<p>I’d like to point out that one “solution” that has been used is ethanol. How do we get ethanol? Farms. What do we cut down for farms? Trees.</p>
<p>Nice.</p>
<p>Btw, you can’t forget how much government makes from guilt and fear. Global Warming is set to become a huge revenue enhancement.</p>
<p>We shouldn’t confuse global warming with pollution, either.</p>
<p>I couldn’t find my original source on that, but a quick search did turn up a javascript-based graph set of temperatures from 1990 to now. I’d run significance tests on it, but I couldn’t figure out a way to extract the raw numbers. The visible trends APPEAR to be stable for the last ten years, but I can’t reasonably press this any further until I can either do the stats myself or find the document I originally “cited”.</p>
<p>[AMSU-A</a> Temperatures](<a href=“http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/]AMSU-A”>http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/)</p>
<hr>
<p>Can’t immediately pull up details on this beyond a vague mention in the Wikipedia article, but wasn’t it determined a few years back that Ethanol’s immediate environmental impact is worse than Gasoline’s?</p>
<p>i think it’s funny when people who probably aren’t well-versed in science make these incredibly bold claims (like the op).</p>
<p>They’re easy to make, though, because of the nature of the subject. You can’t demand the public believe something scary on faith and then get mad when they choose to ignore it.</p>
<p>That’s why people don’t believe in global warming, it’s why they don’t believe in evolution, it’s why they didn’t believe in heliocentricity, …</p>
<p>it’s interesting how people can be this skeptical on discoveries made by man, yet when it comes to religion…</p>
<p>but that’s another topic</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting link, but the NOAA-15 satellite was used by NASA to show global warming. Here is an abstract about that very data you linked to:
[A</a> study of the NOAA-15 AMSU-A brightness temperatures from 1998 through 2007](<a href=“http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011267.shtml]A”>http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008JD011267.shtml)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, ethanol has a greater eco footprint than gasoline. When people are talking about the use of ethanol, it is to be “independent of foreign oils”, not as a solution to global warming. Anyone who says that is incorrect.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is a very interesting point, and I agree with it to an extent. The problem I have is when commentators (left or right) are telling people to ignore the science / don’t believe it / imputing their own opinions… when they really don’t know anything about the subject. But your right: people aren’t able to accept things in subjects they don’t understand, whether it’s science, history, etc. We need to do a better job educating the public, not just on specific issues like global warming, but on basic science/history/etc so at least they can understand the evidence being presented, as opposed to needing to listen to hot-button commentators.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not going to touch that!</p>
<p>“Only the small secrets need to be kept. The big secrets are kept by public incredulity.”</p>
<p>Just a thought.</p>
<p>BRING BACK THE LIE!!!</p>
<p>ps anyone think smallz is a left-wing lobbyist trying to scare us? i do!!!</p>
<p>… that’s disturbing.</p>
<p>How many nobel scientists support the theory, while random people on computers at home do “research” and post “proof”?</p>
<p>Though I will say that a major lie is that more trees=less global warming. They actually don’t help at all, because they trap heat as well, so you have a net change of 0 in global temperature if you plant a tree. Google it. (though if you plant them on the equator, it helps for some reason… yup people, science). They absorb carbon dioxide, but the trapped heat counter-acts it. Much better option would be to seed the seas for algae growth, but Greenpeace of all people stopped that option… /rant</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>iron fertilization would have been awesome</p>
<p>also what the dems don’t seem to get is that you have to lower income tax when you raise a carbon tax so that people can pay for the increased energy bills</p>
<p>Hi Smallz, I’m just a noob who hasn’t even figured out how to quote posts yet, but wanted to point something out about NASA’s data. It’s been a long time since I saw it so I may be a little off on the exact numbers.</p>
<p>NASA’s graphs show global temperature rising at a slow but steady rate as far back as we have data, or around 1880. The global mean temp varies from year to year, but overall there was steady rise from 1880 to 1920 of about half a degree Celsius. After that, the temperature varies widely but on average remains at the 1920 mark. There is a sudden drop in 1978, but that is due to the switch from ground to satellite measurements. The temperature begins to rise again in the late 90’s, so that the most recent measurement I’ve seen showed us about .4 degrees above the 1920 level.</p>
<p>OK. So overall the global mean temperature shows a rise from 1880 to 1920, then varies above and below the 1920 level until the 90’s, when it begins rising again. But is this caused by human-produced carbon emissions?</p>
<p>The overall carbon level in the atmosphere have been measured at the Mauna Loa observatory since 1900. From 1900 to 1940 it increased only slightly (290 PPM to 300 PPM). In the 40s it began an rapid increase, hitting 320 PPM by the 60s, 340 by the 80’s and was nearing 380 by the year 2000.</p>
<p>Compare this to the temperature. The GMT went up while the carbon held steady, and vice versa. This is WAY more complex than human greenhouse effect.</p>
<p>Thanks for reading this! Any comments or criticism are appreciated, but insults will be ignored.</p>
<p>I guess my first question is where you got Mauna Loa CO2 data from 1900, since my textbook lists data starting circa 1960, hence I can’t say anything about your claims from 1900-1940 and 1940-1960’s, if you could post a link that would be helpful. </p>
<p>The “global mean temperature” is a bad indicator. Anything that plots an average temperature over the entire earth is very vague, but if you have a link I’ll take a look. I think I mentioned that before somewhere. But even with that bad data, it makes sense that temperature levels don’t vary widely (but you should note that .4 degrees is still significant, if it is truly representative of the actual temperatures). The global mean would average hot summers in Death Valley and cold winters in the antartic. But as I said, global warming doesn’t just mean “heating”. It leads to more extreme seasons, so that summers get hotter, and winters get colder. I don’t know the proportionality, but because of that, averaging over the world wouldn’t, therefore, lead to spectacularly varying temperatures.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, a link would be nice, but I never said (nor do scientists) that greenhouse gas emissions was a straightforward tracking. There are many variables. El Nino, volcanoes, earthquakes, are some natural ones that come to mind. Also, it isn’t like human CO2 emissions just “turned on”. The U.S./Britain industrial revolutions started circa 1800, with India and China (4 largest contributers) staggered later on, increasing output at varying rates. </p>
<p>I also never said humans were the sole source of global warming, but when anyone says people play no part, it’s ridiculous and mind-boggling.</p>
<p>
?</p>
<p>
The CO2 data was from my Biology textbook. It noted that some CO2 data was estimated between 1900 and 1960. The graph for that period is less smooth, but follows the same curve as the rest of the graph, leveling off towards fairly steady in the 390s. I’ll see if I can find another source for that info.
The temperature info was from NASA’s site. I don’t remember noticing an increase in extree temperatures, but it’s been a long time so it’s quite possible. I’ll have to look at it again. The actual change in temperature over the last 100 years is .9 degrees: but .5 of that happened before the CO2 levels began increasing significantly. The other .4 happened since the 90’s. It hasn’t really been going long enough to tell if it is a trend or an insignificant variation.
Of course it didn’t just “turn on,” but apparently the CO2 levels didn’t really skyrocket until the '40s. Of course, since we don’t have data for CO2 before 1900, or for temperature (besides rough estimates) before the late 1800’s, it’s only conjecture for those periods.
I don’t say people play no part, but I think the part we play is a probably a very small one, and have yet to see convincing evidence to the contrary.</p>
<p>Basically, my thoughts on Global Warming are:</p>
<p>Would you give half your savings to a person who claimed the sky was falling, without strong evidence that the sky was in fact falling AND that he could stop it with your money?</p>
<p>Oh, and about the last thing, “insults will be ignored” I’m sorry I posted that. I misjudged you, having had many experiences with people who will simply ridicule opposing views. You seem to be a very reasonable person and it’s a pleasure to debate with you.</p>