File :-(, x, )
Global Warming and Green House Effect Anonymous
Another liberal gimmick to confuse voters or global catastrophe waiting to happen?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
>> Anonymous
inb4 deletion
>> Anonymous
And why exactly was the last thread on the topic deleted? Janitors cant handle some real discussion every once in a while, instead of circle jerk over cute animals?
>> Anonymous
>>114295
it's because fishing cat grew hungry
>> Anonymous
Global warming is real.
Doubtful if it is due to CO2 though.
Personally I think it's just the sun having a burp, but I don't care.
If the result is that they build better cars and that solar energy is financed, it's fine by all means.
>> sage
>>114300
Troll post is troll. But it raises an interesting point. Everyone worth his salt knows the greenhouse effect relies heavily on CO2. You add more CO2 you get a stronger greenhouse effect. Pretty basic. Now, we know the level of CO2 has been rising in the atmosphere for ages. We know it's now super-high, and still getting higher. Logic dictates that this translates to rising global temperature. Such a rise in temperature has indeed been measured. So, given these facts, how can anybody possibly deny the existance of global warming?
>> Anonymous
kyoto was crap because nobody who signed it was even trying to follow it except post- warsaw pact nations whose economies collapsed.
>> Anonymous
I believe in global warming and the potential catastrophic possibilities. I don't believe this is on topic. Explain yourself! Now!!
>> Anonymous
>>114289
Better yet. Given that the last thread was deleted, why shouldn't you be permanently banned? You clearly have issues. I doubt they're going to be resolved anytime soon. Why?
>> Anonymous
>>114497
Only treaties that USA signs matter and should be honored, eh? Oh, but then again, USA isn't abiding by most treaties it has signed....

http://www.zmag.org/content/ForeignPolicy/boffroguebig.cfm
>> Anonymous
No discussing nature on /an/? Lol. I think we should be more liberal with our threads. This is perfectly on topic, imho.
>> Anonymous
>>114494
You have been brainwashed.
There are a good bunch of scientific studies that show that there is no correlation between climate and CO2 output.
Or to put it another way: Man is too insignificant to change the weather.
>> Anonymous
>>114618
LOL WUT?

Name a single such study. I'm sure the entire international science community would be interested to see one.
>> Anonymous
>>114629
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11640
two seconds in google.
>> Cockmongler
>>114636
Funny how the first diagram shows how temperature IS connected with CO2.
That page didn´t disprove anything.
>> Anonymous
>>114494
when the entire world of brilliant liberal propaganda machines are out to get you of course. THEY'RE TRYING TO STEAL OUR MIIIIIIIIIIIINDDDDDSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
>> Anonymous
>>114618
This, boys and girls, is what PURE FAIL looks and thinks like.
>> Anonymous
>>114654
That's the thing.
You can't prove or disprove it really.
It's just a theory.
Btw, Steam is three times more "dangerous" as a greenhouse gas than CO2.
Want proof? When it's cloudy, the ground stays warmer.
>> Anonymous
>>114687
By your definition the fact that humans need oxygen to live is just a theory.

As for "steam", currently water vapor accounts for most of the greenhouse effect. CO2 is second and methane third... forget what the fourth most important greenhouse gas was.
>> Anonymous
>>114691
Water vapor comes from water being heated by the sun and surprise surprise! heat trapped by other greenhouse gases. like CO2.
Also, the polar ice caps used to reflect a lot of heat right back into space like a giant mirror, but with less of them there's more water to absorb sunlight and convert it to heat and more water vapor.
>> Cockmongler
>>114696
Sir, I think you made a win here! :D

Btw. why not reduce CO2, or at least stop creating more, when we know it does cause a greenhouse effect? I mean, things might not look that bad now, but why take the chance of fucking the environment?
>> Anonymous
>>114794
because that would fuel the already over-powered liberal propaganda machine. /rollseyes
>> Anonymous
gravity is also a theory.
>> Anonymous
>>114609

and we should further cheapen treaties by signing something which nobody intends on keeping? (or we should be bound by an agreeement we didn't make)? I'd rather not put a club in the hands of our critics that has enforcement mechanisms.
>> Anon
I always thing of the ice age as 'winter', and the current time as the last throws of 'spring'. Meaning, we're hitting 'summer'. Of course the damned planet is going to get hotter as we get further and further from the last ice age. Our planet goes through cycles as we go through seasons. Everyone makes it sound as if humans are absolutely at fault for the global warming when it's going through it's natural cycle. We're just pushing it along faster.
>> Anonymous
>>114794
not a win really, just some good old fashioned ownedge.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
Real. Anyone who tells you it isn't happening period is twenty years behind on their information; it's obvious enough that such a trend is occuring, the question is what's causing it (is it natural? Is it us? Is it both?).

