It's enough to make you cry...

[gangrel441]

It's still too early to say whether sea changes identified in the new study are part of the ocean's natural variability or the first signs a decline caused by human-induced global warming, he said.

The problem is that even if GW is caused by human emissions, there never was anything that could be done about it. Human nature prevents that. We are a virus.

OTOH, there is still a strong argument that GW may very well be a natural phenomenon having little or nothing to do with human emissions.

Either way, y'all can quit worrying about us hurting the planet. It was here long before us, and it will be here long after we're gone. And it will find a way to move life along after we disappear.

 

[tachyon]

I agree.

And do all you anti-global warming people also deny that we've created a hole in the ozone layer?

Austin

Actually, I don't believe that reputable scientists claim that we've "created" a hole in the ozone layer. I believe that they say we've "enlarged" it and thinned the overall layer. The earliest references to a hole in the ozone layer go back to the 1987's when scientists in the Antarctic described an existing hole there. Looking back at prior data, they believe that there has been data collected that imply it's existance back as far as the 1920's. The 'ozone hole' is a natural phenomenon. There is no reputable scientific evidence that industrial byproducts do not contribute to the reduction of the ozone layer, and there is some evidence to support the statement that it does.

On global warming, the most recent 'theory' posits that the Tunguska Meteorite may be linked to global warming and the changes in the stratospheric ozone layer due to literally millions of tons of matter injected into the atmosphere. Since that model matches facts as well or better than any other model, who's to say it isn't correct? Certainly no reputable scientist will argue with a theory that better describes the observed facts, will they?

Tachyon

 

[H2Andy]

Point is warming would be good for plants and animals like us ... an ice age will bring on a mass extinction of just about everything
....including humans ....lots of humans.

well... since warming is exactly what would cause your "ice age" then
how can warming be good for animals like us?

you're talking all of the US East Coast freezing as well as Europe,
thanks to global warming disrupting ocean flows (assuming this highly
controversial "ice age" theory is right)

so... again, how is warming "good" for animals like us, since, under
your theory, it's warming that will trigger the mini ice age?

Either way, y'all can quit worrying about us hurting the planet.

well, as unelfish as i'd like to think i am, honestly, in the long run,
all i care about is my survival and the survival of my family and friends and
our offspring.

which, thanks to global warming, is going to be tested to the outmost.
think famine, population disruption, my house in Jacksonville under 200 feet
of water, refugees, big government getting bigger to "help," meaning
less constitutional freedoms will be respected...

dogs and cats living together

that sort of thing

hopefully, the human species will make it through this.. but... we probably
won't

and that's what i care about.

of course the earth will be here after we're gone. that simply isn't the point.

 

[cyklon_300]

Point is warming would be good for plants and animals like us ... an ice age will bring on a mass extinction of just about everything ....including humans ....lots of humans.

an upside, then...didn't figure all the impacts would be negative.

Just curious, which cereal boxes are you getting your scientific data from...?

 

[neonstingray]

Actually, I don't believe that reputable scientists claim that we've "created" a hole in the ozone layer. I believe that they say we've "enlarged" it and thinned the overall layer.

I didn't mean a hole literally, but one of my chem professors did say we have evidence that attributes CFC's to the thinning of the ozone to only a couple centimeters, and that we can still see CFC effects in the atmosphere today even though we've stopped using them, simply because each CFC molecule can alter so many oxygen molecules.

Austin

 

[H2Andy]

On global warming, the most recent 'theory' posits that the Tunguska Meteorite may be linked to global warming and the changes in the stratospheric ozone layer due to literally millions of tons of matter injected into the atmosphere.

the theory posits that the meteorite caused an increase in water vapor
in the atmosphere (along with ice crystals). in turn, this increase in water
vapor has increased greenhouse effect.


significant problem with the theory: there's no shred of evidence that the
amount of water vapor in the atmosphere BEFORE the meteorite struck in
1908 (?) was LESS than the amount of water vapor AFTEAR the meteorite
struck.

big problem if your entire theory hinges on that fact.

another problem is that it doesn't take the big picture into account.
there's evidence of a global warming trend prior to the meteorite hitting.

i don't have a problem with thinking of asteroids and meteorites as
contributors to global warming. certainly that's possible. i do have
a problem with thinking that ALL of global warming is caused by this
one meteorite, and beacause of that, global warming really has nothing
to do with humans.

for example, without our greenhouse effect contributions, the Earth may be able
to absorb a high number of meteorites without climate change.

but since we've tipped the scales, any other disruption would have
a much larger effect.

i think we're not solely responsible. but i think we're the deciding factor
this time around.

 

[Guba]

Just a quick note: The "Tunguska meteorite" is probably misnamed and really doesn't contribute much to our understanding of meteoroid impacts and their effects on climate. You see, the Tunguska object didn't actually impact the earth's surface--there is no crater. Therefore, it didn't throw large amounts of solid particulates into the atmosphere as other meteorites in earth's history did (such as the Chuxalube meteorite that may have ended the Mesozoic). It did, however, blast an inordinately large area of forest, flattening hundreds of square miles of forest in a large, cone-shaped swath. The object that grazed our atmosphere and exploded high over Tunguska was most likely cometary, composed of frozen gases and water vapor. It vaporized at high altitude over a nearly uninhabited tract, but was witnessed by humans near the area. As for the amount of water it added to the atmosphere, it would have been negligible, possibly only a few thousand tons or less.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Wait! Another ice age is just around the corner!

Actually, it opened in theaters about a week ago. Personally, I'll wait for the DVD ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[tachyon]

significant problem with the theory: there's no shred of evidence that the
amount of water vapor in the atmosphere BEFORE the meteorite struck in
1908 (?) was LESS than the amount of water vapor AFTEAR the meteorite
struck.

big problem if your entire theory hinges on that fact.

I'm not really proposing that the theory is correct, only that it's the latest in a long string of theories... It's model just accounts for the decrease in temperatures up until the 1900's that the 'traditional' global warming models can't account for and usually write off as 'false data'.

My biggest problem with global warming theories is that many of them, including the Waterloo models, are based on data that has been 'squeezed' to match the personal theories of the climate researchers. Respectable science sets a hypothesis and then performs experiments to either support or refute the hypothesis. Too many 'activist' scientists fail to abandon a hypothesis when it's refuted by experimental or empirical data.

The problem is exacerbated when politicians without a clue (Al Gore, George Bush, to mention the opposing ends of the clueless political spectrum) think that they are scientific experts and try to impose their clueless political goals over scientific research.

Tachyon

 

[dlndavid]

Actually, it opened in theaters about a week ago. Personally, I'll wait for the DVD ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

But it out did Basic Instinct II by like 20 times, and there nudity in it. :14: