Personality Cafe banner

Climate change with CO2 emissions as a primary cause:

1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Do you think that climate change (with human created CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions as a primary cause) is real?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
290 Posts
I think everyone can concede that the cause is there and logically it leads to an effect. For me and the vast majority of climate scientists (I am NOT one) 97% I think that effect is A slight degree in the average global temperature with all it's dire side effects.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,556 Posts
Apparently climate change is happening 10'000 times faster than standard evolutionary rates can keep up with.

I'm willing to believe it to be true.

Some people blame volcanoes. But the world has had volcanoes for a very long time indeed and most historical documents don't point to much variance in climate. Until BAM, industrial revolution.

But also I'm not too worried.

Soon as oil runs out, the world will go renewable/nuclear, which means carbon emotions go straight to zero. Truly I hope this happens in my lifetime. I want to be alive in an era where the rumbling noise of a combustion engine is considered archaic. Soon everything will be powered by the almost silent purr of electricity. It will be beautiful, and the earth's atmosphere will be at peace.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,865 Posts
Its exaggerated. There is a lot that scientists don't know about it yet, but politicians somehow "know" more than scientists (actually they bullshit as a scare tactic and the reason for this will start to make sense by 2030 for most people).

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I probably won't say more about it. Research it with an open mind though. We have been fed propaganda about the environment for a long time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
There are many convincing arguments on both sides. I am of the opinion that we should do everything we can to cut carbon emissions as much as possible, as fast as possible. It is simply the smartest thing to do, as we are quickly running out of crude oil and coal(I think we have something like 30 years worth of accessible oil left, and after that it's going to be nearly impossible to pump anything out of the ground).

like @Pessimisterious said, we should be putting our efforts into developing safe Nuclear energy, and other renewable resources. Many of these infrastructures are already in place, such as windmills and water-turbines, but they have been neglected in favor of carbon-based energy. It is unfortunate, but soon we'll forced to use them, even though they are underdeveloped and unable to support the energy needs of the world. Hopefully people start to see the looming crisis, and start to come up with better solutions to our costs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
227 Posts
Its exaggerated. There is a lot that scientists don't know about it yet, but politicians somehow "know" more than scientists (actually they bullshit as a scare tactic and the reason for this will start to make sense by 2030 for most people).

Oregon Petition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I probably won't say more about it. Research it with an open mind though. We have been fed propaganda about the environment for a long time.
From the "complete text" of the Oregon Petition according to the wikipedia page:

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
They go on to justify this assertion with only this:

there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
...Really? That's all they've got?

It may very well be exaggerated. I'm going with Undecided due to the fact that I'm not a climate scientist and don't have much to go on beyond what I'm told. I think it's almost certainly real, but I don't have the means or the knowledge to prove it to myself conclusively.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,438 Posts
I am in no position to argue with the very reputable science that has been done on the subject.

One can cry "Wikipedia not a good source hurr durr" all one likes, but one can't argue with all of those citations from accredited scientific institutions that are frankly hundreds of times more worthy of our short attention span than some talk show pundit or blogger with his precious little opinion.

I'm not going to bother with any arguments about how it's played out in politics and in public forums (because that is a loathsome topic indeed), but simply inject the unequivocal scientific opinion on the fact of climate change. It is undeniable, and no cherry-picking of the data should lead anyone with any bit of sense to any other conclusion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,324 Posts
If you pump up and release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (ie: oil consumption), while at the same time reducing the global ecosystems capacity to bind carbon (ie: deforestation), will this have an effect on the climate?


A) No because the magical carbon pixies will take care of it
B) Yes, because the laws of science applies even when we don't want them to


This has to be one of those issues that actually makes people actively more stupid. Admittedly, a lot of stupidity is also going on within the environmentalists. For example the idea that there is a “correct” climate etc.


We have a global climate, it's a process with a gazillion parameters. We've been screwing around with a few of the parameters for a while now. This means things are changing and we have to adapt. Things that are at this point not considered helpful are:


  1. Pretending nothing is happening
  2. Focusing on allocating blame
  3. Using this as an opportunity to pull out the old “The End Is Neigh” sign


If you are in one of those three groups please stop emitting CO2 immediately by putting a plastic bag over your head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,796 Posts
Darn, I didn't see that bit about CO2 emissions till after I voted. I think climate change is real, I mean it has been measured. But I think it is a natural process of Earth. I think the effects of CO2 emissions are exagerrated. Not that pollution is ok, especialy when combined with deforestation and what not. but its overall effect on the climate is exaggerrated after all other things considered. I think the Earth goes through periodic cycles as it attempts to reach an eventual equilibrium. our pollution and deforestation are speeding up the innevitable, I guess that is what I think.
But who really knows. Tomorrow, we may discover an alien race is destroying the ozone layer in an attempt to subdue us, and their ship's and weapons are powered on cfcs and CO2 lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
This thread is about man made climate change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,495 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
If you pump up and release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (ie: oil consumption), while at the same time reducing the global ecosystems capacity to bind carbon (ie: deforestation), will this have an effect on the climate?


A) No because the magical carbon pixies will take care of it
B) Yes, because the laws of science applies even when we don't want them to


This has to be one of those issues that actually makes people actively more stupid. Admittedly, a lot of stupidity is also going on within the environmentalists. For example the idea that there is a “correct” climate etc.


We have a global climate, it's a process with a gazillion parameters. We've been screwing around with a few of the parameters for a while now. This means things are changing and we have to adapt. Things that are at this point not considered helpful are:


  1. Pretending nothing is happening
  2. Focusing on allocating blame
  3. Using this as an opportunity to pull out the old “The End Is Neigh” sign


If you are in one of those three groups please stop emitting CO2 immediately by putting a plastic bag over your head.
Please define these laws of science oh magical pixie.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
Darn, I didn't see that bit about CO2 emissions till after I voted.
Likewise.

I won't pretend to have enough background in the science to say affirmatively based on data, but I feel I can agree largely with Stoneburg. Of course the climate is changing, both naturally and artificially. Whether natural or artificial change is more significant, I don't know for sure, nor do I know how much damage (to us) such changes will have, either in my own lifetime or in the long term.

Aside from some brief ice ages, the oceans are at some of the lowest levels they've ever been. There is fossil evidence that Memphis once had beachfront property, and as I understand it, geologic processes have not really raised or lowered the area in a long time, but I suspect a tsunami originating in the Canary Islands is a more pressing concern for the global population.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grandpa2390

·
Registered
Joined
·
283 Posts
I think it's real, but I've never listened to what the politicians have to say on the subject. I don't think that global warming is as one sided and predictable as people think.

For example, most people seem to think that global warming will lead to desertification. Of course that could be true, but it may not be true as well. The Sahara desert was much larger during the last ice age than it is today. On the other hand the Sahara desert was much smaller 10 000 years ago, and large parts of the Sahara area was covered in a savannah.

Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan.

The transition may be occurring because hotter air has more capacity to hold moisture, which in turn creates more rain, said Martin Claussen of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, who was not involved in the new study.
Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?

The last green phase, which started some 12,000 years ago, may be due to increased water evaporation from oceans. This led to monsoon rains that penetrated the interiors of tropical continents, he said.
"Now, today, man is probably causing the same thing," he said.
Once Lush Sahara Dried Up Over Millennia, Study Says
 

·
Over 300 Confirmed Kills
Joined
·
11,428 Posts
If you pump up and release massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere (ie: oil consumption), while at the same time reducing the global ecosystems capacity to bind carbon (ie: deforestation), will this have an effect on the climate?


A) No because the magical carbon pixies will take care of it
B) Yes, because the laws of science applies even when we don't want them to


This has to be one of those issues that actually makes people actively more stupid. Admittedly, a lot of stupidity is also going on within the environmentalists. For example the idea that there is a “correct” climate etc.


We have a global climate, it's a process with a gazillion parameters. We've been screwing around with a few of the parameters for a while now. This means things are changing and we have to adapt. Things that are at this point not considered helpful are:


  1. Pretending nothing is happening
  2. Focusing on allocating blame
  3. Using this as an opportunity to pull out the old “The End Is Neigh” sign


If you are in one of those three groups please stop emitting CO2 immediately by putting a plastic bag over your head.
:cool:

*80'S movie slow clap*

get up, people.

STAND UP. STAND.THE.FUCK.UP
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top