global warming

[blackhole123]

I am not sure if this is in the right section so feel free to move it.

 

Lately I have been having arguements with my Dad about glabal warming. He insists that it is not real and that evil liberals are using it as propaganda to save the environment. He keeps using the arguement that lots of scientists dont agree with global warming. Is this true? I can hardly believe that it is and i really want to be able to reinforce my facts about global warming when I am discussing it. I get the basic idea of it but could someone just explain the key points of global warming and why anyone would not agree with it?

 

Thanks

[herme3]

Global warming is a very large issue, and it is much more than propaganda. It was on the cover of Time magazine a few weeks ago. They had an amazing article about global warming. I suggest that you visit http://reference.aol.com/globalwarming/timemagazine?id=20060327120109990001 and read the article. I would say that it is the best article you could find about global warming.

[Prime-Evil]

I think it is best to focus on what is easiest to track.

I would suggest total global biomass and CO2.

 

Research how much biomass there was 500 years ago vs today, and predict for yourself what it might be in 2100. Same with CO2. Work in units of billion tons of carbon, because it is easier.

[herpguy]

I'm about half way done reading the Time Magazine article, and it says that global warming already has had many consequences. Tell your dad to look at all of the firestorms, droughts, and hurricanes/tropical cyclones we are having now compared to 30 years ago.

 

Most scientists agree that it is happening, but no one knows when the worst of it will come. Global warming is a real threat.

[blackhole123]

the problem though is he wont listen to anything i say. ill tell him all the facts but he just says thats because the "liberal media" is distorting everything and its all just treehugers with an agenda. he hides behind his religion so he doesnt have to face what is happening. its the same thing with all isues i try to discuss with him about science. so i think the ultimate question now is not the unifying theory of physics but how to get my dad to listen.

[RichF]

Are green house gasses bad...yes. Was the entire midwest and east coast of the US flooded at one time..yes. Was Canada, the entire north east and europe engulfed by glaciers several thousand years ago...yes. Personally, I don't think we are aware enough of the Earth's cycles to give a definate answer. This world has been here for 4 billion years and we presume to know everything about it from a 100 year record.

 

JMHO...pick me apart.

[herme3]

See if you can find a paper copy of the Time magazine issue. It was the April 3, 2006 issue. It was volume #167, No. 14. If you can find a copy, have your Dad read it. It has tons of amazing pictures, charts, and other articles about global warming. I didn't completely believe in global warming before I read this issue of Time magazine.

 

Even if you can't find a copy of the magazine, just have your Dad read the article that I linked to. It is a very well-written article. This is Time magazine, not a bunch of tree huggers who would freak out if they step on a bug. This article was written for the general public.

[herpguy]

I don't think that is the whole article in the link, so I'll be happy to scan the article for you and your dad to read when I get home (I'm on vacation).

[blackhole123]

thats ok i showed it to him and he just kinda sat there and didnt say anything. i think he is in denial even though he still wont admit anything.

[ecoli]

thats ok i showed it to him and he just kinda sat there and didnt say anything. i think he is in denial even though he still wont admit anything.

 

Global warming denial is more political propaganda then is global warming 'extremism' Even if the effects of global warming are being exagerated, a lot more harm can come from ignoring a potential problem then from tackling a problem that's not as big as you thought. I'd prefer not to play dice with my planet.

[Prime-Evil]

I really don't think people can be convinced based on the weather or sea level rise. People are fairly superstitious about the weather and it is something we all understand and connect with more than 380ppm CO2. But the only really hard facts at present are the CO2 levels. By 2020 the weather evidence should be much more convincing, but many people still will not be convinced until the corporations and politicians and religions decide it is in their best interest to convince them of the facts. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out, but teh demand for oil and energy will remain very high until the establishment makes some other centrally controlled source available. I think there will be a major economic recession along the way to 'ease' the transition. Energy will remain 'relatively' cheap in North America, even with government tax, but there will be a period where people will buy less simply because they don't have the money. To create jobs people will be employed to build the new infrastructure. Planting trees and hedge rows. Building wind turbines and hydrogen plants and pipelines and distribution centres. So on and so forth. The oil companies will probably transition to becoming the electricity and hydrogen companies. They question is whether they will do it soon enough and how seamlessly they can do it without too much of a recession to cause a revolution, and while still maintaining enough profit to remain in control.

