Global warming true or no?

  • Thread starter aychamo
  • Start date
  • #1
aychamo
375
0
Hey there..

My pops read a book by Michael Crichton or someone like that that basically says global warming is not occuring. Every science magazine I read continually talks about global warming and shows how physicsists, climatologists, etc, are all working on ways to help remove CO2 from the atmosphere to help reduce global warming rates, etc.

Who is right?

Thank you
Aychamo
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
TRCSF
60
0
The scientists.

Crichton's a hack.
 
  • #3
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,089
0
Crichton

Crichton's book ("State of Fear") is a work of fiction so it's clearly not the last word on anything. However, the last word on climate change hasn't yet been written by scientists either. Global warming and global cooling are facts but the science of whether man contributes in any significant way is now more in the realm of politics than in good science.

In brief, the jury's still out despite proclamations of "victory" from either side.
 
  • #4
aychamo
375
0
So, it is a fact that global warming and cooling occur, but it is just debatable whether or not man contributes?

What does Crichton's book say regarding the subject? I know he has references to scientific materials in it, but it is misconstrued?
 
  • #5
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,089
0
Coincidentally, I just ordered a copy of the book so I can't really give you any more detail than you could find in the amazon.com description.
 
  • #6
Zelos
76
0
Persinaly i dont belive its such a big deal. We humans might have speed things up but we is not the cause of it. if we had never evolved it woiuld have happened anyway. Lets say all the volcanus goes of at the same time (with a max of 100 years differens) it would trow so much dirty, CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere so it would for a while out block the sun and create a mass extinction cause the sun would be blocked for months. Then when the sun finaly shine through all the dirt and 50-80% of all life is extinct it will be huge amount of greenhouse gases so it will be like in the dinosaurses time. a rain forest almost all around the globe.
 
  • #7
Mystikal_Pooka
10
0
Well i used to belive that humans were the cuplrits in global warming and that we were all doomed to die from heat and cancer, but i no longer believe that. I now firmly believe that something so trivial as Human Beings could not do much to something the size of Earth. Ya maybe we speed the CO2 accumulation rate by a tiny amount, but CO2 is really a minor greenhouse gas. Methane is the top greenhouse gas. We barely produce any methane, yet the methane levels are rising at a pretty steady rate, and humans have almost no part in it.. I think humans have had a very negligible part in global warming and the "reduction of the ozone layer" which i do not believe we have much to do with either.

lol i could start a huge rant on all the reasons i dont believe Humans are affecting global warming and such, but i'd rather not right now. although i guess i could post a report i did for a class last year on this subject...

anyways...

bottom line: Neither is totally right or totally wrong... yes global warming happens, but its out in the open as to how much Humans affect it.

and BTW...
TRCSF said:
The scientists.

Crichton's a hack.

I really disrespect people who just say something and don't support it with facts or beliefs. Just saying "The scientists. Crichton's a hack." doesn't say anything except maybe you are a jacka**. If this was my forum, i'd probably delete that post as spam, because it says nothing relavent.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
WhiteWolf
62
0
Pooka is 100% correct! i did my own research on this, if it werent for the greenhouse effect, they earth would be rather cold, something like Mars, it regulates the Earth's temperature so it doesnt scorch the earth during the day and freeze at night. people are mislead by liberally biased movies like the Day After Tommarow, where everyone dies because of the republicains neglect, and the big bad vice president learns a lesson. Not to mention after the world freezes over all the pollution seems to have vanished! Wow! And then big bad America feels bad for not letting all the illegial Mexicans in the country cause we wanted to immigrate into Mexico.
 
  • #9
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
aychamo said:
Hey there..

My pops read a book by Michael Crichton or someone like that that basically says global warming is not occuring. Every science magazine I read continually talks about global warming and shows how physicsists, climatologists, etc, are all working on ways to help remove CO2 from the atmosphere to help reduce global warming rates, etc.

Scientists disagree on how much global warming is occuring... but they all agree that Crichton is wrong.
 
  • #10
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
Mystikal_Pooka said:
I really disrespect people who just say something and don't support it with facts or beliefs. Just saying "The scientists. Crichton's a hack." doesn't say anything except maybe you are a jacka**. If this was my forum, i'd probably delete that post as spam, because it says nothing relavent.

This topic has been done.... well... not to death... but its been done a lot and a simple search on the forums can be a fun way of finding out the information for yourself.
 
  • #11
Andre
4,509
74
Every science magazine I read continually talks about global warming

Perhaps read other science magazines. There are really articles actually refuting the anthropogenic global warming myth.

The Crighton book btw is a most excellent description of reality.
 
  • #12
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,089
0
Pengwuino said:
Scientists disagree on how much global warming is occuring... but they all agree that Crichton is wrong.

I think they agree that Crichton is a sci-fi writer. Appropriate adjectives and their negations for fiction are compelling or not compelling, realistic or not realstic, riveting or not riveting, well written or poorly written and so on. By definition, fiction cannot be characterized as "wrong" or "right" so the claim that "they ALL agree that Crichton is wrong" is rather dubious.
 
  • #13
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,124
17
I thought he makes himself out to be a real scientist writing non-fiction.
 
  • #14
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,089
0
Not exactly!

Pengwuino said:
I thought he makes himself out to be a real scientist writing non-fiction.

People who want to discredit his NOVEL attempt to diminish the man through mischaracterization. Yes, he certainly has his views and we are all entitled to them but State of Fear seems to have generated one in the minds of the "true believers" who have substituted politics for science.

Do a Google search and you can witness the political correctness frenzy first hand!
 
  • #15
WhiteWolf
62
0
Most magazines/ newspapers/ media in general just try to do whatever they can to sell a story. When people get bored about 9/11, they come up with the 9/11 conspiracies. I think if you look really hard and do find some research that doesnt have an preselected agenda and opinion of global warming, I think you will find that there is nothing to worry about. I once thought it was a real problem like Pooka, but I also did my own research on facts that were not directly pertaining to global warming, and if ya put two and two together, I think it is pretty obvious of how over exaggerated the issue is.
 
  • #16
To Whitewolf- unfortunely many of the conspiracy theories are true, that aside.

aychamo - GW (Global Warming) will probably only be accepted as happening when the Gulf Current stops, Methane is being released unnaturally by man because of offshore drilling which disturbs methane hydrate deposits. Evidence that GW is a happening such as the shirinking polar caps Anartica and the Artic is casually dismissed as natural or within normal limits by those who want to keep the status quo where it is. Climate changes are subject to pretty much the same reasonings. Peace
 
  • #17
WhiteWolf
62
0
perhaps there are some, because it has to be accepted that certain political events need to be carried out without the public's knowledge for the collective good. SOME conspiracies are true, but not NEARLY as much as the media suggests. Also, if you can prove that the Earth is heating up directly from methane, and not from some natural phenomena, then I will eat my words. But you can't prove it, otherwise their wouldnt be any controversy surrounding the issue. If you compare the percentage of methane to the percentage of normal atmoshperic gases, it barely scratches the chemical compostion of the atmoshpere.
 
  • #18
Global Warming Trend

WW, it does not take much methane (or CO2) as a proportion of the atmosphere to cause unusual even drastic climate shifts or changes. And no I can't prove the Earth is heating up from methane ALONE but the evidence, reason and findings of some respected people do. (I'm implying I'm not respected in the same way as say some one like Stephan Hawkings or Roger Penrose is). There have been articles in somewhat respected newspapers about GW and there are sites to find good info on GW. Wasn't it reported about a year or two ago that a chunk of Anartica the size of Rhode Island had broken off? Where have the Glaciers that were at Glacier National Park gone? Why have the glaciers on many mountains around the world been disappearing? Why is there less freeze over occuring in the Artic ocean each year?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
WhiteWolf
62
0
Can you give me some reputable sites reporting those facts? The only place I heard the Rhode Island chuck of ice bit was off the movie, "The Day After Tommarrow". (Surprise, surprise) Also,the atmosphere was almost entirely carbon dioxide before sufficent plant life could develop. If what you say about CO2 being a potent greenhouse gas is true, then the Earth could not support plant life and it would not be able to develop the biodiverse creatures that it has today.
 
  • #20
Mystikal_Pooka
10
0
1) we barely produce any Methane or CO2 above that of natural causes, such as volcanoes and fires.
2) I have been to many of these "reputable" sites you speak of. Almost all of them are biased towards the 'Humans are bad and doomed to die of their own doing' type mentality. When i was researching for my report, i went to many sites, some biased towards, some biased against, and some claiming to be non-biased on Global Warming.
3) it isnt like "respected people" and "respected media" know everything there is to know about everything. Just because they are well known doesn't mean they are the foremost experts on global warming. And another thing. ALL media is biased. No matter what anybody or anything says they are all biased one way or another.
4) Antarctica has been shown to be constantly expanding and contracting naturally. I believe its all part of a very large pattern.

Ami1 said:
Evidence that GW is a happening such as the shirinking polar caps Anartica and the Artic is casually dismissed as natural or within normal limits by those who want to keep the status quo where it is

It IS natural. Humans are part of nature, therefore anything we have influence on is a natural occurence.

and i shall answer your questions with some of my questions.

1)Why is Iceland covered in ice when it was once a warm green land?
2)Why is the average temperature of Earth the exact same, if not cooler, than the average temperature of past years?
 
Last edited:
  • #21
WhiteWolf
62
0
You can expect that there will always be natural fluctuations in weather patterns. Unless you have solid evidence and proof that mankind is the culprit, I cant believe that GW even exists. Lets take into account the geological stability millions of years ago. I have even found the most left wing environmentalists to agree that something as simple as a volcanic eruption can cause 1000 times more air pollution then what the factories produce. There response to that is that a volcanic eruption happens rarely, so there effect is negligible. This was not the case several hundred million years ago, volcanic eruptions were recidulously common. If this were the case then GW wouldve overwhelmed all life and raised the global temperature well beyond what couldve sustained life. If that were the case, then we wouldn't be here today.
 
  • #22
Ww

I saw the movie and I don't think that was the event it showed.
Also,the atmosphere was almost entirely carbon dioxide before sufficent plant life could develop.
I don't believe this is true. And yes what I said is true (I could be wrong, I leave it to members who have more knowledge to correct me) as a proportion of the atmosphere here in the present (8/22/2005) it would not take much methane or CO2 to cause climate change.

Here are some sites for the ice sheet and methane:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/10/07/ice041007.html [Broken]

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/index.html [Broken]

http://www.geology.iastate.edu/gccourse/sealevel/ross.html [Broken]

http://healthandenergy.com/methane_hydrate.htm [Broken]

http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no16/methane.htm

http://www.utopiasprings.com/methane.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Mystikal_Pooka because of its position (latitude and longitude) and when was it a warm greenland (thats another place) Your second question is self contradictory.

WW - There is a difference - Geologic time and 20 to 50 years.

logging off till tomorrow. Peace
 
  • #24
WhiteWolf
62
0
Correct me if Im wrong, you are saying to me that because of the "geologic" time global warming didnt have any effect back then? Or perhaps there is a difference to carbon dioxide now and the carbon dioxide back then? Also, when you say you dont believe this is true, it can practically be proved due to the antioxidants and phytochemicals found in plants. Plants were the first forms of life on the Earth, and because they consume oxygen, they essentially polluted their own atmosphere with oxygen becore sufficent animal life developed. So by the good ole Darwinism theory, many plants died out because they couldnt cope with the high levels of oxygen. Then they started to develop antioxidants to make them tollerant of the Earth's oxygen rich atmosphere. The fact that these antioxidents exist is proof enough that the Earth at one time was covered in so much plant life that the atmosphere was converted into an oxygen rich one FROM a carbon dioxide rich one.

