My take on Global Warming

I was reading a story about a aluminium object was found in Romanian, and was dated to be 250,000 years old.

Here is the link-

www.mirror.co.uk...

Now one of the comments said

"DEMOC RATS WOULD BELIEVE IT..THEY BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING AND THEY BELIEVE THAT PIGERLY CLINTON WILL HELP THE USA LOL"

Now I'm no scientist, but one thing I know to be true is that every good thing doesn't come without consequence.

Sex- STDs, Babies
Drugs- Addiction, Jail, Mental, Death, etc...
Food- diseases, Over weight, Death, etc
Sun- Cancer
Sports- Injuries, Death, etc

and the list goes on.

I know that that burning fuel, and chemicals that help in everyday life are bad. I think that they have some effect on the atmosphere. I dont know to what effect that they have but I know that it can't be good. And everything comes with a consequence.

On the other hand the glaciers have to melt at some point. And the world has gone thru crazy weather changes before man even step foot on the planet. Like the past couple days in Philadelphia we had record highs in the 80's. The last time it was this hot was in the 70's and where was global warming then?

So I believe that we need to change because what we are doing, it can't be good for the planet. But I don't know how much of this "global warming" is true and how much is just natural change?

Any thoughts?

a reply to: Kazber

I say, who cares?

I personally don't believe in AGW, but I have friends who do, and we both have evidences for both our arguments.

But bottom line, who cares who's right? The point here is that burning fossil fuel is bound to make things worst. We should switch to renewable energy anyhow. Taxes won't solve anything. What we need is a total switch of the energy sector to renewable sources as a law. It's not about tree-hugging, or "feeling good", or lifestyle. It's about evolution and adaptation. Our current ways are or will damage the environment, the most logical way to avoid a mass extinction (either now or then) is to evolve.

Global climate change is certainly possible but our period of reference (150-200 years) is incredibly small compared to the age of the Earth. During the Jurassic period global temperatures were much higher on average than they are now, however there was no (as far as we know) artificial factors at play, solely natural ones (vulcanism, etc).

This time next century temperatures could be below the average now even with continued "artificial" factors such as the burning of fossil fuels and pollution from industry.

It is more likely that the narrative of global climate change is a sham on the part of Progressives to eliminate local/domestic fossil fuel production in favor of "renewable" sources of energy which must (at this point) still be supplemented by fossil fuels. That then keeps countries (such as the US) subservient to foreign oil/natural gas supplies.

a reply to: Kazber

Don't we have the ability to check the temps on all the planets in our system?

Is earth the only one increasing? I would like to see a chart showing all 8, 9, or 10 planets temps, I don't know how many there are anymore, poor poor Pluto..I miss that one.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Kazber

I say, who cares?

I personally don't believe in AGW, but I have friends who do, and we both have evidences for both our arguments.

But bottom line, who cares who's right? The point here is that burning fossil fuel is bound to make things worst. We should switch to renewable energy anyhow. Taxes won't solve anything. What we need is a total switch of the energy sector to renewable sources as a law. It's not about tree-hugging, or "feeling good", or lifestyle. It's about evolution and adaptation. Our current ways are or will damage the environment, the most logical way to avoid a mass extinction (either now or then) is to evolve.

Name one feasible alternative and I guarantee I can shoot it down.....

a reply to: Doc Holiday

Don't we have the ability to check the temps on all the planets in our system?

No.

Is earth the only one increasing?

It's the only one we know of.

a reply to: Phage

solarsystem.nasa.gov...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck
Not really the same as actual measurements.

Temperatures for the gas giants (Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune) are taken from a level in the atmosphere equal in pressure to sea level on Earth.

How do you suppose that is done? Do you think it could be used to measure a temperature increase of a few degrees?

originally posted by: Phage
"Is earth the only one increasing? "

It's the only one we know of.

Not exactly... Mars is being monitored pretty closely. And the result is pretty straightforward:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

originally posted by: Gothmog

Name one feasible alternative and I guarantee I can shoot it down.....

Please, no shooting. It's rabbit season, not swan season.

a reply to: swanne

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Gosh 3 summers in a row. Has that been ongoing for the past 10 years?

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

What long term increase would that be?

a reply to: Phage

It's done by observing black-body radiation. You know, the same way we check the earth's temperature from orbit?

TheRedneck

a reply to: swanne

Not true.

www.skepticalscience.com...
www.skepticalscience.com...

It's not the sun and other planets are not warming

a reply to: Phage

Mars' years are twice that of Earth's. This means that it takes us ten years to get data for only 5 martian years.

So far it's a bit too soon in my opinion to call it a long-term trend with much certainty, but the observation are nevertheless very relevant.

a reply to: TheRedneck

It's done by observing black-body radiation. You know, the same way we check the earth's temperature from orbit?

Actually that's not how we check Earth's temperature from orbit.

a reply to: jrod

You're quoting Skepticalscience.com?...

Okay. Your link carefully ignores the data from both NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions, and instead focuses on some obscure 22-years snapshot thing as a pathetic attempt to falsify all data which indicate a warming on Mars.

Here's another study confirming the first study I've posted:

The research was conducted using an instrument on board the NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter that allowed an unprecedented examination of “the most recent Martian ice age recorded in the planet’s north polar ice cap,” according to a NASA press release.
Research was led by planetary scientist Isaac B. Smith at the Southwest Research Institute in Boulder, Colorado.

www.washingtontimes.com...

The scientific paper can be found as a link in the article.

a reply to: Phage

You need to get with NASA quick, Phage! Everybody thinks we do, even the engineers who built the sensors.

TheRedneck

a reply to: swanne

Skeptical Science has multiple sources to back up their claims...

But your confirmation bias may cause you dismiss that.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Everybody thinks we do, even the engineers who built the sensors.

You're sure about that?
Huh. I thought they used O2 microwave emissions.

People really need to stop comparing earth to other planets.
At least the effects of solar radiation on planets.
The difference in orbits and distance really makes any comparison useless.