70 Trillion cubic feet of New Arctic Ice

• Mama wrote on 2011-01-27 01:22

  Saying something like 'volcanos are more responsible for CO2 in the atmosphere than man made causes' is true but misleading. Misleading in that the earths atmosphere works in cycles, it has been like this for millions of years. In the past century, and certainly the past two decades, CO2 output has been increased because of human causes. To argue that the output of CO2 by man is very small, hence a non-issue, is looking at it rather blindly given that quantity isn't always the defining factor. For instance even a little bit of magnesium, in the realms of parts per million, can destroy a lake.

  
  
  hmm.. time to learn more. *goes article hunting*
  
  heres more.
  
  

  A widely accepted estimate of the amount of CO2 spewed into the atmosphere each year by normal volcanic activity (venting etc.) on land and at sea is 300 million metric tons. Sounds a lot, but human burning of fossil fuel is measured in tens of billions on metric tons per year. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are around 100-150 times those of volcanoes.
  
  But what about big eruptions? The largest recent one was Pinatubo in 1991. US geologists estimate that between 40 and 240 million metric tons of CO2 were spewed into the atmosphere by the volcano on the day of the eruption in June 1991. Again, it sounds a lot, but that's only somewhere between 1 and 7 day's worth of human fossil fuel burning.
  
  Claims that a single volcano produces more CO2 than humans do in decades is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong.

  
  
  well now. looks like things aren't black and white again.
• paladin wrote on 2011-01-27 01:24
  Global warming is not a correct term
  It seems more like
  Humans turning the cycle of heating and cooling to the extreme
  I dont think we need another ice age to freeze us over and basicly decimate the human race do we?
  Nor do we need a drought of deadly proportions do we?
• Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-01-27 01:25

  Quote from Mama;305841:

  hmm.. time to learn more. *goes article hunting*

  
  
  The more you know........
  
  
  
  
  
  ......the less like a democrat you are.
  
  (is insinuating that democrats don't research whatever they're talking about, not that they'r generally stupid. Some of them though........)
  
  

  Quote from paladin;305843:

  Global warming is not a correct term
  It seems more like
  Humans turning the cycle of heating and cooling to the extreme
  I dont think we need another ice age to freeze us over and basicly decimate the human race do we?
  Nor do we need a drought of deadly proportions do we?

  
  
  Okay....now explain to me exactly HOW we are causing it? and again, its been this way for a long time. Its not as extreme as the media would have you believe it is.
• Mama wrote on 2011-01-27 01:28

  Quote from Sleeperdial;305844:

  The more you know.......
  
  ......the less like a democrat you are.
  
  (is insinuating that democrats don't research whatever they're talking about, not that they'r generally stupid. Some of them though........)

  
  
  It's hard to find some straight facts without it being riddled by biases or incorrect information. P:
  though my brothers outlook changed a lot ever since learning how the world really worked economically. Thats definitely tons more of a downer than so called climate change.
• Kueh wrote on 2011-01-27 01:34

  Quote from Sleeperdial;305844:

  Okay....now explain to me exactly HOW we are causing it? and again, its been this way for a long time. Its not as extreme as the media would have you believe it is.

  
  
  It's not far fetched to say that humans have a distinct impact on the environment without knowing it. (See Ozone hole and the ban on Chlorofluorocarbons.)
  
  Also, I just want to say that I'm not saying that I think global climate change is a problem. I don't have an opinion yet because I have not seen any real data to support either case.
  
  I'm just playing devil's advocate.
• paladin wrote on 2011-01-27 01:38

  Quote from Sleeperdial;305844:

  The more you know........
  
  
  
  
  
  ......the less like a democrat you are.
  
  (is insinuating that democrats don't research whatever they're talking about, not that they'r generally stupid. Some of them though........)
  
  
  
  Okay....now explain to me exactly HOW we are causing it? and again, its been this way for a long time. Its not as extreme as the media would have you believe it is.

