Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by hansp77, Sep 11, 2006.

?

Do you believe

  1. Global Warming is occuring as a direct result of Human Activity.

    106 vote(s)
    51.7%
  2. IF Gloabal Warming is occurring it is as a result of Non-Human or Natural Processes.

    99 vote(s)
    48.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    What prompts scientific investigation? A question. Always a question.
    example:
    The US government funds and supports SETI, radio telescopes seeking extraterrestial life. Why? Is explained at the end of post.


    The Drake equation states that:

    (see photo)
    where:

    N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible;
    and

    R* = the average rate of star formation per year in our galaxy
    fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
    ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
    fℓ = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life at some point
    fi = the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop intelligent life
    fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
    L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space



    The astronomer Carl Sagan speculated that all of the terms, except for the lifetime of a civilization, are relatively high and the determining factor in whether there are large or small numbers of civilizations in the universe is the civilization lifetime, or in other words, the ability of technological civilizations to avoid self-destruction. In Sagan's case, the Drake equation was a strong motivating factor for his interest in environmental issues and his efforts to warn against the dangers of nuclear warfare.

    When Carl Sagan asked Proxmire, "How many civilizations survive the knowlege of how to destroy themselves with nuclear bombs?"
    It was decided it would represent a great "HOPE" for us, if we found such a civilization in the cosmos!

    So what question prompted the theory anthropogenic CO2 is causing drastic global warming?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    So what question prompted the theory anthropogenic CO2 is causing drastic global warming?
    I'm asking those of you who believe it's really a problem of man made CO2.
    Do you know the basis or reason for the investigation and subsequent developement of this theory?

    Because if the theory came first? It's politics, not science!

    Science just doesn't pull theories out of a hat. Theories attempt to answer questions.

    Took an apple falling to inspire Newtons laws of gravity.
     
  3. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    That's an easy one. Scientists studying climate data noticed an upswing in modern-day temperatures -- and wondered if it was real or a statistical anomaly, what might be causing it, and where it might lead. What's 'political' about that?:confused:

    For those who believe climate change is a modern-day liberal boogieman invented by Al Gore, I'd like to point out that research into the possibility of climate changes being related to greenhouse gases began in the 1800's.

    Look up Samuel Pierpont Langley's work, along with that of Arvid Högbom and Svante Arrhenius.

    Scientific inquiry doesn't always begin with detailed and specific questions, either. Sometimes the question is simply, "I wonder what would happen if I did this?", or "I wonder why the things I'm looking at are the way they are?"
     
  4. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Very well reasoned Troy.
    I am not your enemy. I'm trying to point at OUR enemy. I sincerely believe in my posted opinions.
    But WHY specifically anthropogenic CO2?
    Why, not only refuse to consider other possibilities, but declare as heretical those who do propose the sun and other causes? I'm not asking you to defend motives of others. An impossible task.

    So! Answer this? How can man made CO2 on earth, cause similar warming on mars?
     
  5. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

    RELATED
    Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007) New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007) Photo Gallery: Global Warming Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

    In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
     
  6. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    A Gloomy Mars Warms Up05.14.07 For the past 30 years, NASA scientists have been using high-tech satellite equipment to study features on the face of Mars. It appears a slight change in the planet’s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.

    To determine the extent of surface changes on Mars, scientists took images from the Viking (launched 1975) and Mars Global Surveyor (1996) satellite missions and mapped them into a climate model developed at NASA Ames Research Center. They discovered that a wind-whipped, dusty surface has a measurable effect on the amount of sunlight that is reflected by the planet. The results of this research show that an increase in darkened surface areas may account for a one degree Fahrenheit rise in the surface air temperature of the planet.

    http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html

    Wow! What a co-incidence! Mars warms one degree F over last 30 years due to change in albedo, and earth changes a bit less than 1 degree F in same period due to CO2 driving the climate!
    Incredible!
     
  7. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    Well, I've posted tons of stuff over several months on this thread.

    I've posted prominent climate scientists caught adjusting data to support their position and exagerating to further political goals.

    I've posted other theories about global warming, mainly the sun is responsible. And scientists who support it.

    I have pointed out the illogic of CO2 driving climate, and quoted opinions of scientists including climatologists who refute CO2 as driving climate.


    I've tried to offer an explanation as to WHY we are being misinformed.

    I agree with Troy. It's difficult and unpleasant to think there is a great conspiracy!

    That we are being conspired against is indeed more threatening and scary than climate change.

    I've posted admissions from rich powerfull men, that they have been for decades and ARE trying to create a one world government ruled by the elite.

    Have I convinced anyone of any of this? Or at least made you question the validity of what the elite owned media bombards you with?
     