Natural trends of this type do exist, and there is evidence to suggest we are on the upswing of things with or without humans. However, our current climatological models also tell us that there's literally no way we aren't contributing to this to some extent: we are contributing non-negligible amounts of greenhouse gases with automobiles, agriculture, and to a lesser extent (no joke, going by raw output) industry.

So the only question here, realistically, is how strong of a push we're giving things, whether it's a little nudge that the Earth basically doesn't care about or a double-handed shove into oblivion. If any of you are interested in the real answer to this, or the closest that the scientific community can give, I suggest you follow climatology journals; Americans, I'd recommend AMS stuff (Journal of Climate).

That's right, I actually said "look it up" instead of arguing about it. Why? This is a debate about science. Regardless of where you stand on this issue, if you're not following the science from a RELIABLE source, you're actively contributing to the politicization of the subject. Your favorite blogs are not reliable sources. Your favorite newspapers are not reliable sources. If you want to talk about what science thinks, then you should follow the subject, not just read occasional papers of dubious merit that you get linked to by Confirmation Bias Weekly.

I just came here for pictures of kittens, but what can you do.
>> Anonymous
>>114933
Actually, we already had "summer" about 6000 years ago. We should be having "autumn" by now, but instead we're getting "summer" again.
>> Anonymous
So what about solar output? Genuine question.
>> Anonymous
>>114962
No mentionable change there. That's already been dealt with by climate scientists. So far the only thing that can explain all the warming we're going through is human influence.
>> Anonymous
>>114654
Do you even know how to read graphs? There are large amount of regions where CO2 doesnt a have direct relationship with temperature.
>> Anonymous
>>114994

Hint: the red line is "dust".
>> Cockmongler
>>114994
lol wut? Sir, I think you are the one unable to read graphs. Anyone can read that those to graphs are quie neatly following each other. Are you sure you were following the blue and green one? The problem is, we don´t know if there are other factors making those two follow each other so nicely.
>> Anonymous
>>114963
except that whole "all the other planets are getting warmer too" thing that would lead to solar output being the cause. Buuut, we can't have that because it doesn't fit the template of trying to blame it on human influence
>> Anonymous
>>115001
And what is that "thing", and what is it based on?
>> Anonymous
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html DESU
>> Anonymous
>>115006
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

DUST STORMS LOL
>> Anonymous
>>114998
>>114999
If there was a direct relationship, the green line and blue lines would be consistantly be increasing or decreasing for the majority of the graph. But that's not the case, there are so many spikes where the temperature increases and CO2 decreases and vice-versa that litters half the graph.
>> Cockmongler
>>115006
"according to one scientist's controversial theory." People, let´s change our theories here! We have ONE scientist that says this controvesial theory, so of course he his right!

Btw, it still doesn´t account for everything and thus still isn´t an excuse to keep on pumping CO2 into our atmosphere.
>> Anonymous
>>115007
and what causes the dust storms?
>> Anonymous
>>115009
consensus says earth is flat
one man says earth is round

nope, such a thing is too far fetched to possibly be true! Let's just discredit and laugh
>> Anonymous
>>115009
please ask the volcanos to stop it first, since they produce more than mankind does
>> Anonymous
>>115008

::facepalm::

I never thought I'd have to say this to someone, but seriously, take a class in statistics.
>> Cockmongler
>>115011
Except they never proved the earth was flat and they all were religious douchebags. Your comparing them to todays scientists?
>> Anonymous
>>115011
scientific community says earth is round
one man says earth is flat
common sense says earth is round
one man says earth is flat
basic physics calculations and shots from the moon say earth is round
one man says earth is flat

one man is fucking retarded
>> Anonymous
>>115012
This is a myth.

Incidentally, it's kind of funny that you're so stupid and self-assured that you never once bothered to look up something like this, just because it confirmed what you thought.
>> Cockmongler
>>115014
I agree. Compared to most graphs you look at in physics, that one is very neat.
>> Anonymous
>>115017
you do know that a large portion of the scientific community still doesn't buy into the global warming stuff right? until they can definitively PROVE it not just vote to agree that they think it might be true it really doesn't matter. Consensus is not proof or fact, it's no different than mob rule. We want it to be true and we'll get enough people on our side that we'll make an impossible burder to overcome for anyone that might think otherwise. This isn't the way science is supposed to work. :(
>> Anonymous
>>115001
It's funny how "another planet has been warming too" translates to "all the other planets are warming too" in global warming denialist speak.
>> Anonymous
>>115023
>you do know that a large portion of the scientific community still doesn't buy into the global warming stuff right?

