Global Warming- True or False?

[removeduser_487563287433]

We can alter it in local and small ways but we cant control the weather or atmosphere or much of anything big.

Acid rain? Smog? The Aral Sea?

I did answer your question, earlier. I said that we can't alter our planet's atmosphere, excepting a global nuclear exchange.

We already have. Lead petrol, CFCs, ozone, etc.

[Oldgamer]

Acid rain? Smog? The Aral Sea? We already have. Lead petrol, CFCs, ozone, etc.

But we're talking about the global climate. You're talking about local phenomenon.

And I like leaded gasoline. Dramatically increases octane and, therefore, horsepower.

Yes, I'm an enviro-heretic!

[removeduser_487563287433]

But we're talking about the global climate. You're talking about local phenomenon.

And I like leaded gasoline. Dramatically increases octane and, therefore, horsepower.

Yes, I'm an enviro-heretic!

Atmospheric lead and acid rain are not localised - leaded petrol is one of the worst inventions of the 20th century.

Patterson quickly established that we had a lot of lead in the atmosphere - still do, in fact, since lead never goes away - and that about 90% of it appeared to come from car exhaust pipes; but he couldn't prove it. What he needed was a way to compare lead levels in the atmosphere now with the levels that existed before 1923, when tetraethyl lead began to be commercially produced. It occurred to him that ice cores could provide the answer.
It was know that snowfall in places like Greenland accumulates into discrete annual layers (because seasonal temperature differences produce slight changes in coloration from winter to summer). By counting back through these layers and measuring the amount of lead in each, he could work out global atmospheric lead concentrations at any time for hundreds, or even thousands, of years. The notion became the foundation of ice core studies, on which much modern climatological work is based.
What Patterson found was that before 1923 there was almost no lead in the atmosphere, and that since that time lead levels had climbed steadily and dangerously. He now made it his life's quest to get lead taken out of petrol. To that end, he became a constant and often vocal critic of the lead industry and its interests.
It would prove to be a hellish campaign. Ethyl was a powerful global corporation with many friends in high places. (Among its directors have been Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell and Gilbert Grosvenor of the National Geographic Society.) Patterson suddenly found research funding withdrawn or difficult to acquire. The American Petroleum Institute cancelled a research contract with him, as did the United States Public Health Service, a supposedly neutral government body.
As Patterson increasingly became a liability to his institution, the Caltech trustees were repeatedly pressed by lead industry officials to shut him up or let him go. According to Jamie Lincoln Kitman, writing in The Nation in 2000, Ethyl executives allegedly offered to endow a chair at Caltech 'if Patterson was sent packing'. Absurdly, he was excluded from a 1971 National Research Council panel appointed to investigate the dangers of atmospheric lead poisoning, even though he was by then unquestionably America's leading expert on atmospheric lead.
To his great credit, Patterson never wavered. Eventually his efforts led to the introduction of the Clean Air Act of 1970 and finally to the removal from sale of all leaded petrol in the United States in 1986. Almost immediately the lead levels in the blood of Americans fell by 80%. But because lead is for ever, Americans alive today each have about 625 times more lead in their blood than people did a century ago. The amount of lead in the atmosphere also continues to grow, quite legally, by about a hundred thousand tonnes a year, mostly from mining, smelting and industrial activities. The United States also banned lead in indoor paint, '44 years after most of Europe', as McGrayne notes. Remarkably, considering its startling toxicity, lead solder was not removed from American food containers until 1993.

[Rush Limbaugh]

Atmospheric lead and acid rain are not localised - leaded petrol is one of the worst inventions of the 20th century.

This however has nothing to do with global warming. Preventing the emissions of poisons into the atmosphere is a no brainer. Thats why their trying to claim CO2 as a poison.

[removeduser_487563287433]

This however has nothing to do with global warming. Preventing the emissions of poisons into the atmosphere is a no brainer. Thats why their trying to claim CO2 as a poison.

But it does have to do with your assumption that we cannot change the Earth or the atomsphere. You still have not explained this, even though I have provided an example to the contrary. I thought atmospheric lead would be more likely to resonate with you and Oldgamer because it has nothing to do with global warming.

[Gary88]

Thats why their trying to claim CO2 as a poison.

i dont know who is trying to claim CO2 is a poison but it certainly isnt good for you, try breathing it for a while and see how nice it is. this absurd notion that humans are incapable of causing change in the worlds climate is absurd and quite frankly ignorant

[Erik]

Erik, you'll never convince me that you don't have strong political beliefs! You may find debating fun, but your views are always right under the surface.

Of course I have strong political believes, but that doesn't mean I take part in the political game surrounding the global warming debate.

It is the height of human arrogance to think that our activities ... save a global nuclear exchange ... have the power to change the climate of this planet ...

They used to say the same about humans ability to fly to the moon and back.

Don't mis-under-estimate us too quickly.

The CO2 produced by nature is a perfect cycle. Yes 97% procent of all CO2 emissions are from nature, but nature takes every single ton (or almost) of CO2 back.

Actually, nature takes back (slightly) more than it emits.
Over the past 600 million years, the vast majority of atmospheric CO2 that was in the air before life started got turned into fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal).

That's why it's a lot colder today than it was in the time of the dinosaurs.

In the past 100 years humans have returned a significant portion of the carbon in fossil fuels back to the atmosphere, undoing what nature took millions of years.

[lewis16666]

I think I'll just always be sceptical, until the day they plough up the roads so none of us can drive.

