Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
I could read opinions, but, I would rather read studies.
You know, reliable sources. Facts, studies, research, whatever.
It's funny that you say that because...
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
http://sustainablog.org/2009/05/18/prevention-of-global-warming-understanding-the-main-causes/
http://sustainablog.org/2009/06/18/the-top-causes-of-global-warming-natural-or-human/
...blogs are based on opinions and not regarded as scientific articles.
Wikipedia isn't close to being a collection of scientific articles either, but it has some valid metafacts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warmingQuote from: WikiIn addition to human-caused emissions, some models also include a simulation of the carbon cycle; this generally shows a positive feedback, though this response is uncertain. Some observational studies also show a positive feedback.
Sure, there are studies that show that human do affect global warming significantly, but there are also studies that show that this isn't the case. Here is a counter article:
http://www.john-daly.com/cause/cause.htmHere's a very nice quote from that article.
QuoteThe evidence is overwhelming that temperature records from places remote from human habitation show no evidence of warming. These remote places include forests, ice cores and other proxy measurements, measurements by weather balloons, measurements by satellite (the only truly global measurements) and surface measurements in places where human influence is minimal. It only remains, therefore to characterise the human influence around weather stations in more detail;.
Funny that people call it "global warming" while it's clearly "local warming". How typical for humans to assume the are the (center of the) existing world.
Also:
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 amhttp://ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm
This is a nice article about a few facts. But for some reason I can't find any mentioning that this is the major cause of global warming except for the misleading title saying "Causes of global warming". Just putting a label on something doesn't turn it into what the label represents.
QuoteFigure 6 goes back much further, more than 2000 years, and shows a slight recent warming which cannot be considered as exceptional. A slight increase in tree-ring thickness recently is to be expected because of the increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide
This is so typical for people to assume that a short-term change will cause or will not cause a long term change.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
While natural causes are a small part of global warming. You'll be ignorant or in your words "an idiot" to not admit that humans are a much bigger part of the global warming picture. I really don't talk or debate without reading up on something before I enter a debate.
Your first response didn't make the impression that you read it. That's all I am saying. I didn't call you an idiot, I said that it could make your look like one if you think you can burst in an into a debate and shake the foundations of one side with one single sentence. Putting words in my mouth isn't nice.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
Underestimating me even in the slightest will not be beneficial to your argument.
Then I hope to see some facts and not opinions, some proofs and not biased studies.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
Humans, are responsible even for some of the natural elements of GW. Such as chopping down trees/forests for lumber. Any elementary student can tell you that Trees/ plants convert Carbon Dioxide to Oxygen. The less trees there are, the more Carbon Dioxide there will be.. and as time progresses I think you could put two and two together.
That's true. But humans have been chopping down woods for quite some time now. And other people have been complaining about it for the same period of time. I'm not saying that it's a good thing to do and I'm not saying that it doesn't affect the life on the planet at all, but if you read
this you will see that currently about 0.2% of forests disappear every year. It was about 0.4% per year several years earlier. What that means? Well, that means that we could fairly say that 10%-20% of all forests have disappeared in the last 100 years. How much did the temperature go up (that includes other factors as pollution)? Not that much. So how much do you think was caused by the disappearance of forests?
ALSO, forests are not the only vegetation on the planet. In case you didn't know, there are many algae under sea. Are you saying that they don't produce any oxygen? Especially since algae are quite a consumer of CO
2.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
Resources isn't infinite on this earth and almost everything has a complex relationship.
Hence it is wrong to assume that the change of one single factor as humans creating more gashouse effect gases is the major cause of a climate change.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
(I.E. One time the US tried to rid Africa of harmful mosquitoes in Borneo. They succeeded, but then they failed. They got rid of the diseases that mosquitoes caused but.. a butterfly effect was triggered. That was a doozy.
Read here: http://www.cdra.org.za/creativity/Parachuting%20cats%20into%20Borneo.htm)
That shows how the most noble intentions can turn out quite ugly. What makes you think it can't work the other way around?
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
Humans are more influential than you may think.
I am not saying they aren't and I never said that. But to think that humans are a major factor in some things is very arrogant. How are people supposed to take such exagarations seriously when you come across articles like this one?
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.eceQuote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
Here are a few more good reads.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070419_earth_timeline.html
http://solveclimate.com/blog/20090218/usda-census-part-ii-destroying-land-destroying-planet
Yet again no scientific articles but media and media can be influenced.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
Finally, of course the last reason that I could not believe you.
http://www.examiner.com/x-5266-Seattle-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m6d16-White-House-report-global-warming-is-real-and-caused-by-human-activity
Very nice article about what might happen. But somehow I can't find the part where we have some valid statistics about how this is solely humanity's fault.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
^The white house reports it to be true. Both Obama's and Bush's.
Nobody said it wasn't true. The article describes a possible scenario after all. Probability is always true.
Quote from: LurkerKoetsu on June 26, 2009, 05:10:20 am
Of course if you could show me your degree in the study of Global Warming I'll take back my words. I'll Apologize, hell I'll even say that I'm a moron. Of course, if you can even show me any studies you read that are from a reliable source which source their sources.. I'll think it over.
I don't have a degree in Global Warming studies, but neither have you. But I am not questioning global warming here, I am questioning the scientific methods used to achieve results. As we all know it is possible to simply ignore various factors that seem irrelevant. Just because they seem to be irrelevant doesn't make them irrelevant.
And what makes you think that human knowledge is absolute? Humans once thought the Earth was flat and it was accepted common knowledge. It is hard to prove a theory on a large scale because (as you said yourself) of many factors that affect the result. Hence it is foolish to believe it unless a majority of studies show or a minority of studies actually PROVE that humans are a major factor in global warming.
Again, I am not saying that we shouldn't act pre-emptively and supress possible causes. But just because a few people (remember, humans are biased creatures) decide to make a study to "prove" (those terms are exclusive, you can't prove anything with a study) that humans are the major cause of global warming, doesn't mean they are right.
Besides, you are going off topic here. It's about why humanity should kill itself, not if there is global warming. If you want to discuss global warming, please make a new thread.