It's not a "large portion", any more than a "large portion of the scientific community still doesn't buy into evolution".

And it's not worth looking at solely because the vast majority of the scientific community agrees with it. It's because the vast majority of the scientific community agrees with it for very good reason that have been published in several papers that you are too stupid and arrogant to ever read try to look up.
>> Anonymous
>>115026
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html there, other worlds included too. No denialist here, global warming is happening, but it's not man that's doing it.
>> Anonymous
I propose we expell the ocean into space because it produces the majority of CO2.
>> Anonymous
>>115029
You are a denialist. Other people in this thread are alarmists. Most of you have the same amount of climatology knowledge as each other, i.e., zip, nada, squat. Some of you have actually posted articles where the scientists, if you trace them far back enough, sincerely believe that greenhouse gases have no affect on planetary warming, or that sun temperature variances simply do not happen.

Arguments over this kind of thing boil down to both sides screaming that the other isn't listening. You know why not? Neither side is listening. Both sides are too confident that they're correct, too certain that what their mom and pop and local newspaper told them must be the truth, and above all else too lazy to even think about looking things up in the relevant literature to determine the truth of the matter. You people-- possibly all of you people, certainly at least most-- are what are keeping this issue politicized, and are helping the marketing and PR firms from both sides of the fence spread their own words.

With any luck, at least one person will listen to Anonymous's plea to try and determine the truth of the matter, even if it goes against their own opinion, even if it means doing more than reading blogs and newspaper articles and only seeing lines they want to see, even if it means considering the actual data backing up different people in an argument instead of trying to get a gut feeling about who's more right.
>> Anonymous
>>115033
Correction-- the ocean stores CO2. This is not the same as producing or outputting it.

Funny how different people argue that cars, the ocean, factories, volcanoes, agriculture, non-agriculture-related organisms, and so on each produce a "majority" of greenhouse gases. Uh oh! Could it be that no one's bothered to look anything the fuck up?
>> Anonymous
>>115037
It's not even the majority of the greenhouse gasses that are the problem. There's a natural cycle that keeps things nice, warm and relatively stable if it's not interfered with. That means nature both produces and absorbs greenhouse gases.

So what is the problem then, really? Well it's that little extra added that the natural cycle can't handle. If we produce more CO2 than natural sinks can remove from the atmosphere, it's going to linger on there, and even if it's just a little extra, adding more and more extra every year is upsetting the balance worse and worse every year. Obviously the excess isn't huge, as we're talking about average temperatures raising by one or two degrees per century, but it's enough to cause worry.
>> Anonymous
>>115037
Look things up!? Why that's too hard! I rather be fooled by the media that we're on the path of destruction because some shitty, limited, weather model defined on biased or assumed calculations and values predicts certain doom as interpretted by the same scientists that made those models.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>115035
Look at this! You people made me forget my kitten picture.

Also, effect, not affect.


>>115038
“Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.”

Common sense. But then you have to ask if and how the Earth's many carbon sinks adapt to this environment-- trees and other more complex plantae, yes, sure, but mainly we're talking about the many varieties of algae. If only it could be more simple.
>> Anonymous
>>115038
What is the reasoning that the "nature's cycle" cannot handle extra CO2?
>> Anonymous
>>115038
all this fighting for one to two degrees per century? that's not even worth this thread let alone a planet wide panic. Let future generations worry about finding higher ground.
>> Anonymous
>>115040
>Look things up!? Why that's too hard! I'd rather guess what these climate models must be like, and insult people better skilled and educated than I am based on this guess!
>> Anonymous
don't you worry your little heads, the planet will adapt by developing some super virus that kills off 80% of mankind, pollution problem solved and future replenishment of oil reserves ensured for the next fossil fuel happy period of man
>> Anonymous
>>115045
you forgot to say fixed. Please try again or it never happened by the laws of 4chan
>> Anonymous
>>115046
this makes me wonder, did the dinosaurs tamper with fossil fuels and the planet just happened to swerve in front of a passing asteroid as revenge?
>> Anonymous
>>115047
>I'm a newfag. School's out!
>> Anonymous
>>115049
you forgot to say fixed again :p
>> Anonymous
>>115050
>I'm either very stupid or very bad at sarcasm.