[blackhole123]

i found a copy of the time article so i showed that to him. he just keeps saying "the environment has natural cycles". o well i guess you cant reason with ignorence.

[ecoli]

i found a copy of the time article so i showed that to him. he just keeps saying "the environment has natural cycles". o well i guess you cant reason with ignorence.

 

That's what the liars want him to think.

 

Look at these graphs

 

Atmospheric CO2 is higher then it's ever been in all our record keeping.

[Kawasaki]

http://boards.gamefaqs.com/gfaqs/genmessage.php?board=3&topic=27818424&page=5

How can people be so absurd?

 

Pro-Global warming isn't propaganda? Look, Americans use propaganda in favor of the Iraq war, and the Iraqis use it too. If there's propaganda on one side (Rush Limbaugh), there's propaganda on the other (Michael Moore).

To think that ONE species of animal can drastically change weather patterns and mess with the entire planet's ecosystem is nothing short of disgustingly egotistical.

[Prime-Evil]

The rhetoric is indeed very funny. I get a kick out of this one.

To think that ONE species of animal can drastically change weather patterns and mess with the entire planet's ecosystem is nothing short of disgustingly egotistical.

This is from the same people that for the past 3,000 years or more have been claiming that we have some sort of divinely granted dominion over all the Earth. It is a little late no with 6,500,000,000 pyromaniacs at the top of the food chain to deny any accountability.

 

That said, the original poster needs to show his old man a little more respect. There is always some wisdom to be found with our parents, even if we can't always see it right away. But the business as usual crowd; Yeah, they can go flood themselves.

[Prime-Evil]

That's what the liars want him to think.

 

Look at these graphs

 

Atmospheric CO2 is higher then it's ever been in all our record keeping.

I think you meant to say that CO2 is higher then it's ever been in all our record keeping since 1962, and higher than ever in our current geological epoch based on indirect measurement and analysis of data dating back 400,000 years. I don't think you meant to imply that we have been keeping records for 400,000 years. The glaciers have, but of course we haven't.

 

Anyhow, I am quite convinced we are in for a wild ride when we hit 400ppm by 2020 and 500ppm in 2100, and run out of most of our easy fossil fuels in the process as India and China try and catch up to our own madness and we try and stop them from doing so. What I don't understand yet is what our policy makers are really planning on doing. I don't believe for a minute that they believe the rhetoric that they are spewing out. I think that is all just a somescreen for something else. Whatever that is, I can only guess and fear.

[AI_Interface]

I don't think we know enough about our climate to accuratly predict what will happen in the next 100 years. CO2 makes up less then 1 % of our atmosphere. Water vapour has a much larger effect on the global climate the CO2. Over the past couple decades CO2 has become a sort of buzz word that everyone blames for bad weather.

 

The oil companies will probably transition to becoming the electricity and hydrogen companies.

 

Hydrogen isn't a fuel and will never replace oil. Hydrogen can only be used to store energy.

[bascule]

I don't think we know enough about our climate to accuratly predict what will happen in the next 100 years.

 

Not in the slightest. Multi-decadal global climate models are not yet skillful.

 

CO2 makes up less then 1 % of our atmosphere.

 

Your point?

 

Water vapour has a much larger effect on the global climate the CO2.

 

Yes, land use and water have enormous impacts on the environment that are often overlooked almost completely.

 

Over the past couple decades CO2 has become a sort of buzz word that everyone blames for bad weather.

 

CO₂ is the primary climate forcing responsible for global warming. That's where the buzz comes from.

 

Hydrogen isn't a fuel and will never replace oil. Hydrogen can only be used to store energy.

 

Deuterium/tritium fusion is seen as the most likely candidate for fusion power.