificant data to say that we are, but you reckon it's ok to say that we're not. Choose who's side you're on mate.

 

 

 

I've been saying all along that catastrophic global climate not only isn't human influenced, but doesn't exist. Even the data that we have doesn't support the theory of human influenced global warming. But even if it did there's a problem on both sides. The amount of data we have is miniscule in proportion to the amount we'd need to be sure of anything. I can safely say that something doesn't exist isn't influenced by humans.

 

 

 

Btw Your logic doesn't make sense in the first place.

We apparently have insignificant data to say that we are, but you reckon it's ok to say that we're not.

I have insignificant data to say that unicorn aren't going to trample me to death, but its a pretty safe bet that won't happen.

[venomai]

That's a big assumption, considering the fact that I don't

 

Heh, sorry, it is a big assumption. Edited.

 

 

 

I'll be brutally honest: I don't know anything about global warming other than what I've heard in An Inconvenient Truth. #-o

 

I'm open to new ideas.

 

 

 

Gore believes that the majority of global warming is human-caused. Is there any notable evidence that points to other causes?

[Jaziek]

I think we can all agree that humans are the main cause of global warming. Global warming would be at a minimum if human's weren't here.

 

 

 

What about cows!? If humans werent about to eat them then thered be a lot more cows! and as we all know, cows fart out one helluva lot of methane, the worst greenhouse gas! Down with cows!!

[TotalTalker]

Yeh, theres a theory that "global warming" is just part of nature, its meant to happen, and that we arent causing it.

[Guest]

I don't believe humans are the main cause of global warming. I hate how we have a few years (4-6 thousand) of accurate climate data and people assume that we know everything about global climate. Here's a hint. Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. That means we have about .00013% of the climate data from the Earth's existence. Seems insignificant doesn't it? Because it is.

 

 

 

 

 

The earth is not 4.6 billion years old, .

 

 

 

actually....it is...

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html

 

 

 

How Old Is The Earth, And How Do We Know?

 

 

 

T he generally accepted age for the Earth and the rest of the solar system is about 4.55 billion years (plus or minus about 1%). This value is derived from several different lines of evidence.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly from material that is solely from the Earth. There is evidence that energy from the Earth's accumulation caused the surface to be molten. Further, the processes of erosion and crustal recycling have apparently destroyed all of the earliest surface.

 

 

 

The oldest rocks which have been found so far (on the Earth) date to about 3.8 to 3.9 billion years ago (by several radiometric dating methods). Some of these rocks are sedimentary, and include minerals which are themselves as old as 4.1 to 4.2 billion years. Rocks of this age are relatively rare, however rocks that are at least 3.5 billion years in age have been found on North America, Greenland, Australia, Africa, and Asia.

 

 

 

While these values do not compute an age for the Earth, they do establish a lower limit (the Earth must be at least as old as any formation on it). This lower limit is at least concordant with the independently derived figure of 4.55 billion years for the Earth's actual age.

 

 

 

Oh and about the sun dying out...here ya go

 

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/ ... ion-7.html