(Also, while Im on the subject, the health benefits that result from humans consuming antioxidents is due to these antioxident molecules bonding with unstable contaminants in the atmosphere. These 'free-radicals', such as ozone would otherwise make unsafe bonds with your organs and such. Just a little something extra for those that didnt know that... :biggrin: )
 
  • #25
WhiteWolf
62
0
Also, if I see a government website, I would consider it to be reputable, and the site you gave me doesnt say much regarding methane having DRASTIC changes on the Earth's climate.
 
  • #26
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,089
0
WW,

if I see a government website, I would consider it to be reputable

Why would you give a free pass to a government website? Government is about politics and bureaucracies which means party lines, spin and agendas. I think they should be held to at least the same level of scrutiny as any other website or organization.
 
  • #27
iansmith
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,322
2
WhiteWolf said:
Plants were the first forms of life on the Earth, and because they consume oxygen, they essentially polluted their own atmosphere with oxygen becore sufficent animal life developed. So by the good ole Darwinism theory, many plants died out because they couldnt cope with the high levels of oxygen. Then they started to develop antioxidants to make them tollerant of the Earth's oxygen rich atmosphere. The fact that these antioxidents exist is proof enough that the Earth at one time was covered in so much plant life that the atmosphere was converted into an oxygen rich one FROM a carbon dioxide rich one.

Plants were not the first form of life on earth. Bacteria were the first. It photosynthetic bacteria that produce the oxygen that started switch the earth atmosphere to low oxygen to high oxygen. Microscopic eukaryotes that photosynthesised came later and help the process. Once oxygen was produce, ozone could build and allow plant to invade the land.
 
  • #28
WW posted:
Correct me if Im wrong, you are saying to me that because of the "geologic" time global warming didnt have any effect back then?

No, what I'm saying is that the changes you refered to occurred over geologic time as opposed to the changes that are happening at present which are occurring over a matter of years that can be measured in numbers less than a 100.
 
  • #29
WhiteWolf
62
0
omg! ONE of the first, excuse me for not being politically correct. Common sense dictates that a complex life form such as a tree or some such thing would not exist that early. My point was that they came before oxygen consuming animals appeared. Obviously it would have to start as a single cell life form. My point being is that they were photosynthetic, as were plants. And theoretically, submerged complex plant life did later begin appearing before they did on the land.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
WhiteWolf
62
0
also, volcanic eruptions were spewing sulfuric acid on a steady basis, I dont quite see how it would matter. It happened frequently back then, even inasmuch over a period of a hundred years, maybe I still dont see what you are implying by 'geologic' time
 
  • #31
WhiteWolf
62
0
And to tide, I don't think the government is having a seperate premeditated agenda when they talk about the chemical effects of methane on other chemicals. MORE CONSPIRACIES! The governemt has to keep a degree in truth, many people rely on them for information. I can easily start my own .com or .tk website and post all the bull**** I could ever want. Does that mean it is true? Of course not, so you have to have a certain degree of predjudice against commercial webpages
 
Last edited:
  • #32
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,089
0
WW,

It's your choice but I would not give an automatic pass to a .gov nor would I give an automatic rejection to a .com - and vice versa.
 
  • #33
WhiteWolf
62
0
I didnt say 'automatic' pass to government, and I didnt say 'automatic' rejection to a .com. Kerry's site will do whatever they can do make Kerry look like a god. Because they have a motive to falsify information, then you would need to offer careful scrutizing overview of their sources or information.
 
  • #34
Tide
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
3,089
0
WW,

if I see a government website, I would consider it to be reputable
I didnt say 'automatic' pass to government

I'm glad you clarified that!
 
  • #35
WhiteWolf
62
0
I may not word my sentances the best about details that don't pertain to my point, I didnt mean to generalize all gov sites and all com sites, but the vast majority of the gov site I dont beleive are involved in some sort of conpiracy, in this sense, if they all 'indirectly' say the same thing, then I would believe it to be fact. You can't take everything everyone says too literally because of this. Sometimes you need to compare and contrast other people's information. If ya dont quite understand what I say with something, then tell me. :biggrin:
 

Suggested for: Global warming true or no?

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
28
Views
6K
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
0
Views
702
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
917
Top