Is mankind really a factor in global warming?

At the end of the day, observed increases are only 0.5 of a degree, and that comes directly from the IPCC's own literature. The computer models have been proved wrong.

The answer is yes, look at the pollution we create.
Look at the images of smog in China from this past year.

It's pretty damned self evident that pollution is impacting the planet.
Of course people will still scream that there is a monumental hoax/conspiracy going on.

Deny and die.
Change and live.
M.

Originally posted by Moshpet
The answer is yes, look at the pollution we create.
Look at the images of smog in China from this past year.

It's pretty damned self evident that pollution is impacting the planet.
Of course people will still scream that there is a monumental hoax/conspiracy going on.

Deny and die.
Change and live.
M.

I have no disagreement that pollution is not good for ourselves and the planet.
And truth be told, the fact I should not drink out of the stream I'm fishing in infuriates me.

From what I've seen and read all the human caused emissions still produce far less than 1% of all greenhouse gasses. Which to me shows there is no correlation to mankind causing global warming.

I am happy to review any sources to the contrary if they reference where they are pulling their facts and statistics from.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by ManOfHart
Us Humans give ourselves too much credit. We are a species on this earth. We are a couple of energy trading organisms with the only purpose of exchanging energy in a food chain called life.

Now when people start putting monetary fines and fees into the picture, then yes. It is all Human made and it is our fault and WE WILL PAY!

Yea, to think that us puny humans could actually ever do anything that would hurt the Earth is rather pathetic.

We may make our lives miserable but the earth will be just fine. She's survived far worse than anything the human race can ever come up with.

so is that an excuse for continuing our massive destruction: posioning, raping, drilling, fraking, manipulating, every jungle, forest, moutain, valley, field, river, lake and ocean? zapping holes in the ionosphere, constant pollution in the atmosphere, massive usage of resources, dumping toxic wastes in any hole or ocean we can?..and do you REALLY think humans don't have a serious impact on the earth?..if humans were lving along with nature like we did humdreds of years ago, it wouldnt matter. But we've created an alternative reality to live in that has absolutely no harmony with the matrix of the Natural world. Go on. Believe that we "puny" humans can't do anything. believe until its to late. but then it won't matter will it? Sad.

..and what is it with people who disagree with "climate change-global warming? Does it even matter at this point whether it is or it isnt?..The good thing about it is that its helping (tho not enough) people become more aware of the massive crap we dump on the planet? Isnt it important for people to FINALLY take some freakin responsiblity for the # we do?And if this is what it takes, then good. Whether or not we freeze or fry, at least we tried to do SOMETHING.

You can look at temperature records from the last 100 years. Not so hard to deduce that humans are a big factor in global warming.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
As for myself, I think the idea of man made global warming is egotistical for humans to believe. But I would love to hear from others willing to challenge my views.

I find it interesting that I similarly believe it's egotistical that we think we can control the human brain by administering drugs to patients. Sure, we can give patients pain medications and their pain will go away. But what're the full implications of that? On and on. So I have a bias against the tidal wave of modern mental health practices, since drugs are so commonly used, even to treat children.

But what if we can control the mind, at least sometimes? And what if humans are contributing to global warming, at least somewhat? Well then my prejudice is going to be wrongly vectored.

To be fair, I've used an aspirin here and there to relieve a headache. But it doesn't happen often. And I do drink coffee. So I'm not a complete stranger to drugs. I just have a limit.

In the end, I believe too strongly in the freedom to think thoughts, even if those thoughts are deemed disordered. However, believing something strongly doesn't make it fact. Instead it's my own opinion to be applied in circumstances where my own choice is pertinent.

Now I understand you believe your opinion is based on facts and it's not a prejudice. However, I could argue, if pressed to, that you believe the earth is too complex and big to be controlled.

I could link several articles disputing the use of drugs to treat depression and/or other disorders. I could say my viewpoint is factual. But that doesn't mean I'm not prejudiced.

Have you heard of confirmation bias?

Originally posted by 12MoonCats
..and what is it with people who disagree with "climate change-global warming? Does it even matter at this point whether it is or it isnt?..

No one is disagreeing with climate change/ global warming. What is in question is if mankind is responsible for it.
From what I've seen, and linked to, we are not.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
You can look at temperature records from the last 100 years. Not so hard to deduce that humans are a big factor in global warming.

I have never seen anything proving a direct correlation between human activity and temperature. Perhaps you can point out the studies that I have missed?

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


your missing the point of what I was saying..the part about " if we are or if we aint" and "at least its helping people become more responsible for our crap"

Originally posted by jonnywhite

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme
As for myself, I think the idea of man made global warming is egotistical for humans to believe. But I would love to hear from others willing to challenge my views.

I find it interesting that I similarly believe it's egotistical that we think we can control the human brain by administering drugs to patients. Sure, we can give patients pain medications and their pain will go away. But what're the full implications of that? On and on. So I have a bias against the tidal wave of modern mental health practices, since drugs are so commonly used, even to treat children.

But what if we can control the mind, at least sometimes? And what if humans are contributing to global warming, at least somewhat? Well then my prejudice is going to be wrongly vectored.

To be fair, I've used an aspirin here and there to relieve a headache. But it doesn't happen often. And I do drink coffee. So I'm not a complete stranger to drugs. I just have a limit.

