Originally Posted by usinfantryMOS11c10

Just what I figured, something totally natural. I think our impact on the ozone layer pales in comparison to naturally occurring events.

It just gets me though that people would use such an event to drive prices up and so on.

Back to the science part of this though........

Haven't they also been looking into global warming on gas planets?

The sun itself is warming (well not so much warming as expanding and increasing in brightness, thus bringing it's light closer and increasing it's intensity) very slowly. When the earth was first formed, the Sun only less than 70% as bright as it is now. So that would warm them up. Remember, it took those volcanoes one million years, covering the entire area that makes up the Siberian traps (that entire area turned upside down as a giant plume of magma from the lower mantle broke through the crust) to warm the earth by 5 degrees on average (Please note that this is only on average and is typically equal to how much warmer or colder the equator gets, areas such as the poles experience much more extreme changes, for every degree the equator increases or decreases the temperature, the poles change by three) we managed one degree on average in 150 years. To be fair, the volcanoes were inhibited by their emission of dust which partially counteracted their CO2 emissions, but Dust settles much faster than CO2 can be removed from the Atmosphere, so in the end the CO2 won out. But I think we can clean up our act before we get to End-permian levels of CO2. Well, the developed world can at any rate.

I think it is farcical for us to think that we're not having a huge impact on the earth. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not an eco-warrior but I do think that we need to recognise certain facts:
1. We are removing / destroying and not replacing natural resources that have taken at least hundreds of years to grow, in the case of oil thousands of years.
2. Nature is obviously a robust beast, that has cycles of events, these are triggered by both naturally occurring and external influences - we are the latter.
3. Humanity is expanding at an alarming rate, requiring the use of more and more resources to support our current lifestyles, as well as land, which will impact on the environment and resources.
4. As the human race grows it will require more "basic" resources to support it - food, water and shelter, I"ve mentioned shelter above, but what about the land required for food? More importantly what about water - despite what most believe it is a finite resource, virtually everything requires water in some shape or form and i believe that we are fast apporaoching the levels where water cannot be replenished - that is a tragedy as we're effectively handing a death sentence to our next generations unless we recognise that there is an issue and we need to do something about it.

Denial is good, obviously some of the science is unproven, but at the end of the day a lot of it is proven. We can stick our heads in the sand and say "I'm alright Jack" or we can think about our children and the legacy that we pass on to them.

i hear the refrain that the earth is going through a cycle - cool, why do we have to try and make the cycle as bad as possible - is it so we can come out the other side being really happy instead of just relieved?

My personal philosophy is to try and do no harm to anything that hasn't hurt me, to do my best for my family and do unto others as I would have done unto me - I can't say a coal station on my arse would make me happy, especially if the fumes were vented up my nose, with a group of people standing around saying that this is for my benefit as well as theirs and that it can't really hurt, after all they don't feel it, so the coal station is good.

Rant over, back to beer.

There are two sides to this story. Firstly, the earth is heating up as it has been doing since the beginning of times. Many scientists look for other explanations then Co2 emission. A good example is the theory written by Milutin Milankovitch, who stated that the suns radiation is of much more importance then expected.

For more reading: http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitch.html

Even though Co2 makes up only 0.3% of the earths atmosphere, it still plays a role. Because of our emissions the proces of warming up goes at a way quicker path than calculated. In former times the animals still had time to adapt to the new circumstances. But at this rate it goes way too fast and mass extinction will occur. And this turbo is caused by human action and that should be something we should try to limit.

And for the cynics; all life will eventually become extinct so why no speed things up?

Originally Posted by Ted

There are two sides to this story. Firstly, the earth is heating up as it has been doing since the beginning of times. Many scientists look for other explanations then Co2 emission. A good example is the theory written by Milutin Milankovitch, who stated that the suns radiation is of much more importance then expected.

For more reading: http://deschutes.gso.uri.edu/~rutherfo/milankovitch.html

Even though Co2 makes up only 0.3% of the earths atmosphere, it still plays a role. Because of our emissions the proces of warming up goes at a way quicker path than calculated. In former times the animals still had time to adapt to the new circumstances. But at this rate it goes way too fast and mass extinction will occur. And this turbo is caused by human action and that should be something we should try to limit.

