Re: Global Warming: The Truth To clarify, I meant any life - unsustainable due to surface temperatures caused by Sol's expansion. Further to Nitrous' previous answer, consider this simplistic Newtonian explaination Matty. At any one moment the orbiting body has an accelerating force applied to it from the orbited body in the direction of said body. It also has an accelerating force in the direction of its current movement. The resultant force is somewhere between these directions of force and depend on the strength of each force. In the next moment the direction of movement of the orbital body has changed due to this resultant force and so has the orbited body relative to the orbiting body and thus the force between them. A new resultant force changes the direction of the orbiting body yet again. This repeats throughout the entire orbit. The shape and sustainability of the orbit depends on the masses of each body and the initial direction and acceleration of each.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth We aren't writing a thesis on how the cosmos work. Just say it in plain English. I promise I will still love you if you do. I found a flaw in your statement...We aren't jedi...the force doesn't flow through us :0
Re: Global Warming: The Truth But theres also that theory that the sun will either implode and become a white dwarf or w/ causing it to later become a black hole, is there not? or that it will become a super star and kinda reach all the planets.....arrrgh, some many theories, space is so complicated, it hurts my head just thinking about it.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth The sun is far to small to become a black hole. It's going to get really big, then it's going to get really small, and throw material off in the process, then you will be left with this little white star. Oh so cute.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth <3 Damn, I've been putting in too much work on my Star Wars maps... : (
Re: Global Warming: The Truth This should be long... Are you talking to me? Because that was actually part of my argument, if not I apologize. I need to make perfectly clear i do not deny that Global Warming occurs, I dispute its cause. My point is that if CO2 rises follow temperature rises then it is ludicrous to say that they cause Global Warming (as many do), and if they do not cause it then stopping the release of CO2 is only delaying the inevitable. I wasn't talking about sunspots, the sun's overall output has risen recently, as it does periodically. Interesting Tidbit, CO2 is actually not a very prominent gas when one considers climate changes. The gasses that actually affect the climate are Methane, and my personal favorite, Water Vapor...which somehow all recent computer models pertaining to Global Warming fail to incorporate... Yes, some theories there are rather weird and ludicrous, however some aren't for some reason I cannot link to the Global cooling page, its under the title "BRRR". Plus argument by infinite probability is a useless argument, as there is no way to prove it, and it doesn't actually dispute there being a good or ruling force. Not all people are as civilized as you, plus it was a bit of a joke. However there is no proof of global warming, I will explain why by points. And yes they are there to provide a bias, it is only fair as the world is so biased on this matter that people who believe it is a natural phenomenon as apposed to a man catastrophe, have been compared to holocaust deniers. The world is so set on this issue than even if I could provide irrefutable facts as to why it is wrong I doubt anyone would listen. I believe I deserve a little bit of a biased, considering you already have so much. See above, if CO2 rises follow they cannot be the cause and are therefore not the underlining problem. There is a bit of Irony here in another place, yes the evidence is circumstantial, however no one who argues global warming has the right to say that it is too little. Also there has been papers written supporting it and it has had plenty of peer review. i.e A Pervasive Millenial-Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates please do not quote the IPCC and make me go through explaining how political they are and how biased they are, there are many good sources for Global Warming arguments, however the IPCC is how would you say...bad science? See above, not talking about sun spots. Also, why do you refer to the sun as sol, is it a British thing (not poking fun, simply curios) Well I knew it would get responses, I figured it I wanted people to look at my topic I should give them a reason, so far it has worked. Yes we are, but it is more likely that the Earth will warm shortly then get very very cold then stay warm, that is not however to say the cause is humans. I have to say I got many more positive well thought out, or curios responses then I expected, way to go ForgeHub I think I just wrote a book...
Re: Global Warming: The Truth I am not biased, and if you had irrefutable facts I would not argue against them. Technically, there is no such thing, see: Empiricism; but you understand where I am coming from. I also state that they cause temperature increases - it is not a one-way system. "It is also correct that increased CO2 absorbs reflected radiation from the Earth's surface in the infrared and reflects it back, exacerbating the temperature increases and creating a feedback loop. It is also correct that we are releasing more and more CO2 into the atmosphere and that the ability of the ocean to absorb CO2 is decreased in recent years." I am saying that this particular effect does not contribute in the majority towards global warming. There are other more pronounced effects. It appears you are projecting your own view of this phenomenon being the major, or indeed sole, cause of global warming onto my own statements. I have full access to that text, and their observed temperature fluctuations are less than the change observed since the industrial revolution began, let alone predicted for the next 50 years - all of which comprise 1/6th of the Dansgaard-Oeschger ~ 1,500 year cycles. 1. You are almost certainly biased based on your own point of view and considering that they take a view opposite to those who are considered outspoken by the majority of climate scientists. 2. Criticism of the IPCC has come from: a) Scientists which have had issues with the IPCC and have previously been associated with them. They are often paraphrased such that their further comments of the IPCC's relative objectivity are ignored. b) The biggest criticism of the IPCC is that it is too conservative - which ties in to your point of being politically influenced, except in order to be less of a proponent for climate change. A relative example is the Stern Report which was more strongly worded and also more independent of political influence. c) Criticism has also largely come from the US government which has surely influenced your decision making, considering your country's legislative and disruptive history against any attempt to restrict their economy in the short term. You are, or should be. This is what is being put forward as the reason for the warming on each planet. Our sun is named Sol. 