  
  
  In the simplest way
  Were adding crap that aint suppose to be there that causes unknown ie effects
  Ie green house gases reflecting heat back into earth making the heating stage more intense
  Also like back in the day when aerosol cans made compounds that reacted with ozone and consumed ozone to make holes in the ozone layer
  Humans id guess are about the only animal race on the this plant to have done major environmental damage to the planet
• Magenera wrote on 2011-01-27 01:41
  Spartaa is right global warming is pretty damn natural, and the CO2 emission that humanity puts out is dwarf to what the planets sees anyway (thats with life in it by the way). The true problem is that human pollution might create unknown effects that we don't know about so they would rather stop it now than to face the unknown.
• Sleeperdial wrote on 2011-01-27 01:42

  Quote from paladin;305862:

  In the simplest way
  Were adding crap that aint suppose to be there that causes unknown ie effects
  Ie green house gases reflecting heat back into earth making the heating stage more intense
  Also like back in the day when aerosol cans made compounds that reacted with ozone and consumed ozone to make holes in the ozone layer
  Humans id guess are about the only animal race on the this plant to have done major environmental damage to the planet

  
  
  If its unknown then how do you know its us?
  There is no hole in our ozone layer, most measurements for that specifically taken when they know there will be increased sun activity such as a a solar flare which allows more heat into our atmosphere in that specific area. That why nobody can pin point where the hole is. Plus how the #$%@ is the spray from my aerosol can supposed to make it all the way up into the atmosphere?
• Mama wrote on 2011-01-27 01:46

  Quote from Sleeperdial;305867:

  Plus how the #$%@ is the spray from my aerosol can supposed to make it all the way up into the atmosphere?

  
  
  it disperses and rises until it gets broken down by sunlight, because the molecules are so stable.
  pretty simple
  but nowadays they don't use chlorine or bromine molecules or chlorofluorocarbons so it only has ground level ozone, very little effect on the atmospheric one
• paladin wrote on 2011-01-27 01:46

  Quote from Sleeperdial;305867:

  If its unknown then how do you know its us?
  There is no hole in our ozone layer, most measurements for that specifically taken when they know there will be increased sun activity such as a a solar flare which allows more heat into our atmosphere in that specific area. That why nobody can pin point where the hole is. Plus how the #$%@ is the spray from my aerosol can supposed to make it all the way up into the atmosphere?

  
  
  I cant say much about the hole part
  But the ozone part is like saying how do we know gases are going into the air that come from our cars
• Kueh wrote on 2011-01-27 01:49

  Quote from Sleeperdial;305867:

  There is no hole in our ozone layer, most measurements for that specifically taken when they know there will be increased sun activity such as a a solar flare which allows more heat into our atmosphere in that specific area. That why nobody can pin point where the hole is. Plus how the #$%@ is the spray from my aerosol can supposed to make it all the way up into the atmosphere?

  
  
  Global climate change may be a subject of debate, but ozone depletion is a well studied scientific fact. It is not a hole like you would think of a hole, so you can't use the fact that we can't find a hole as support that there is no ozone depletion.
  
  And, simply, the spray from your aerosol can is blown into the atmosphere by the wind. Do you think there are mystical barriers that keep ground air at ground level, and upper atmospheric air away?
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2011-01-27 01:51
  Two graphs I found that speak for themselves:
  

  [Image: http://www.infowars.com/images/coy01.png]

  
  

  [Image: http://www.infowars.com/images/coy03.png]

  
  
  Source: http://www.infowars.com/scientific-siege-against-un-ipcc-farce-revealed/
• Kueh wrote on 2011-01-27 01:57
  These are examples of what I consider "Real Data"
  
  I do not consider internet magazine articles as a source of data.
  
  (You may not use these for commercial use.)
  Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Science, Global Temperature Change
  Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Climate Change and Ground Water
• Navy wrote on 2011-01-27 09:18

  Quote from Sleeperdial;305806:

  Yes cat its getting bigger lol.
  Global warming is officially over you liberal hippie potheads.

  
  you read my mind. LOL
• Phunkie wrote on 2011-01-27 11:07
  Global warming is real. We humans are affecting the world.
  
  We just have to pay attention to how we affect the world instead of being completely ignorant of the fact.
  
  Also, infowars isn't a great website to go for sources, Sparta. I thought we went over that months ago. I don't know why you continue to quote from that site.
  
  
  

  "There is no disagreement among really anybody who is scientific in any way that the world is a lot warmer than it was 100 years ago," Keith says. "If there are interesting disagreements, the disagreements are about whether this is the warmest it's been since the ice ages 10,000 years ago."

  
  
  http://news.discovery.com/earth/is-global-warming-real.html
  
  The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. Every scientist can pretty much agree with that. The debate is whether this warming is dangerous and if it can have a powerful impact.
  
  

  Policy-makers and the media, particularly in the United States, frequently assert that climate science is highly uncertain. Some have used this as an argument against adopting strong measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ... Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

  
  
  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full