[Snoopy]

http://nov55.com/gbwm.html

"Global Warming is caused by the ocean"

In my opinion, earth has ALWAYS been changing. Humanity simply cannot change something caused by the earth. Even IF we are making any difference, it STILL will happen, just later on. There is nothing to do about it. The claims about the so-called HUGE human impact on the environment are ridicules. Seriously, we created cars,TV,computers, and all of the sudden they are BAD? Also, Earth created its OWN ice age. Dinosaurs did NOT drive automobiles and fight WW2s. Or be big business dinosaurs. Or sell drugs. Or protest against the ice age. The planet changed on its own.

Imagine there is a small ant colony in a cup. You find it. It begins growing and such. Suddenly, you pour the colony out the window, and instead put sort of insect colony inside. Its pretty much the same thing. We can't destroy what created us.

[Gary88]

In my opinion, earth has ALWAYS been changing. Humanity simply cannot change something caused by the earth. Even IF we are making any difference, it STILL will happen, just later on. There is nothing to do about it. The claims about the so-called HUGE human impact on the environment are ridicules. Seriously, we created cars,TV,computers, and all of the sudden they are BAD? Also, Earth created its OWN ice age. Dinosaurs did NOT drive automobiles and fight WW2s. Or be big business dinosaurs. Or sell drugs. Or protest against the ice age. The planet changed on its own.

Imagine there is a small ant colony in a cup. You find it. It begins growing and such. Suddenly, you pour the colony out the window, and instead put sort of insect colony inside. Its pretty much the same thing. We can't destroy what created us.

yeah but the next ice age isnt due for 50,000 years...and just because we made cars doesnt mean that they cant 'suddenly' be bad (and 100 years is a micro second in the planets life)

also i read your article and i cant do a full breakdown but i noticed a few flaws which make me skeptical, thx though i havent seen that article before

[Allu X]

why can't we just make more ozone and pump it up there?
its only O3 and should be easy to make, though under extreme conditions im guessing

[Gary88]

why can't we just make more ozone and pump it up there?
its only O3 and should be easy to make, though under extreme conditions im guessing

the Ozone hole and global warming are seperate issues (though the first may have an affect on the latter) and i belive the americans tried that

[Rush Limbaugh]

yeah but the next ice age isnt due for 50,000 years...and just because we made cars doesnt mean that they cant 'suddenly' be bad (and 100 years is a micro second in the planets life)

Are you sure? I heard it was overdue.

the Ozone hole and global warming are seperate issues (though the first may have an affect on the latter) and i belive the americans tried that

And both junk science.

also i read your article and i cant do a full breakdown but i noticed a few flaws which make me skeptical, thx though i havent seen that article before

Its in that movie the great global warming swindle. Talk about finding a few flaws. The global warming theory is chock full of them

I give it 10 more years before its proven a hoax.

[Gary88]

Are you sure? I heard it was overdue.

i forget where i read that so naturally you can ignore it unless i can dig it back up

And both junk science.

not that absurd claim again, last time you said this i gave you a very informative article about the Ozone from cambridge university and some findings of the BAS and you ignored them

Its in that movie the great global warming swindle. Talk about finding a few flaws. The global warming theory is chock full of them

and we all know how good that documentary was with its imature film maker and its completely out of date and already refuted evidence

[Rush Limbaugh]

not that absurd claim again, last time you said this i gave you a very informative article about the Ozone from cambridge university and some findings of the BAS and you ignored them

No I didnt. I showed you how they were dumbed down for the average person.

and we all know how good that documentary was with its imature film maker and its completely out of date and already refuted evidence

I saw very little refuted. No where near as much as most of the things you guys post or AlGores movie.

[Gary88]

No I didnt. I showed you how they were dumbed down for the average person.

please please show me how they were incorrect in anyway

I saw very little refuted. No where near as much as most of the things you guys post or AlGores movie.

i wish people would stop talking about Al Gore ffs. all of that documentary has been refuted and the maker now looks like an idiot

[Rush Limbaugh]

please please show me how they were incorrect in anyway

One more time. There is no such thing as the Ozone Layer or Ozone hole. That is terms used so that laymen can better get a picture of what their speaking about.

i wish people would stop talking about Al Gore ffs. all of that documentary has been refuted and the maker now looks like an idiot

AlGore. The gift that just keeps giving. Ok so just how much of that movie can you refute again? I remember one scientist trying to claim he didnt say what he said

[Gary88]

Ok so just how much of that movie can you refute again? I remember one scientist trying to claim he didnt say what he said

without watching the Hour long documentary again only the fact they used data from the 80s (approx) that has since been refuted and put it forth as up to date, other than that the facts many scientists have voiced concerns over facts from the show but the maker refused to discuss it with them in any kind of mature debate (he told them to '**** off') and that people have said they were misrepresented in the show. there was a lot of press coverage after the thing was aired

There is no such thing as the Ozone Layer or Ozone hole

the thickness of Ozone around the world in the stratosphere is measured in dobson units (DU) and the hole is an area of substantial depletion of the thickness of the layer all of which is measurable, i have never claimed otherwise

[Rush Limbaugh]

without watching the Hour long documentary again only the fact they used data from the 80s (approx) that has since been refuted and put it forth as up to date,

And this refuted what?

other than that the facts many scientists have voiced concerns over facts from the show but the maker refused to discuss it with them in any kind of mature debate (he told them to '**** off') and that people have said they were misrepresented in the show.

I saw one guy who said he didnt mean what he said I saw a list of 2 or 3 others who claimed the same. And this refuted w exactly what point?

here was a lot of press coverage after the thing was aired

yeah they couldnt wait to attack it. For some reason they loved Gores movie though. But again there is no bias on this topic. It should make your job easy.

[lord o kelly]

There is no such thing as global warming,
And for every post in this thread I will drive my gas guzzling SUV 1 Mile more than I have to!(Mostly to the 4th nearest McDonalds)