|
On January 15 2008 11:42 man wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2008 23:14 Schones_Chaos wrote:On January 14 2008 15:30 BottleAbuser wrote:
Wikipedia seems like an obvious place to go. The References section of the "Global Warming" article is huge.
Probably a matter of wording, but to answer the original question: Yes. Global temperatures have been steadily increasing over the past 50 years. This is not open to interpretation, this is not ambiguous at all. This is simply reading the thermometer and recording the temperature. The globe is warming. I usually hesitate to openly insult people, but anyone who disagrees on this point is an idiot. There is logically no difference between that and insisting that the sun did not rise this morning.
What is disputed is what is causing the warming, and whether or not we should do anything about it (the trend might stop, or reverse, before it causes damage). Go online, read about earths orbit around the sun and the natural wobble which causes variations in the distance from the sun. Since the only known source of enough heat to sustain life on earth is the sun, the sun obviously has the largest impact on it. Imo its a natural cycle (look at all the other ice ages supposedly caused by heating and then decreasing of the earths temperature). How can we, humans be causing the earth to heat up when theres proof it already happens without humans? Wrong, thermal vents in the ocean support life without the sun. Also, the ice ages are a poor example to use because we are not coming out of an ice age, yet the earth is warming. Therefore, current warming is not part of that cycle.
The earth is still warming up from the last age (within the last 10000 years)....
|
You seem to have misunderstood my post.
That the earth's average temperature has been steadily increasing is agreed on by... well, everyone. Judging from your post, you agree.
The real debate is about three questions:
Did we cause it?
Can we stop it?
Should we try to stop it?
For some people, the first question isn't very interesting. For some people, the second question eclipses the third question. There are no definite, clear-cut answers to these questions (thanks to imperfect and incomplete climate models, which do include gas emissions and solar cycles and whatnot), which is why there is a debate.
And no thanks to the "go read" comment. I know how to read, and I don't bother commenting on things I'm clueless about. The variations in solar radiation falling on Earth (excepting the yearly seasons) are nearly insignificant, and even the largest of these has a period of less than 2 decades. The evidence says that the lasting trend of increasing temperature over the last half century is probably not caused by Earth's orbit (or solar cycles, either).
The purpose of this thread is to get you sources, so I should cite the ones I'm using in this post (sorry they're long):
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
There are plenty more good ones listed on the Global Warming page of Wikipedia. No, these will probably not be ones put out there yesterday, but I haven't heard of any breaking developments in the field in the past year or two. The arguments and data are still (!) valid.
|
BottleAbuser the statement im trying to disprove is, "Humans have the most significant impact on the climate change of the earth."
So im saying that its more of a natural cycle of the earth then humans contributing to it.
These are my personal opinions based on what I read
Did we cause it?
An insignificant part of it, not enough to affect the natural cycle
Can we stop it?
Stop our impact on it, we could but it would be hard for all of humanity to learn to live without gasoline and modern life.
Should we try to stop it?
If its going to affect us then of course.
|
Korea (South)11596 Posts
I am aware of what they say. They do not believe that the main factor of global warming is humans, so they fund those who believe the same.
It is retarded to think that global warming is not happening. But to think humans are, is a controversial matter. Of which you obviously do not stand on the side that I do, and that's ok. The research they have is old, yes, but it is/was still valid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
