how-to block ads
|
karthwyne
join:2003-04-27
Atlanta, GA
 ·AT&T Southeast
2 edits | reply to jester121
Re: Scientific fact > hysteria
actually, i have never heard that as a reason to believe in global warming, only the bush administration, ie your .gov website, has used that tactic to say why we shouldn't.
personally i like to follow the scientific method and base ideas on logic and fact.
like the ice core samples that show we should be on a cooling cycle in global temperature based on historical record and instead are warming.
like the fact that the polar ice caps are forming 2+ weeks later than they used to, and melting 2+ weeks sooner killing numerous polar bears by starvation.
or in response to the volcano argument, yes, there have been volcano eruptions, and eruptions that caused massive global warming and mass extinction, but we also had 2x the amount of rain forest, and probably a good 100x the amount of temperate forest. just compare the temperatures in a city with the country and you will see the affects man has made on a smaller scale. when europeans first made it to north america, it is said a squirrel could traverse from the atlantic to the pacific without touching the ground as the continent was covered in forests.
and to the guy in black mountain, NC, i'm sure you can smell the paper factory in canton some days, you think that is natural? would you rather drink the water upstream or downstream from them? | |
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD
| Maybe global warming is happening. Maybe it's not. Here's a perspective from a climate scientist in New Zealand:
Global warming debunked
By ANDREW SWALLOW - The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007
Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.
Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.
"It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.
Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.
.....
The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.
However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.
.....
"We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates."
......
"It's become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt," he said. | |
karthwyne
join:2003-04-27
Atlanta, GA
·AT&T Southeast
| i don't know if you realize that is the first article that was posted for the "no such thing as global warming" earlier, but it does not reference any actual studies.
but regardless, his argument is flawed. yes, without greenhouse gases the planet would be just like outer space, scorching on the sun facing side, and almost absolute zero on the dark side (that's -459.67°F), so if we take a temperature range of 500°, that means that even his admitted numbers add up to a change of +1.395°. that kind of temperature change in the ocean means 10x the number and violence of storms. I don't believe that his numbers are realistic though.
besides, his argument is like saying that adding adding a drop of ricin to a glass of pure water is harmless because it is still 99.999% water. | |
|