'Sun' can be taken out of context, whereas 'Sol' cannot.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth Well, I'm not one to type long replies, but I agree with Ferret. We should all be dead because the world was going to explode in 2000. We should be dead for a lot of other "real" things. I'm not saying that GW isn't a problem, it will be a huge problem, but huumans and CO2 did not cause it. The Earth is constantly freezing and warming,so when Global Warming happened before man was on Earth, it was still man's fault? That isn't logical. The only thing I dissagre with is that this is propaganda. Global Warming is an issue. It will cause lots of problems, but it is propaganda in a sense that if you "buy this product! And reduce global warming!!! ONly $1,000." Of course, the greenhouse effect, which has impact on the temperature, is caused mostly by human waste, but that doesn't mean Global Warming is.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth Sure, global warming could happen. But will that equate into total annihilation for humans? No. Because all these separate effects of global warming are based on fiction.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth Wow.. just so you all know.. None of this is gonna have any affect on you.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth Honestly, the last three posts here were simplistic, short-sighted and frankly slightly depressing. If this thread isn't going to be for intelligent discussion then I'm pretty much done posting in it.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth Ok.. sure my comment is simplistic, but by no means is it depressing! We don't have to worry about it, that should be uplifting.. LoL. Anyways, sorry I didn't break out the thesaurus so I would sound incredibly 'intelligent'. Just wanted to point out the obvious.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth I won't say that the Earth doesn't go though cycles of heating and cooling. It does. I think this "Global Warming" as the media portrays it is crap. The whole "Humans are the biggest cause of global warming." Humans aren't to blame. Sure, we do throw CO2 into the air but not so much that we are causing global warming and definitely not as much as the media would have you believe and it definatly won't effect our children's children. It'll take much longer that 100 years. The Earth is just doing what it does naturally.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth Shock I have to say, I didn't expect to encounter anyone nearly as intellegent or as brushed up on the subject as you. There are some books that I am supposed to and will read although that may take a week, I apologize I shouldn't have started an argument I wasn't ready to finish. However some of your points still baffle me. My point is that If CO2 levels follow temperature rise they cannot be the underlining cause, I understand that they create a feedback loop that makes it worse, but if we are not causing it surely we should be fighting what is. Also I'm going to say one thing for quite a few things. Simply becuase I use something in my arguments does not mean I believe it or it is the sole point of my arguments. Now I must state that just becuase I wasn't prepared does not mean I conceed. As the old saying goes, "You may have won the battle but I'll win the war". So until I have done more research I will argue this from a different standpoint. Evin assuming Global Warming is real, inevitable, and caused solely, or mostly by humans. There is no way we could possibly get our selfs away from oil enough to stop it, unless there was another new source of energy. However there is not , so as much as Britain, and many other countries may take the hit. Larger countries such as the U.S. and China cannot, or will not. Simply because I live in the U.S. I will use it as an example. Our people are (weather rightly or not) used to a standard of living, that standard is fueled by oil, coal, etc. We will not give it up. Call us lazy or stupid whatever you want but the point is it isn't ganna happen, not to mention the hit our economy would take. I mean we went t war so that we would keep oil (albeit I believe for mildly nobler reasons than most) do you really think a hypothetical scenario will change our minds? and one more thing. Yes, you yourself may not be biased but much of the world is. If I called you biased I apologize, I was using the royal "you" meaning you all. Not you (Shock Theta) specifically. But it was a hypothetical, and once again I was saying "you all" and generalizing.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth ..thank you, but don't apologise. It's all good. We are an unnatural and significant contributor of CO2 into the atmosphere, is my point here. You might also want to look into the effect of methane and CFC's. Duly noted. Actually, I agree with you. It is a difficult situation, and I understand why people are reluctant to commit to something that they may or may not regret in the future. Understood.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth First of all, whoever says that "humans have nothing to with it". There is failure in your logic. There are how many human beings on this planet? And each and every one of them to a degree leaves a CO2 "footprint" I'm pretty sure that equation adds up to a significant enough amount to screw things up.
Re: Global Warming: The Truth I'm not a collage grad in science, but I did a bit of research (attempting to stay as un-biased as possible) and have decided that I personally believe "Global Warming" is happening, but this isn't the first time, and it's not the end of the world. Chart 1 - This is a typical pro-global warming chart. It shows the temperature change over the last ne hundred and twenty years or so. Chart 2 - This is a anti-global warming chart, which goes back much further, and shows that this has already happened in Europe, and that it calmed down after a while. Again, I tried to approach this as un-biased as possible, and came up with this. Unfortunately, I will probably get flamed, and this entire topic will, unfortunately, most likely fall prey to the Internets most deadly weapon, closed minded, immature persons, be they adults or children, who flame anyone who doesn't believe what they do, even if it's something like the moon landings being faked (and please don't start this, if you want to debate it, e-mail or PM me, don't start another flame war). Timothy Sassone
Re: Global Warming: The Truth If we follow that statement, we would also be the cause for the Earth to fall into the sun, meteors falling into Earth, and the universe ripping apart, and yada yada, because we all have some general mass. And yes, most of that mass is already on Earth. But so is CO2. I could get into all the technicalities, but the main thing is, we already store these 'greenhouse gases'. We don't give them off so much as release them. The geekiest thing I've ever done is fist-fight someone over global warming. Weird, isn't it?
Re: Global Warming: The Truth Global warming is happening. The earth's temperature is rising. The arguement is to weather this is by our own doing, and what this could result in.