  8. mydauphin
    Joined: Apr 2007
    Posts: 2,161
    Likes: 53, Points: 48, Legacy Rep: 575
    Location: Florida

    mydauphin Senior Member

    If you look at global weather over short period of time like 1000 years, to say nothing of 30 or 100, then it is like looking at the worlds oceans by looking at a bay. Explain global warning after last iceage, The mammoth weren't driving. Suvs. How many climate changes in last million years or last 100 million years. Climate is like tides, many cycles affected by many factors. Massive volcanoes, the sun, and other sources a lot bigger effectors than our co2.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    I hope I haven't given the impression I consider you an enemy. We often disagree, but that's hardly the same thing.
    Because it works when it's applied to the data and when it's used for predictions, and because no one has put forth a plausible alternative.
    See above. Scientists haven't 'refused to consider' other possibilities, or labeled them heretical. It's simply that no one has proposed a plausible alternative, and a realistic mechanism by which that alternative might work, then demonstrated that it does in fact work. It isn't enough to just say, "I think the cause is 'X' instead," and expect to be taken seriously.
    Simple. It doesn't.;)
     
  10. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    There's also the well-documented fact that many, if not most, of the relative handful of high-profile naysayers are on the payroll of oil companies, conservative think tanks, or professional shills like the Heartland Institute. Truly independent skeptics are few and far between.....
     
  11. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    You don't see any possibility then, that the sun is warming both planets a similar amount?
    Mars is much further away, but has much less atmosphere to reflect suns heat. Surface temperatures on Mars in summer full sun reach 80F. :)
     
  12. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course

    I'll admit there's maybe a small chance of mere co-incidence between earths warming and mars warming.

    How much coincidence are you willing to believe? :)

    Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

    The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

    Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

    Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

    For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.

    Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

    Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."





    The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=469DD8F9-802A-23AD-4459-CC5C23C24651
     
  13. troy2000
    Joined: Nov 2009
    Posts: 1,738
    Likes: 170, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 2078
    Location: California

    troy2000 Senior Member

    Unfortunately, the central claim (highlighted in red) is false.
    That makes everything else in your post irrelevant, although I suspect that if I chased down each and every claim they'd all be pretty shaky....

    And none of this sturm und drang explains how or why an overwhelming majority of climatologists are either clueless about their field and their own research, or deliberately lying to us. Which was my original point, if you'll recall....:)
     
  14. Yobarnacle
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 1,746
    Likes: 130, Points: 63, Legacy Rep: 851
    Location: Mexico, Florida

    Yobarnacle Senior Member holding true course


    More and more scientists are revolting against the global warming consensus enforced by government funding, the academic establishment, and media misrepresentation. They are saying that solar cycles and the complex systems of cloud formation have much more influence on our climate, and account for historical periods of warming and cooling much more accurately that a straight line graph of industrialization, CO2, and rising temperatures. They also point out that the rising temperatures that set off the global warming panic ended in 1998.

    It takes a lot of courage. Scientists who report findings that contradict man-made global warming find their sources of funding cut, their jobs terminated, their careers stunted, and their reports blocked from important journals, and they are victimized by personal attacks. This is a consensus one associates with a Stalinist system, not science in the free world.

    Here is how it has worked. The theory that entirely natural sun cycles best explain warming patterns emerged years ago, but the Danish scientists "soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials." Physicists at Europe's most prestigious CERN laboratory tried to test the solar theory in 1996, and they, too, found their project blocked. This fall, the top scientific journal Nature published the first experimental proof -- by a team of 63 scientists at CERN -- that the largest factor in global warming is the sun, not humans. But the director of CERN forbade the implications of the experiment to be explained to the public: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."

    As more and more scientific evidence is published that debunks global warming, the enforced consensus is ending. The Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific institution -- whose previous president declared that "the debate on climate change is over" -- "is being forced to review its statements on climate change after a rebellion by members who question mankind's contribution to rising temperatures. ... The society has been accused by 43 of its Fellows of refusing to accept dissenting views on climate change and exaggerating the degree of certainty that man-made emissions are the main cause." Most of the rebels were retired, as one of them explained, "One of the reasons people like myself are willing to put our heads above the parapet is that our careers are not at risk from being labeled a denier or flat-Earther because we say the science is not settled. The bullying of people into silence has unfortunately been effective."

    In America, Dr. Ivar Giaever, a Nobel Prize-winner in physics, resigned in protest from the American Physical Society this fall because of the Society's policy statement: "The evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring." Dr. Giaver:

    Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.



    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011...olt_against_global_warming.html#ixzz1sGPqj9sF

    :D
     

  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Yikes, am I ever glad I don't bother with that nonsense anymore. The simple reality is that the burning of fossil fuels can be directly tied to the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentrations which are directly responsible for the warming trend CONFIRMED by the four major studies notes so many times in the past.

    Its a no brainer people, more greenhouse gas = more warming, and we've seen exactly the amount of warming projected for the excess CO2 in our atmosphere.

    [​IMG]
     
Loading...
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.