Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
How the world is changing. Scary pics.
- Thread starter DJ_UFO
- Start date
E
evansteve
Guest
I think it would be a good thing if the world just got a little warmer.
U
Ulcasterdropout
Guest
I think PW posted this
chewyxrage
New member
Pretty cool pics - some were exaggerated - the mountain pic (#5 I think)
Damn near all the snow is there except the very tip - the lighting is just totally different so you can't see it.
Damn near all the snow is there except the very tip - the lighting is just totally different so you can't see it.
Forge
New member
Jay Cartwright said:So we've lost a bit of snow and ice from the top of a few mountains and the sea level is rising.
Well......that is just too scary? Forgive if I don't go right out and build a doomsday shelter.
The scary thing is that it's accelerating. The further back the permafrost retreats and the glaciers melt, the warmer the planet gets, thus accelerating the effect even more. It's a cycle that has begun and will only increase, to what end we don't know yet. The Earth could be a very different place 100 years from now.
S
Spartacus
Guest
global warming is a myth
S
Spartacus
Guest
Science Has Spoken:
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)
Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.
The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.
Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.
Careful Tests
The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.
Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.
The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.
Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.
So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.
But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.
Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.
Lush Environment
What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.
Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
Global Warming Is a Myth
by Arthur B. Robinson and Zachary W. Robinson
Copyright 1997 Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
Reprinted with permission of Dow Jones & Co., Inc.
The Wall Street Journal (December 4, 1997)
Political leaders are gathered in Kyoto, Japan, working away on an international treaty to stop "global warming" by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The debate over how much to cut emissions has at times been heated--but the entire enterprise is futile or worse. For there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures. What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.
The myth of "global warming" starts with an accurate observation: The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is rising. It is now about 360 parts per million, vs. 290 at the beginning of the 20th century, Reasonable estimates indicate that it may eventually rise as high as 600 parts per million. This rise probably results from human burning of coal, oil and natural gas, although this is not certain. Earth's oceans and land hold some 50 times as much carbon dioxide as is in the atmosphere, and movement between these reservoirs of carbon dioxide is poorly understood. The observed rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide does correspond with the time of human release and equals about half of the amount released.
Carbon dioxide, water, and a few other substances are "greenhouse gases." For reasons predictable from their physics and chemistry, they tend to admit more solar energy into the atmosphere than they allow to escape. Actually, things are not so simple as this, since these substances interact among themselves and with other aspects of the atmosphere in complex ways that are not well understood. Still, it was reasonable to hypothesize that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels might cause atmospheric temperatures to rise. Some people predicted "global warming," which has come to mean extreme greenhouse warming of the atmosphere leading to catastrophic environmental consequences.
Careful Tests
The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.
Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.
The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
Consider what this means for the global-warming hypothesis. This hypothesis predicts that global temperatures will rise significantly, indeed catastrophically, if atmospheric carbon dioxide rises. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has occurred during the past 50 years, and the increase has continued during the past 20 years. Yet there has been no significant increase in atmospheric temperature during those 50 years, and during the 20 years with the highest carbon dioxide levels, temperatures have decreased.
In science, the ultimate test is the process of experiment. If a hypothesis fails the experimental test, it must be discarded. Therefore, the scientific method requires that the global warming hypothesis be rejected.
Why, then, is there continuing scientific interest in "global warming"? There is a field of inquiry in which scientists are using computers to try to predict the weather--even global weather over very long periods. But global weather is so complicated that current data and computer methods are insufficient to make such predictions. Although it is reasonable to hope that these methods will eventually become useful, for now computer climate models are very unreliable. The second chart shows predicted temperatures for the past 20 years, based on the computer models. It's not surprising that they should have turned out wrong--after all the weatherman still has difficulty predicting local weather even for a few days. Long-term global predictions are beyond current capabilities.
So we needn't worry about human use of hydrocarbons warming the Earth. We also needn't worry about environmental calamities, even if the current, natural warming trend continues: After all the Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without ill effects.
But we should worry about the effects of the hydrocarbon rationing being proposed at Kyoto. Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.
Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.
Lush Environment
What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.
Hydrocarbons are needed to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe. This can eventually allow all human beings to live long, prosperous, healthy, productive lives. No other single technological factor is more important to the increase in the quality, length and quantity of human life than the continued, expanded and unrationed use of the Earth's hydrocarbons, of which we have proven reserves to last more than 1,000 years. Global warming is a myth. The reality is that global poverty and death would be the result of Kyoto's rationing of hydrocarbons.
Arthur Robinson and Zachary Robinson are chemists at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.
S
Spartacus
Guest
"The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average."
The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average."
