corals we may not have much longer

So you don't believe in the greenhouse effect AT ALL?

 

I had a feeling my env. sci. class would come in handy one day.

Actual Observed CO2 Emissions Vs. IPCC Projections (over past 20 years).


From a presentation I just did in class...

Rise in temperature over the past 150 years, with a steep increase beginning around 1920-30.

Percentage of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2006 (all gases, in Teragram [Tg] CO2 equivalent)



http://climate.dot.gov/about/transportations-role/overview.html

 

this only seems to prove my point further, you refuse to acknowledge graphs over thousands of years because they dont agree with your theory of global warming, sure over the past 100 or so years the temperature has gone up considerably, but of course it is nothing compared to the many other temperature spikes throughout the billions of years of which our earth has been in existence. its not uncommon however, many scientists get paid hefty amounts for the research on global warming, they however, choose to ignore these graphs because that would put their job and their income in jeopardy. it is all a massive business, and we are all the people they have suckered into believing it.

 

well im gonna stop here, as i see this thread getting a bit too political for my taste, and im sure the moderators as well.

good day to you all.

 

YES, the earths temperature has fluctuated a ton, i realize that, but in the past 100 years it has spiked again, why? global warming! the greenhouse effect! how can you deny the correlation? the earths temp doesn't fluctuate for no reason.

ill leave it at that.

 

I'm starting a new campaign to save the cattle. "Don't take my steak"

 

You are right, climate has changed and changed very often during Earth's 4.5 billion years of existence. But here is the deal, It may take global temperatures centuries or millennia to fully adjust in response to the higher carbon dioxide levels.

FACT: Earth's CO2 concentration hasn't been been above 310 ppm during the past 800,000 years (394.5 ppm now).

FACT: Green house gases haven't been this concentrated for at least 30 million years to 100 million years.

FACT: CO2 (and other green house gases- yes, water vapor is a green house gas that allows for life on this planet to exist) absorbs outgoing infrared radiation, re-radiating back to Earth's surface.

FACT: Polar ice sheets and glaciers have not melted at their current rates in at least 800,000 years.

FACT: Ice sheets and glaciers will no longer exist within the next century, which will be the first time in the last 125,000 years.

You can continue to be ignorant about the anthropogenic influence of global mean temperature, that's your decision. There is however damning evidence that proves you wrong. You brought up cows influence on greenhouse gas concentrations: Agriculture (which includes cows) is a human driven practice. So, it is another anthropogenic cause.

Not only is CO2 a known greenhouse gas, it is also a cause of ocean pH to drop lower than it has been in the last 800,000 years. As I am sure you are well aware of, a drop in pH will cause a rapid decrease in the amount of calcifying organisms in the worlds oceans, such Phytoplankton (coccoliths, foraminifera etc.) i.e. the basis of the food chain.

Scientists can't pinpoint exactly what will happen as a result of rising greenhouse gases because there are too many variables (feed back loops) within the Earth system. But to completely ignore the fact that the Earth is warming and that the climate is changing is naive.

Having said all of this, the only reason that the above information is of concern is because it affects people monetarily (obviously there is the moral aspect as well). Climate has changed rapidly (relative to Earth's age) and she has "recovered" each and every time.

 

Doesn't fluctuate for no reason is a double-negative statement, meaning it does fluctuate without a reason, which is exactly our point.

You're giving us a bit too much credit here in 100 years. Your sample of 100 years is too small. It's about 2.2x10-8 percent of the entire sample. Higher greenhouse gases are the result of, not the cause of a climate shift. Even going back 450,000 years as the chart shown is only about .0001% of the entire sample. And some information about the more recent climate shift between 950 - 1450 were totally left out of most of the charts we saw in the late 1990's early 2000's. It's a chicken and the egg argument on a total global scale.

To find out the truth, always ask the question, "Who profits from this information?"

Skepticism - "To avoid pre-conceived notions of truth, which may cause some people to discard evidence which contradicts their theory. Science should be used to find what's right, rather than prove yourself right."

 

Al Gore spent 10 years putting together the framework for cap and trade because he and his partners were building an exchange house for carbon credit trading.

I fully support tight regulation on pollution, just not bad science influenced by political pressure. In the U.S we are curtailing phosphate and heavy metal contamination among other pollution issues, and have some of the highest emmision standards in the world, that is all good.

 

Thats backwards. Higher amounts of greenhouse gasses create a layer around out atmosphere that allows the suns heat to enter the atmosphere, but not leave it, with in turn heats the planet.

and sorry about the grammatical error. i meant, that it fluctuates, but with reason.