And for the cynics; all life will eventually become extinct so why no speed things up?

Actually as I said before, nature herself has often changed the temperature quickly enough to cause a mass extinction. Typically a rise in temperature is worse for the planet than an equivalent drop in temperature.

Originally Posted by Czin

Actually as I said before, nature herself has often changed the temperature quickly enough to cause a mass extinction. Typically a rise in temperature is worse for the planet than an equivalent drop in temperature.

A planet's temperature rising or falling can not be classified good or bad for a planet. The planet will still be there even if the temperature rises or falls 500 degrees(Celsius or Fahrenheit).

When people talk about "saving the planet" they really mean saving their own a**.
Therefore people who like it cold would prefer a drop, and people who like warmer climates would prefer a rise.

That's really what Global Warming is about, isn't it?

The beach goers and surfers don't see a problem. It is the skiers and ice skaters who are complaining.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

A planet's temperature rising or falling can not be classified good or bad for a planet. The planet will still be there even if the temperature rises or falls 500 degrees(Celsius or Fahrenheit).

When people talk about "saving the planet" they really mean saving their own a**.
Therefore people who like it cold would prefer a drop, and people who like warmer climates would prefer a rise.

That's really what Global Warming is about, isn't it?

The beach goers and surfers don't see a problem. It is the skiers and ice skaters who are complaining.

If the world's average temperature rises by ten degrees celsius, Britain would look an awful lot like the Sahara desert. The Amazon rainforest will disappear, and the dutch will be under water. The same applies to a good deal of America, we could see the Western Interior sea again, which would split America in half between east and west and utterly destroy it's food production (Can't grow wheat when you're a hundred feet under water now can you?)

But overall mankind and it's domestic animals would be fine, or the developed world would be. The developing world is screwed.

All the people who understand climatology, ie. the climatologists agree one thing. Global Warming is real and its happening. The scientists who disagree by and large don't really understand the science.

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

All the people who understand climatology, ie. the climatologists agree one thing. Global Warming is real and its happening. The scientists who disagree by and large don't really understand the science.

Actually, that is not entirely correct.

You have scientists that say Global Warming is real and caused by man. And man needs to stop what they are doing that contributes to it.

You have scientists that say Global Warming is real and caused by man. And man must counter act what causes the warming.

You have scientists that say Global Warming is real and not caused by man. But man should correct it.

You have scientists that say Global Warming is real and not caused by man. In which case we should do nothing to try and influence the change.

Then you have scientists that say Global Warming is not real and not caused by man. And in this case man should not do anything.

Then you have some of us who just like to go to the beach no matter where it ends up, even if it is Omaha, Nebraska.

Originally Posted by johnmacadam

All the people who understand climatology, ie. the climatologists agree one thing. Global Warming is real and its happening. The scientists who disagree by and large don't really understand the science.

If they don't understand the science, how did they get their degrees?

You have fallen for the oldest and most laughed at excuse. "My scientists are correct, your scientists are wrong". Whereas the fact is more like they are all merely pushing their own barrows, supporting any belief that might get then some research money and keep them in a job for life, knowing full well that if you have a degree, there will always be a percentage of persons who will support you.

Have you noticed how this has really got going since the debate about the effects of the hole in the ozone layer has lost credibility, after it reduced in size by 30% in one year (2007) demonstrating that it is probably a totally natural phenomenon over which man has little or no effect.

Personally I think they are all just whistling in the dark.

Originally Posted by senojekips

If they don't understand the science, how did they get their degrees?

You have fallen for the oldest and most laughed at excuse. "My scientists are correct, your scientists are wrong". Whereas the fact is more like they are all merely pushing their own barrows, supporting any belief that might get then some research money and keep them in a job for life, knowing full well that if you have a degree, there will always be a percentage of persons who will support you.

Climatologists, get it? How did they get their "Degrees" Now, That's funny!
Good one, senojekips.

They got them from "GLOBAL WARMING"!