In the end, I believe too strongly in the freedom to think thoughts, even if those thoughts are deemed disordered. However, believing something strongly doesn't make it fact. Instead it's my own opinion to be applied in circumstances where my own choice is pertinent.

Now I understand you believe your opinion is based on facts and it's not a prejudice. However, I could argue, if pressed to, that you believe the earth is too complex and big to be controlled.

I could link several articles disputing the use of drugs to treat depression and/or other disorders. I could say my viewpoint is factual. But that doesn't mean I'm not prejudiced.

Have you heard of confirmation bias?

edit on 12-5-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

I have indeed heard of confirmation bias, which is why I stated my opinion in my OP, and why I invited people to provide alternative sources of information than what I have found.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
You can look at temperature records from the last 100 years. Not so hard to deduce that humans are a big factor in global warming.

I have never seen anything proving a direct correlation between human activity and temperature. Perhaps you can point out the studies that I have missed?

www.roperld.com...

Cars became popular in the early 1900s, and the first power plant was invented around late 1800s. What are the odds that global temperatures started to increase at a relatively high rate right after such things were invented?

Originally posted by 12MoonCats
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

your missing the point of what I was saying..the part about " if we are or if we aint" and "at least its helping people become more responsible for our crap"

In the US of A maybe. It is my understanding in countries such as China and India emissions are on the rise currently.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
You can look at temperature records from the last 100 years. Not so hard to deduce that humans are a big factor in global warming.

I have never seen anything proving a direct correlation between human activity and temperature. Perhaps you can point out the studies that I have missed?

www.roperld.com...

Cars became popular in the early 1900s, and the first power plant was invented around late 1800s. What are the odds that global temperatures started to increase at a relatively high rate right after such things were invented?

Going by the graphs provided in your link (I've just done a quick skim so far- I will continue to read it in depth), it looks like the odds are good that "global temperatures started to increase at a relatively high rate right after such things were invented."
But that dose not prove there is a direct correlation between human activity and temperature. I could just as easily make the argument that warmer temperatures stimulate human minds to be more creative, which than lead to power plants and automobiles.

reply to post by randomtangentsrme


The only thing I see is human creativity going down the drain.

Cars and power plants do not correlate (at least to my knowledge) to human creativety. The concept of a power plant, as well as of a car, was conceived long before the 1800s.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

The only thing I see is human creativity going down the drain.

Cars and power plants do not correlate (at least to my knowledge) to human creativety. The concept of a power plant, as well as of a car, was conceived long before the 1800s.

Conceived before perhaps. But the solutions were found at that time. Substitute 'problem solving' for 'creativity,' if that makes the statement more palatable for you.

Off to visit my Mother. I'll be back in a while.
Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms out there.

Originally posted by randomtangentsrme

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity
reply to post by randomtangentsrme

 

The only thing I see is human creativity going down the drain.

Cars and power plants do not correlate (at least to my knowledge) to human creativety. The concept of a power plant, as well as of a car, was conceived long before the 1800s.

Conceived before perhaps. But the solutions were found at that time. Substitute 'problem solving' for 'creativity,' if that makes the statement more palatable for you.

Off to visit my Mother. I'll be back in a while.
Happy Mother's Day to all the Moms out there.

Problems that were solved by a small group of scientists. If that is an increase in human creativity, then I suppose an increase of temperatures in a small city means a global heat wave.

Differences aside, happy Mother's Day.

CO2 is the least of our friggin worries.

We're killing the damn biosphere.

All of our attention is on this ridiculous climate change and CO2 crap... And meanwhile, we continue to murder the surrounding flora and fauna that our very existence on this planet depends on.

Sick and tired of these useless CO2 threads.

We've been sucking on the non-biodegradable petroleum based nipple for over 100 years, cutting down all of the forests, dumping chemicals into our waters, destroying entire ecological areas, poisoning ourselves and other complex lifeforms, making landfills the size of mountains, childhood cancers, creating new human killing bacteria and viruses, bombing entire geographical areas with depleted uranium weapons, legalizing genetic manipulation of our foods, pumping out millions of tons of radioactive waste with nowhere to put it, etc etc...

And you guys are arguing about a damn trace gas ?!
Give me a friggin break.

Is this just a milestone or will it turn out to be the millstone for our kids to wear? Your's to figure out.

Within a decade the world will never see days — even in the cleanest of places on days in the fall when greenhouse gases are at their lowest — when the carbon measurement falls below 400 ppm, said James Butler, director of global monitoring at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth Science Research Lab in Boulder, Colo.

"The 400 is a reminder that our emissions are not only continuing, but they're accelerating; that's a scary thing," Butler said Saturday. "We're stuck. We're going to keep going up."

Carbon dioxide stays in the air for a century, some of it into the thousands of years. And the world carbon dioxide pollution levels are accelerating yearly. Every second, the world's smokestacks and cars pump 2.4 million pounds of the heat-trapping gas into the air.

www.cbc.ca...

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity


While I do enjoy a good tangent, I will try to find the path back on topic.

From the graph you posted it we did not even reach a 0 temperature anomaly until the 1970s, while we are now in a positive temp. anomaly, for the hundred years before that we were in a negative temp. anomaly. As we are no more anomalous on the high side than on the low side this graph is basically is saying we have had the same temperature as long as this graph represents.