Forums → WEPR → Global Warming
| 933 | 211134 |
i dont beleive in global warming because i think that it is so gradual that by the time it is dangerous the next ice age will counter act it
Does any one else have any views or opinions about that?
- 933 Replies
Global Warming = CRAP
Arguments without evidence = Crap.
Give some evidence and save yourself bucketloads of ridicule.
Global Warming = CRAP
There is evidence that the temperature of the earth has gone up in the past 200 years. The debate is on the cause: if it's natural or if people did it. Pirates seem to keep the temperature down.
Give evidence for global warming otherwise
Ever since people began acurately recording temperatures, it has gone up on average.
link.
The CO2 theory is based on the burning of fossil fuels. What do you think was used to produce electricity and particularly steam-power? If these activities were not harmful to nature then, why would they be now?
steam = hot water the pressure creates energy. we heat the water whit coals. this energy source is not (barely) harmfull to natur and still isn't.
however society needs more energy then steam can give us.
electricity was been caputered by many ways. streaming water, wind or whit the hand for example.
electricity itself is not harmfull for nature. hack nature has the biggest load of electricity itself, called thunder.
The flooding of the North Sea area? Evidence? Archaeology mainly
you answerded yourself. =)
yes archaeology it's 30% or so under sea level. wich means if we didn't had dykes. that we lose 30% of our land instandly. and whit the sea-level rishing. so is the % of our land that go's under sea-level. and giving us need to build higher walls.
What industrial activity took place in 10,000 BC
link not working. error 404.
he BBC link documents the rise to happen over 4000 years2 degree in 500 year = 16 degree in 4000. sounds normal.
Who is to say what natural global warming really is?
it's been calculated that 1 day poo of 1 cow is the same as driving 60 mile in a normal (european, not huge *** american) car.
but we can't be sure about the speed because we only have 200 year records. we could if we had records from 500 year or so. but it's to late for that now anyway. we can only estimate.
There is no definitive proof either way
for me it's already proof enoufg that my government spend about 400 million on securing the land from the sea since 2004. for this very reason.
steam = hot water the pressure creates energy. we heat the water whit coals. this energy source is not (barely) harmfull to natur and still isn't.
however society needs more energy then steam can give us.
electricity was been caputered by many ways. streaming water, wind or whit the hand for example.
electricity itself is not harmfull for nature. hack nature has the biggest load of electricity itself, called thunder.
You're missing the point.. you said:
befor the late 1800's all the industrialization was done whit steam power and and electric power (battery's)
wich both are not harmfull for nature.
My point is that steam power and electric both relied on fossil fuels, the burning of. That is the theory of CO2, that is the reason given for global warming. But you're saying they're not harmful to nature. Think about it for a minute or two before you explain to me what steam is or what electricity is. I know already, I'm asking why burning fossil fuels wasn't harmful back then but it is now.
you answerded yourself. =)
yes archaeology it's 30% or so under sea level. wich means if we didn't had dykes. that we lose 30% of our land instandly. and whit the sea-level rishing. so is the % of our land that go's under sea-level. and giving us need to build higher walls.
Again, I don't think you understand. It was land. The sea rose. There was no industrial society. What caused the sea to rise so rapidly? And more to the point, the sea has risen before with no industrial activity, no CO2 rising. Why couldn't it happen again?
link not working. error 404
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6584011.stm
Solved.
2 degree in 500 year = 16 degree in 4000. sounds normal.
Read the rest of what I said rather than giving a partial quote. New evidence has found it happened a lot faster. Are you trying to be difficult with this or are really that daft?
it's been calculated that 1 day poo of 1 cow is the same as driving 60 mile in a normal (european, not huge *** american) car.
but we can't be sure about the speed because we only have 200 year records. we could if we had records from 500 year or so. but it's to late for that now anyway. we can only estimate.
So you're admitting here that there is insufficient data. The earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, and you want to tell me that you can accurately measure temperatures based on a 200 year sample? 200 years is nothing in the scale of things.
for me it's already proof enoufg that my government spend about 400 million on securing the land from the sea since 2004. for this very reason.
In Holland? You mean the country that has been a natural flood plain for thousands of years? The country that sits beneath sea level in many parts? That is your proof? You live in a country that could naturally flood without rising sea levels, but your government secures some land from the sea, and that's your proof?
Did you read what you'd written back to yourself before you argued a point? Do some research on the geography of your own country and we can talk again.
i say we are gonna have a counter attack it by a ice age,then we have to live in ice houses
So you're admitting here that there is insufficient data. The earth has been here for 4.5 billion years, and you want to tell me that you can accurately measure temperatures based on a 200 year sample? 200 years is nothing in the scale of things.
Well, we do have data reaching very far back, it's simply not as accurate since it relies on analysis of geological layers and such, or on written accounts as soon as there are some. I remember for example seeing on TV certain Middle-Age writings that made clear that it was colder then than we're used to now. And it's true that the climate is getting warmer anyway, without our imfluence, because we're getting out of a micro-iceage. But I'm also pretty sure there's enough evidence to show we do speed up thing to a certain degree, but I can't provide you with any links or such right now so just ignore that part..
Did you read what you'd written back to yourself before you argued a point? Do some research on the geography of your own country and we can talk again.
They got barrages since always, because the land is so low. Why would they invest so much money on already existing protection? Maintenance probably costs less. I guess it's because they need to build higher/stronger protection, maybe the current ones aren't enough for a further raising sea level.
Did ya think of that before going on a rant?
A lot of people notice that where they live it's actually getting colder; here we've just had afew cold weeks like we haven't had since some time. But that's not a proof against climate change, it's because of all the melting ice at the poles, and where does this cold water go to? It goes around the world, cools certain water/air currents which then leads to such more or less localised coolings.
Global Warming sounds as logical as riding a unicorn through rainbow pixieland
Global Warming sounds as logical as riding a unicorn through rainbow pixieland
Please explain?
In the past few weeks, I've definitely experienced conditions logically resulting from global warming (very cold weeks). Why is this cold a result from global warming? That makes no sense.. Yes it does! Because the ice at the caps is melting, and this cold water is dispersed by currents and also cools the air, leading to localized coolings. This is not disprooving global warming^^
I've also seen projections of global temperatures done with programs using past and actual data, and the temperatures on the world are definitivey getting warmer (I sadly don't have them anymore since they were part of an ecology lecture (and I probably wouldn't even have the right to show them)).
I think scientists are exaggerating on the global warming thing.
Oh look. Another post with absolutely no reason behind the statement given. Please elaborate?
I think scientists are exaggerating on the global warming thing.
The drift ice is melting fast, and animals like polar bears and walrusses are in immediate danger. I don't know whether scientists are exxagerating about our situation, but they're definitely not exxagerating for many animals. But maybe they're not important to you, I don't know?
to hahiha, oh, right. Its getting colder because of Global Warming. That sounds as logical as my homework doing itself.
to hahiha, oh, right. Its getting colder because of Global Warming. That sounds as logical as my homework doing itself.
Yes it does! Because the ice at the caps is melting, and this cold water is dispersed by currents and also cools the air, leading to localized coolings.
Read other people's postings? It does make sense, if you understand what it's saying. Global warming refers to the increase in the average temperature of the planet. Localized coolings do not disprove it. We have data that the average temperature of the world has risen. Thus, global warming is real. The only real question is how much are we affecting it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!