This could go on forever. I think it's actually better than the argument up there.
>> Anonymous
>>115048
The dinosaurs were on the edge of space colonization.
>> Anonymous
>>115042
>>115043
What's the reasoning? Quite simple: it's not handling it. We wouldn't have an excess if it was. Plants are already getting close to the limits at which they can absorb more CO2: after a certain point they'll actually start to absorb LESS. Also, there's the whole problem of oceans becoming too acidic if they absorb enough carbon dioxide. Just look what happened in at the end of the Permian.
>> Anonymous
>>115054
ahhh, life returns to normal on /an/, these wanna be pseudo scientists comparing e-peens is so distasteful
>> Anonymous
>>115057
Plants, individually, don't have limits for this sort of thing beyond what photosynthesis requires.

Perhaps more and more algae and plants (yes, yes, botanists think algae are plants; botanists can go to hell) flourish in an increasingly CO2-rich environment, but this change takes longer than just a century or two for plants to adapt to. Maybe they compensate for the CO2 shift. Maybe algae flood the world's oceans and do serious damage to our fishing supply.

Maybe none of this ever happens, because of man's destruction of plant life and pollution of sea water, or because the CO2 increase simply turns out not to matter to plants as much as light and water, even when they're given centuries to adapt.

Maybe trees grow large, sentient, and angry, and destroy Isengard.

The logic makes sense (as evidenced by the Dickens quote, as much as I hate to quote). However, it doesn't stand on its own; it needs serious corroboration from climate models to prove that the principle that would work in a vacuum applies in essentially the same form to a planet with a whole lot of regulatory mechanisms, biological and otherwise.

Mind, I'm not saying said corroboration doesn't exist. I'm making a point of not taking a position, here. I'm just saying the logic doesn't stand on its own.
>> Anonymous
>>115011
Yes. Because way back when, everyone was a scientist providing complex proofs and data asserting the veracity of their claims. They weren't religious fanatics regurgitating claims they heard from the popular majority. They were all scientists with conflicting data. Except one brave soul, who stood out against popular opinion for the truth. Yup. Yes sir. Such a relevant and accurate portrayal to bring up to modern day discussion.

Galileo = Denialist (because it's minority opinion)
Church = Rest of scientific community (majority opinion)

Also, standing against the majority today for an issue such as this won't involve kickbacks from vested industry. It's all for the sake of truth. The truth. Sure buddy. Sure.
>> Anonymous
>>115106
Please do not equate religious fanatics with scientists just because they are both the mainstream opinion. Faith is faith, and science is science. If you do not understand the difference, it is because you are an ignorant hick who was never taught the scientific method.
>> Anonymous
>>115111
Please realize that at the time Science and Religion were mostly intertwined and were not seperate entities like they are today.
>> Anonymous
>>115114
You're missing the point completely. Unsurprising.

We listen to today's scientific mainstream because they follow the scientific method, something the religious people of that time (who were not scientists; the term was "natural philosophers" for those who engaged in such activity, and generally it was just "theologists") did not. Epistemologically, the scientific method is vastly superior to the feeble attempts of the religious of the time.

Today, people outside the scientific community are generally that way because they fail to follow the scientific method. Unless you sincerely believe that these people have discovered a better way of acquiring and testing knowledge than the scientific method, maybe you should stop talking now.
>> Anonymous
>>115111
fuck you, I'll equate as I please
>> Anonymous
>>115118
lol @ those in the scientific mainstream following the scientific method.

In the scientific method, you don't ignore contradicting evidence and say "OMG my thoery is teh bset!" In thes cientific method, you come up with a theory and attempt to prove it by trying to prove it wrong. That's not what those in the "scientific mainstream" do, because those "scientists" are more interested in politics than science. Real scientists, who attempt to follow the scientific method, are ignored or cast out.

I can tell which of those two types of scientists you are.
>> Anonymous
>>115144
The ones that get their funding from oil companies?
>> Anonymous
>>115118
I'm just gonna point out that it was the efforts of the religious natural philosophers which led to the creation of the scientific method.
>> Anonymous
>>115144
I'm pretty sure this is just a troll, but if it's not, then it's simply a confused Anonymous who doesn't know anything about these words he's seeing, and he deserves to have things cleared up for him.

Mainstream science is _NOT_ the same as "science the media reports on". "Mainstream scientists" are scientists who adopt traditional views on the scientific method and on the foundations of their field, and who are part of the academic community at large.

You probably should know this by now, but whatever, maybe you're from another country or something. It's not really my place to judge.


>>115147
Certainly, without those pathfinders we'd never have the trail we have now. I'm not saying they were stupid people or anything, just that the scientific community was in much more primitive stages then, and that what theologicians believed then and what scientists believe now deserve to be recognized as very, very different.
>> Anonymous
>>114794
Oh heavens no! That would mean that muti billion dollar oil companies would lose a major source of income. Not to mention automakers.
I wish we'd start producing alternative energy cars so we'd not be dependent on the durka durka terrorists for oil.
>> Anonymous
>>115179
Luckily, things are actually slowly starting to balance out on the capitalism end... big energy companies are deciding government initiatives and public good will are making alternative energy increasingly profitable for them, which is why you hear lots of "Conglomo-Energy, friend of wind power, friend of the people, friend of gumdrops and sick puppies!"

It's kind of like leading a horse with a carrot. The horse doesn't know that you need it to get where it's going, but it knows it wants a carrot.
>> Anonymous
>>115169
You're right. Mainstream science is not the same science that media reports on.

That doesn't mean that mainstream scientists don't ignore the scientific method. Take evolutionists, spouting off their rhetoric, advocating it being taught in schools, etc. Doesn't mean that they are right. Doesn't mean that they are better than, or worse than, their creationist counterparts.

But they do ignore the scientific method in that they ignore all contradictory evidence and hold on to evidence which has been proven false, multiple times.

You know Earnst Haeckel, and how his drawings of embryos has been cited many times as proof of evolution? Most mammal embryos look extremely similar! Proof of evolution!

...except that the ones used as proof (not all of them) were faked and or had false emphasis on similarities. No, human embryos don't have gills.

Birds on islands in a drought get larger beaks! Just one drought every ten years, lasting a year, means that in a hundred years, those birds will have evolved into a new species with different beaks and diets! Proof of evolution!

Oh, wait, we won't tell you that after the droughts, the beaks return to normal size. That'd be contradictory to my theory!
My point is that "mainstream scientists," namely evolutionists and global warming advocates, ignore evidence which does not support their theories and thus ignore the scientific method.

Thank you for reading and if you didn't then may Candlejack kindap y
>> Anonymous
>>115213
Wow, you sure did put a lot of effort into that troll. I suggest you maybe go outside once in a while. That can't be healthy.
>> Anonymous
>>115228
Yes, when you got nothing else to say you start insulting other poster, aint that rght dipshit.
>> Anonymous
>>115228
Indeed. Well, that's the end of this thread.
>> Anonymous
Global warming is real. But unlike what bleeding hearts would like to you to believe, it's places like China and India that are fucking up the world with pollution and killing everythign they see.
>> Anonymous
>>115500

didn't you read the memo? THREAD OVER.
>> Anonymous
>>115500
lmao, it's everyone ELSE!!! NEVERMIND THE PAST!!!
>> Anonymous
"Birds on islands in a drought get larger beaks! Just one drought every ten years, lasting a year, means that in a hundred years, those birds will have evolved into a new species with different beaks and diets! Proof of evolution!

Oh, wait, we won't tell you that after the droughts, the beaks return to normal size. That'd be contradictory to my theory!"

It's not contradictory at all. If the drought brought about the arrival of a new species, and the new species reverts to how it was before the drought after it ends, how does that invalidate evolution, unless individual birds have magical shrinking beaks?

It's just another instance, not a negation of the original instance, even if the end result is the same.
>> Anonymous
>>115614
But it didn't bring about a new species. Beaks just got a little larger. Then they returned to normal size in the next generation which didn't have a drought. The scientists studying it said that it would take a hudnred years of regular droughts for a new species to come about, but that estimate was made while ignoring the fact that the beak size returned to normal. NO new species actually was evolved.

lrn2reading comprehension
>> Anonymous
>>115644

FYI: evolution =/= speciation. They are two different things.
>> Cockmongler
>>115213
lol wut? Where have you been living, under a rock? The one counterproof to evolution you post would in fact be a good example of evolution. Seriously, what jackasses are you listening to?
>> Anonymous
>>115644
Please cite sources, k thx bai!
>> Anonymous
>>115508
>>115507
BECAUSE ITS ONLY POLLUTION WHEN AMERICA DOES IT AMIRITE? HAY GUYS LETS OVERPOPULATE THE EARTH AND FUCK IT OVER SUM MOAR!
>> Anonymous
>>115046
and if that doesn't work, they can always send in giant bugs to eat every manmade structure in existance and hunt us down like animals
>> Anonymous
>>114300
agree