Al Gore nominated for Nobel Peace Prize

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

do you really think that increases in CO2 will not hurt us?

Yes.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by motivez

Sounds good to me. Even if you disagree with global warming, becoming more energy independent, efficient, and cutting down on pollution is good for humanity.

We're not becoming more energy independent. We're attempting to get our energy elsewhere (hence, "alternative" fuels). Efficiency is irrelevant in terms of social effects because that's merely an economic concern. And yes, cutting back on pollution is good for humanity, but I don't think that it has anything (or next to nothing, rather) to do with global warming.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

do you really think that increases in CO2 will not hurt us?

Yes.

I really think it's really not gonna matter much, and this has turned into nothing but a political campaign.

We see higher CO2 levels coinciding with an increase in temperature (maybe?). The reality is, we're also going through natural cycles in the earth's temperture. What if, in fact, it wasn't the CO2 that was causing the heat, but it was the heat causing the increases in CO2 levels? We're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off thinking that we have the ability to control the temperature, and yet we don't even really know what the hell the world is doing. It's ridiculous.

The climatologist on CNN said it best yesterday: "We can't even predict the weather 5 days from now, how can we pretend to predict it 10, 50, 100 yrs from now?"

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Yes.

I really think it's really not gonna matter much, and this has turned into nothing but a political campaign.

We see higher CO2 levels coinciding with an increase in temperature (maybe?). The reality is, we're also going through natural cycles in the earth's temperture. What if, in fact, it wasn't the CO2 that was causing the heat, but it was the heat causing the increases in CO2 levels? We're all running around like chickens with our heads cut off thinking that we have the ability to control the temperature, and yet we don't even really know what the hell the world is doing. It's ridiculous.

The climatologist on CNN said it best yesterday: "We can't even predict the weather 5 days from now, how can we pretend to predict it 10, 50, 100 yrs from now?"

its a scientific fact that there is a greenhouse gas layer in out atmosphere that makes this planet hospitalable to life. Mars do not have one, thus it is extremely cold there and Venus has so much that it makes it extremely hot. The sun light comes into our atmosphere and it gets absorbed. Some of it gets reflected back and some of that it bounced back by the greenhouse layer, and the energy that is bounced is infrared, aka heat. The bigger the layer of greenhouse gases (CO2 mostly) the more infrared that gets bounced back in our atmosphere. Thus there will be more heat in our system.

This is indisputable pure science.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

its a scientific fact that there is a greenhouse gas layer in out atmosphere that makes this planet hospitalable to life. Mars do not have one, thus it is extremely cold there and Venus has so much that it makes it extremely hot. The sun light comes into our atmosphere and it gets absorbed. Some of it gets reflected back and some of that it bounced back by the greenhouse layer, and the energy that is bounced is infrared, aka heat. The bigger the layer of greenhouse gases (CO2 mostly) the more infrared that gets bounced back in our atmosphere. Thus there will be more heat in our system.

This is indisputable pure science.

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the cause.

My work focuses on chemistry in the body. It is so unbelievably complex, constantly throwing twists and surprises every day that we work on it. We think we have something figured out, and the next day it's completely different than what we thought.

I'd be very disappointed if the complex science of the earth's chemistry can be summed up in a paragraph the size of yours.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing the cause.

My work focuses on chemistry in the body. It is so unbelievably complex, constantly throwing twists and surprises every day that we work on it. We think we have something figured out, and the next day it's completely different than what we thought.

I'd be very disappointed if the complex science of the earth's chemistry can be summed up in a paragraph the size of yours.

disputing the cause of more CO2 in the air? Or disputing that more infrared in our atmosphere means there is more heat?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

disputing the cause of more CO2 in the air? Or disputing that more infrared in our atmosphere means there is more heat?

Disputing the cause of warming temperatures.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

Mars do not have one, thus it is extremely cold there and Venus has so much that it makes it extremely hot.

Sorry but neither of those are true. Mars has almost a pure CO2 atmosphere (~96%). And Venus' warming cant be calculated for by just its position and ghg. There is something else behind its high temp.

[JSmythe]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

Sorry but neither of those are true. Mars has almost a pure CO2 atmosphere (~96%). And Venus' warming cant be calculated for by just its position and ghg. There is something else behind its high temp.

Diesel, you're right about the composition of atmosphere, but what you fail to understand is how little there is. You see, if the escape velocity of a planet is less than a certain multiple of a molecules velocity, then the atmosphere will tend to bleed out that molecule. In the case of mars it had an abundant CO2 atmosphere billions of years ago (running water, lakes, oceans, etc.) but it was bled off due to the lack of enough gravity to hold it there. SO yes, while Mars retains a trace atmosphere composed mainly of CO2, it is just that, a trace. And Venus is our solar systems best example of runaway greenhouse gasses making a planet into a sweltering oven.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

The climatologist on CNN said it best yesterday: "We can't even predict the weather 5 days from now, how can we pretend to predict it 10, 50, 100 yrs from now?"

I love people who say this.

Climatology is not meteorology. We can predict long term climate change much better than your local 5 day forecast.

And i'm sorry for you guys that don't think higher levels of C02 will harm us. Nearly every reputable scientist in the feild believes it. You denounce it as political, but what's really political is the fact that it's misrepresented as something that is still not understood. That's just plain wrong.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

I love people who say this.

Climatology is not meteorology. We can predict long term climate change much better than your local 5 day forecast.

except for all those predictions that have already turned out to be completely wrong.


We dont understand the past, cant predict the near future, but what the hell lets guess 100 years out.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

except for all those predictions that have already turned out to be completely wrong.


We dont understand the past, cant predict the near future, but what the hell lets guess 100 years out.

Point me to one single long term forecast that has turned out to be wrong.


I'm talking over 200 years.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Point me to one single long term forecast that has turned out to be wrong.


I'm talking over 200 years.

climatology has only existed for less then 100 years and you are talking about predictions 200 years out ?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

climatology has only existed for less then 100 years and you are talking about predictions 200 years out ?

Ask him to point you to one 200 yr prediction that's turned out to be right.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

Point me to one single long term forecast that has turned out to be wrong.


I'm talking over 200 years.

Half a century ago we were supposed to be living in igloos right now.

Also keep in mind the climate change has increased about 1 degree Celsius over the past century. There was more of a temperature increase during the first 50 years when we were dumping far less CO2 into the atmosphere. If more CO2 = higher temperatures, something isn't adding up.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

climatology has only existed for less then 100 years and you are talking about predictions 200 years out ?

And you are the one talking about long term predictions being wrong.

You made the statement that they have been proven wrong. Lets see it.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Half a century ago we were supposed to be living in igloos right now.

Also keep in mind the climate change has increased about 1 degree Celsius over the past century. There was more of a temperature increase during the first 50 years when we were dumping far less CO2 into the atmosphere. If more CO2 = higher temperatures, something isn't adding up.

That's why experts prefer the term "global climate change".

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Scrumtralecent

That's why experts prefer the term "global climate change".

So they invented a catchy phrase to make up for their lack of evidence that CO2 is playing a major role in the "global climate change"? Sounds like scare tactics to receive funding to me.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by JaJae

So they invented a catchy phrase to make up for their lack of evidence that CO2 is playing a major role in the "global climate change"? Sounds like scare tactics to receive funding to me.

Damn science for learning new evidence and changing their views accordingly.

It must be scare tactics.