S
Spartacus
Guest
"During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today."
so it's not due to human industrialization or whatever
wtf are we going to do about it?
so it's not due to human industrialization or whatever
wtf are we going to do about it?
slickdadd
New member
Global warming is bullshit. If you look at historical data as opposed to rumors and word of mouth theories, you see that nothing significant has happened or is happening. Very little change over many many years, and even more change has occurred in the past. It's all bullshit.
toxicsambo
New member
The world continues to change in climate just as it always has and will. Just because someone notices a change in a measly 76 years, which is the avg life of a human, doesn't mean they know the future outcome of the Earth's existence. The Earth is much more powerful then us, and it has control over us. We will never defeat nature. The Earth survived and adapted to a meteoric collision that was much more destructive than any explosive we have now and will ever make. So everyone who's crying about this glacier, just do some drugs or something and chill the fk out.
bluepeter
New member
Yeah. Let's just continue to spew toxins and shit into our air non-stop because global warming is all bullshit. It's a cyclical thing man so just chill. Who cares if we can't breath properly or see the sky for all the smog. Who cares if all our most beautiful vistas are chewed up and spit out again. Nobody wants to see that nature shit anyway.
toxicsambo
New member
bluepeter said:
lmao. God you are such a homo.
The toxins and smog that's making it difficult for you to breath are the result of not showering. Change your underwear and eat some fruit.
You're twisted little mind comes up with the funniest shit I ever heard. Can't breath properly! ROFL. Dude, you missed the space ship to Rylon 5, which sucks for the rest of us.
theoak01
New member
I personally think this global warming is scientists trying to explain the cycle the earth is taking and they dont understand it.
we arent to far out of a ice age in the big scheme of things,so I believe this is just the earth warming back to the dinosaur times then it will be another ice age after that and continue to complete this very long circle
we arent to far out of a ice age in the big scheme of things,so I believe this is just the earth warming back to the dinosaur times then it will be another ice age after that and continue to complete this very long circle
I think the point is the amount of permanent long term damage that mankind is doing to nature is quite small or nonexistent, but the damage that would be done to mankind if we were to restrict ourselves (i.e. industry, progress, economy etc.) would be great.
simple cost-benefit analysis bors.
simple cost-benefit analysis bors.
Ahhh, that's not scary. No one lives in those places. Few will be serious about it until it happens in a heavily populated area.
JayC9
Well-known member
Fear! It's churned out by the worlds governments on a daily basis. Fear is a stimulant for the consumer.
Your fridge is giving out harmful CFC's! It's causing holes in the ozone! You need to buy a new one or your children will have to wear factor 1,000 sun block when venturing outside! We now have a special offer on this brand new 'ozone friendly' model.
Sorry, it's horseshit!
Your fridge is giving out harmful CFC's! It's causing holes in the ozone! You need to buy a new one or your children will have to wear factor 1,000 sun block when venturing outside! We now have a special offer on this brand new 'ozone friendly' model.
Sorry, it's horseshit!
Raptorex
New member
DJ_UFO said:
Who cares...live for today!
The Bronze One
New member
Forge said:
wow. you guys would never think that maybe we were coming out of an ice age, huh? Could that be why ice is melting?
Global warming is real and underway
If you're a planet, too hot is bad
Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture
OR JUST GOOGLE IT AND READ YOU MORON.
You Would Be a Fool To Ignore it.
You Would Be a Dumb Fuck To Take a chance even If it wasnt True.
If you're a planet, too hot is bad
Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture
OR JUST GOOGLE IT AND READ YOU MORON.
You Would Be a Fool To Ignore it.
You Would Be a Dumb Fuck To Take a chance even If it wasnt True.
Well, I think the planet will do whatever it deems to be the best possibile choice irregardless of the human influence
However to say that we (industry,etc..) arent playing a large role in this is stupidity beyond recognition.
Its not the situation thats upsetting, its how avoidable it is
I mean we have energy technologies that are safe,enviro friendly, why arent they the primary source? (hydro electric,wind,*solar*) its just nonsense to ignore this.
As for human health, industry takes its toll on us as well. Birth defects,ashtma,other resp. diseases are a large part due to the enviro (air,water)
To say this is all bullshit, is indeed bullshit
But hey, the fuck do we care right? Its only our very existence
However to say that we (industry,etc..) arent playing a large role in this is stupidity beyond recognition.
Its not the situation thats upsetting, its how avoidable it is
I mean we have energy technologies that are safe,enviro friendly, why arent they the primary source? (hydro electric,wind,*solar*) its just nonsense to ignore this.
As for human health, industry takes its toll on us as well. Birth defects,ashtma,other resp. diseases are a large part due to the enviro (air,water)
To say this is all bullshit, is indeed bullshit
But hey, the fuck do we care right? Its only our very existence
